The Instigator
Adam_The_Analyst
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Adam_The_Analyst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/13/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,515 times Debate No: 17032
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

Adam_The_Analyst

Pro

I think that because we allow marriage, we should allow it to be all-encompassing.
Just as Blacks, for example, were not allowed to go to certain places to eat, certain people are not allowed to take their relationship to the next level in almost all of the States. I think that we need to correct this illogical decision that has ostracized a smaller, yet important part of our population.

I would also like to say that I am not a homosexual. But I reasoned with myself, that if I was, I would want to be able to marry who I loved, just as straight people can marry whom they love.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for making this debate! I am thankful to be able to debate a topic I'm very passionate about once again, and I hope that this can be a very intellectually stimulating debate!

=Framework=
Obs1: BOP-
The BOP in this debate is entirely on my opponent for a number of reasons.
First, since they are advocating a change to the stats quo, they must warrant why this change is necessary.
Second, as the Con in this debate I am not given the burden to show why Same Sex Marriage should be illegal, I am only given the burden to disprove my opponent. Not that if this means I do disprove the former than so be it, However I can simply show that there is no reason to change one way or the other>

Obs 2: Legitimate warrant-
In order for any argument of my opponent to be considered as legitimate, they must warrant why it is true. If they do not warrant an argument I may simply point this out and the argument will be dismissed.

=Arguments=
I will be going first Con then Pro
Con-

Contention 1: Benefits of Heterosexual marriage-
First of all I want to point out a few benefits to society that only come from heterosexual marriage, and why they warrant two individuals of different genders becoming married.

a. Procreation-
heterosexual couples are able to produce children, homosexual couples are not. This is important as without heterosexual couples the human race would become extinct. Without homosexual couples we would not become extinct. Thus we allow two people of different genders to be married to prevent extinction, and massive spreading of HIVS from unprotected sex with multiple partners.

b. Greater Economic Stimulus-
Again as I said before Heterosexual couples are able to procreate; and while it is true that Homosexual couples can adopt and raise children just as well, it simply isn't as common. So when we look at the a Heterosexual couple with at the very least one child, there are products being bought for that child that they are not paying for; this makes the parent's have to spend more money than they make proportionally to the size of the family. And even more so these things are usually spent on necessities such as food, medicine, and toiletries.
Whereas with Homosexual couples, they usually only have to provide for the the two of them. This means that less monsy is being spent and put back into the economy; where Same Sex Marriage legalized then this would become more and more common and the economy would suffer horrible

I will now show the flaws in my opponent's arguments

Pro
First my opponent claims that marriage should be all-encompassing in their opening statements; and while I would love to take this argument out of proportion and mention that that means my opponent supports polygamy a pedophilia, I won't since this their first debate.
However I do point out thy have no warrant, and if we just begin legalizing every kind of relationship as sanctioned by the term "marriage" with not other reason other than "I think it should happen" then it will be a slippery slope until we are legalizing polygamous and pedophile marriages.
Next they compare homosexuals to African American's plight for equality; this is however not a logical comparison as homosexuals aren't a race of people, but an orientation of people.
Finally they claimed that by limiting marriage to only heterosexuals we have ostracized a large number pf people from marriage; to this I simply extend my own contention, as well as the attack I've made on my opponent's "all-encompassing" argument.

Also as a side refutation to my opponent's statement on love; I'm sure pedophiles would like to marry children, Polygamists would like to marry their true loves, and even those who have sex with animals would like to have Bestiality marriages legalized.
Love is not a argument with any weight unless my opponent would also like to try and justify all forms of marriage (as they claim in their opening statements anyway)

Back to Pro!
(also please note as the voters that there is a 4,000 character limit instead of a 8,000 character limit)
Debate Round No. 1
Adam_The_Analyst

Pro

I thank The Contender for responding to my topic.
I hope that by debating, we can reach a fuller understanding and conviction with ourselves, rather than debating just to win.

a. Procreation...
Although there may be more benefits to a heterosexual marriage, this does not mean that the lack of benefits of a homosexual marriage justifies in making it illegal. For example, just because the nutritional benefits of bananas may outweigh the benefits of rice, does not mean that the consummation of rice should be made illegal. It is obvious that we are in no danger of becoming extinct, and the legalization of gay marriage will obviously not "persuade" heterosexuals to become change their sexuality. So, there is really no reason to bring up that "without heterosexual couples the human race would become extinct", because the non-existence of heterosexual couples is not a possibility. Allowing homosexual couples will in no way lead us closer to extinction. Plus, aren't homosexual couples going to remain couples, subtracting from this "procreation" regardless if they are married or not? I fail to see sufficient logic in this argument.

b. Greater Economic Stimulus
Similar to the above point, although there may be greater benefits to something(heterosexual marriage), it does not mean that something else(homosexual marriage), with lesser benefits, should be illegal.
Being, usually, only 2 people, a homosexual couple not only puts less into the economy, but they also take less from it. This allows them to exist without causing the economy to "suffer" "horribly".
Also, I would like to say that although there are a lot of homosexual couples, they do make up near enough the amount of people necessary to cause an imbalance in the economy, even if your accusations were correct.
there are 105.5 million households in the USA;
5.5 million of these consist of unmarried partnerships;
of these, 595,000 consist of same sex partners.
^ Less than 1% @ ~.6 of households would be considered to be containing a homosexual couple.
http://www.avert.org...

_

All-encompassing was bad word choice by me, or rather lacking an embellishment I thought to be already quite clear. All-encompassing without breaking any other laws. The only law I think should be broken(gotten rid of) is the law against homosexual marriage.
I think that gay marriage should be legal. I am not debating as a proponent of any other currently illegal practice of becoming legal.
Last I checked, Polygamy is still illegal in the United States.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_​polygamy
Also, in the U.S., all 50 states require you to be 18 years old to marry without the consent of your parents(except Nebraska@19, and Mississippi@21), http://www.chacha.com... and obviously parents are not going to consent to their kid marrying a pedophile, so the issue of pedophilia being included when I say, "all-encompassing" is dismissed.

I compare homosexuals to "African American's plight for equality", because they too are seeking equality; equality in marriage.
Again, I am not trying to legalize any 3 of those topics presented...
With pedophiles, to add further to what I said above, the child is not "in love with" the pedophile, and neither is the pedophile "in love with" the child. The pedophile loves the child. To be in love in my book is when 2 people are in love with each other, and little kids do not become "in love". It just doesn't happen, romantically that is. They can love their Mom and their Dad, but they cannot be "in love with them", saying so would mean you agree that the "Oedipus Complex", while it may be true for a small period during childhood(5-6yrs.), is actually something that is all-throughout their childhood. That would be false.
Regarding Polygamy, I thought it was common knowledge that marriage is between two people. That's what I mean when I say marriage, anyway.
Two PEOPLE. Not 1 person and a dog. And I don't think a dog can be in love with a human, although they can be affectionate to their owners, so I cannot see the "bestiality" rebuttal be anything but dismissed.
---To clear up any confusion, I define marriage as: The ceremonial bond formed between two people who are in love with each other.---

Back to Con :D
Voters... There is a 5,000* character limit, to correct my opponents' oversight.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

=Arguments=
Con-

Contention 1: Benefits of heterosexual marriage-
a. Procreation-
- My opponent agrees with me that heterosexual marriage offers more back to the society
- My opponent claims that just because something doesn't offer as much of a benefit that does not justify it's legality; and while that is true, that is not the manner in which this debate has been framed. My opponent is proposing a change to the status quo, and warrant why it is necessary,
- As a reason why Same Sex Marriage (here-after SSM) should not be legalized, please refer to the later half of my Contention 2 in which I talk about how legalization of SSM could lead to legalization of Beastiality Marriages, Pedophile marriages, and polygamous marriages.
- I never claimed that SSM couples would cause heterosexual couples to become homosexuals; but the very fact my opponent mentions, that they will remain couples anyway is grounds enough too see no reason to legalize SSM.

b. Greater Economic Stimulus
- Extend arguments on a
- My opponent's refutation here does not refute my prior presented argument, they've never proven that Homosexual couples contribute as much to the economy as heterosexual couples.
- My opponent's argument has nothing to do with my argument.
- I assure you that the ratio of heterosexuals to homosexuals is greater in favor of the heterosexuals [1]. In fact they only make up about 20-25% (this is even including bisexuals) Leaving 75% of the population as heterosexuals. (and this is just in America, many other countries have lower rates)
- Homosexuals couples typically do not keep children; for heterosexual couples it is seen as strange not to have children

Pro-
First off I understand you only said marriage should be all-encompassing as a mistake; as well as do I take in mind this you first debate; which is why I said I wouldn't harp on it too much.
But you still do not refute the point that legalizing every type of marital relationship just because certain people want it legalize can lead to just about everything being legalized.

You say we should legalize SSM because these people love each other, and yet you deny the Pedophiles, Polygamists simply because "It's illegal"
That logic is hypocritical; if I turned it back onto you would win.

SSM is illegal, thus we shouldn't legalize it; if you continue with this line of logic I win right there.

in your opening line you claim we should legalize SSM; should suggests an ideological change to the status quo meaning this debate isn't even about interpretation of absolutes, it's about he ideological.

Honestly why shouldn't polygamy be legalized? why shouldn't pedophilia be legalized? why shouldn't bestiality be legalized? Why shouldn't Necrophilia be legalized?
Should a person have the right to marry a dead body?

As for my opponent's comparison of SSM to African American's struggle for freedom; there isn't any link here. Justice and Freedom where rights guaranteed to these people that wasn't being given to them. my opponent hasn't established that Homosexuals should have the right o be married; he has given us nothing to establish why we should legalize SSM

As for my opponent refutations on Pedophilia, Polygamy, and Bestiality I won't refute them (Mostly because I agree with them) but also because these refutation drive my point home completely.
On pedophilia, it's not love it's lust; the attraction of grown men to children. homosexuality as a whole is categorized as an attraction of some-one to a person of the same gender.

It is attraction, and the fact that the "romantic love" aspect of these relationships function more like brotherly love, or a close friendship. It's only that the sexual attraction as well as other emotional dependencies are factored into the mix to create this facade and call it love

(At this point, before I drive home a main and very controversial point; please note that the only reason I am expanding upon love so much in the first place, because my opponent has presented absolutely no constructive argument that would warrant a vote for him.)

"Gay Love" is not kind of romantic love at all; it is not that manner of love in this sense; it is friendship and attraction. True romantic love is the fulfilling of yourself with another equal opposite (of the opposite gender)

and the reason I am so absolutely sure of this, is that I am a non-practicing homosexual.
I am attracted to those of my own gender, and can assure it is not Love; it is an attraction dolled up to a point to give us comfort in this lie we tell ourselves.

=Conclusion
I know I will be vote-bombed but honestly, my opponent has simply given no reason to vote for him. so it won't matter how the voting goes; my point as been made and real clash has happened.
I doubt any minds will actually have been changed as a result of this debate; but please finish reading it; It's only going to get better from here.

Back to Pro.
=sources=
[1] http://bit.ly...
Debate Round No. 2
Adam_The_Analyst

Pro

a.
-I said their "may" be more benefits to a heterosexual marriage. However, a benefit I can see to a SSM, is that we are promoting equality by doing so, not judging a couple based merely on their orientation. Another is that we are being a more honest and less hypocritical society if we allow SSM, by practicing the equality that our nation preaches. The Declaration of Independence states, "all men are created equal". I agree with this. But, if we do not allow SSM, then we evidently are not TREATING all men equal(allowing some to marry, and some to not).
-I warrant that it is necessary for SSM's to be legal to promote equality and fairness.
-Once again, in Beastiality, Polygamy, and Pedophile marriages, the 'partners' are not in love with each other. That is necessary for marriage. SSM's, unlike the previous three CAN include being in love with each other. I know an older gay couple, Chris and Greg- they have been a couple for 24 years and claim that they are, indeed, in love.
-You insinuated that SSM couples would cause heterosexual couples to become homosexuals. I am saying that they will remain together if they are married or not, because you say that they will detract, in multiple ways, from society if they are married. But what will it matter if they are married or not?

b.
-Ok.
-Again, what does it matter if they(SSM) do not contribute as much to society. You admitted that my argument regarding 'just because something doesn't offer as much of a benefit that does not justify it's legality' is true, so it holds true here as well.
-Actually it does. You said that less money would be put back into the economy with SSM's. This would, in turn, create an imbalance, if it were correct. But it is not correct, because although they put less back into the economy, they, again, take less from it, so proportionally, it works out.
-The link you provided me to assure me that your ratio is indeed correct, is a link to an MSN Nickname tool downloader. With no evidence of the 20-25%/75% statistic you give, how can it not be dismissed? Anyway, my point was that homosexuals do make up a small percentage of the population. I said this because, you said that it would create a negative effect on our economy, and by them being such a small percentage @ ~.6%, they cannot effect our economy in any monumental manner, as you had perhaps suggested.
-I already stated why this is irrelevant.

Thank you for not harping on it.
My point is that people have no legitimate claims against legalizing SSM. I have done my best to refute all of your claims regarding this. Although there isn't one against SSM, there is a legitimate claim against, for example, bestiality, because in most cases, the animal takes part of this involuntarily(this seems logical because, if an elephant tried to have sex with me, I wouldn't be very voluntary).
-I said these people are IN LOVE with each other. I do not deny that a pedophile may love a small child, but the two CANNOT be in love with each other. I explained this more fully in R1. It is not hypocritical at all.
-My purpose in this debate is to merely legalize SSM. I am not saying we should legalize anything else.
-It doesn't matter if it's about interpretations of absolutes, ideologies, or pizza. The facts remain the same.
This topic is about why SSM should be legalized- not why polygamy, pedophilia, beastiality, or necrophilia should not be illegal. But, I will humor you:

POLYGAMY
-Marriage is between two people. If it's between more, its not a marriage.
PEDOPHILIA
-A.K.A, the sexual desire felt for children, is not an act but a thought, so it is already legal. If you are referring to the crime of pedophilia(actually completing a sexual act with the child), it should not be legalized because it is not consensual. Children don't yet attain sexual desires. In 1st grade, there was a girl named Madeline that I liked. I didn't want to have sex with her... I wanted to talk with her, to be around her, for her to like me back. I didn't even know what sex was. At maybe perhaps around 11 or 10 at the earliest, one may begin to have sexual desires. Extremely rarely, they might desire someone older. Still, it should be kept illegal for sex under 18, because this is roughly when people are ready to make the decision if they want to have sex or not.
BESTIALITY
-Sex should remain species to species. Plus, as I mentioned earlier, most of the animals taking part are not doing so, voluntarily.
NECROPHILIA
-Not only should sex remain species to species, but alive to alive. It's just common sense really.

No, because a dead body cannot be in love with a person.

Gay people have a right to be married because straight people do. There.

It may be categorized this way by you, but that is not universal.

My "constructive argument" is that there is no reason not to legalize SSM.

On your last point, I can only say, again, that I know 2 homosexuals who are in love with each other. Not just attracted.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

BangBang-Coconut forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Adam_The_Analyst

Pro

As my opponent has forfeited Round 3, I will reiterate my opinion on this topic.

There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
In America, what I thought to be a country of equality, I'm troubled to find people still clinging to ignorance in merely a different form of prejudice, that of which I thought to be destroyed. African Americans were at one time not allowed to even marry each other. Then we let them do that, but we ruled it illegal for 'whites' and 'blacks' to marry. We fixed this injustice. Now we deal with a different issue. But how different is it really?

The campaign and support for the continual ban on gay marriage is a relic of the discrimination and inequality of the past.

When David Blankenhorn, a leading expert on the institution of marriage and an individual against SSM, was asked, "Do you believe in the American culture of equality- the ideal of equality?"

He said he did.

Then he was asked, "Isn't it inconsistent with that, to say that gays can't get married?"

Guess what. He said yes.

So, he was asked, "Is it true or not that America, by the criteria that we judge, would be MORE American the day we permitted gay and lesbian marriage than it was the day before.

He agreed it would.

This was in front of thousands of people. He answered this way, because when you're on the witness stand, so to speak, there is really nowhere to hide. The truth comes out.
"When you can't hide, discrimination falls."- David Boies

As long as we have this prejudice in our country, the homosexuals are not the only ones suffering- we are all ethically diminished.

We don't discriminate based on orientation at the workplace. On every legal application for a job in America, it reads that employees are not discarded due to "race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability."

So we'll promote equality in the workplace, but not in marriage?
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I am incredibly sorry to have had allowed my last round to time out; and I am even more sorry to have wasted a round. (mostly to my opponent)
However at that I will now be replying to both my opponent's round 3 and round 4 arguments.

Round 3-
a.
-I'm going to drop a lot of the content to my opponent's first argument, and most of that has been beaten to death already, instead let's jump straight into the meat of this argument; my opponent has finally brought up the argument regarding equality. To this I say, equality does not mean to allow some-one to take something existing and change it for others personal preferences.
i.e. we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct, we allow Poultry farmers to breed chickens because we enjoy eating their meat. Now then in this sense SSM is the same as allowing a poultry farmer to breed salamanders because he enjoys them more, while salamanders have both meat and eggs it is not fundamentally the same thing, and thus it does not constitute inequality to not allow SSM.
- Extend prior
- My opponent has not proven there is no love in Polygamy, Bestiality and the such.
- I never implied that SS couples would cause Heterosexual couples to "change preference".

b.
- :)
- This argument defeats itself, there is no reason to allow it; thus we should not.
- SSM couples do not take less from the economy than they put into it, as they are still providing only for themselves. if there where a heterosexual family with a minimum of one child that went into the grocery store, more would be spent out of the parent's budget then if a SSM couple went grocery shopping. In the same way, heterosexual couples contribute more to society and the economy; thus can be seen as a necessity.
- Oops my bad here -> http://bit.ly... this one's better anyway.
- I already stated why this is not irrelevant.

I will not harp on it, in fact the point I've wanted to prove has been proven, that it could lead to these other things. Even had you not included that line of text saying all marriage, I likely would have brought this up.
- My opponent still has not given us any proof, only a claim
- It does not matter, if you content it is just for the reasons you have provided; you must contend that these ideas can be cross applied.

POLYGAMY
- How so? Why can a person not have multiple wives or husbands?
PEDOPHILIA
- I would like to point out that homosexuality used to be a crime, the fact that it is illegal doesn't change that fact it exists, not that it could be legalized.
BESTIALAITY
- Mules are a cross between donkeys and horses, if animals can cross breed why can't humans?
NECROPHILIA
- How is it common sense? And an argument like that is completely abusive, I would say it was simply common sense to allow who ever to marry whoever they want to.

Round 4-
- There are legitimate reasons against SSM, I have already presented them in this round.
- Extend my argument about equality
- My opponent's argument is poetic, but holds no real substance. They keep throwing around words like equality and prejudice, but have yet to truly warrant their argument.
- On David Blankenhorn, please again extend my argument on equality. Also at this point, allow me to again stress that SSM and heterosexual marriage are fundamentally different; thus banning SSM in not inequality, homosexuals have the right to marry those of the opposite gender. They simply want the right to marry those of their own gender; and my opponent still has not provided an argument as to why it should be legal.

=Conclusion=
My opponent has offered a plenty of emotional pleas, and arguments based on what they feel to be right or wrong; however they have still not warranted a vote for the Pro in this round. They still have not shown us why we ought to allow Homosexuals to marry each other.
Please vote Neg as my opponent has given you no reason to vote for them!
Debate Round No. 4
Adam_The_Analyst

Pro

>>equality does not mean to allow some-one to take something existing and change it for others personal preferences.<<

Right. Equality is the state of being equal.
Social equality is what America should be striving for. We cannot progress in reaching this equality, until every, no matter how isolated, group is given the same status. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law[1]. Homosexuals are not receiving equal rights, as long as they are not allowed to marry. Enough said.

>>we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct<<

This is where your argument begins to show obvious signs of its faltering.

We allow two people to marry to show the bond of love that they share(roughly). Society will remain alive without the institution of marriage. People are still going to reproduce whether they are married or not. Thus, society will remain intact.

>>Now then in this sense SSM is the same as allowing a poultry farmer to breed salamanders because he enjoys them more, while salamanders have both meat and eggs it is not fundamentally the same thing, and thus it does not constitute inequality to not allow SSM<<

What? First of all, this is a horrible ?analogy?. Second, why can't a poultry farmer breed salamanders if he wants to? This might detract from his profits, as he will not be able to breed as many chickens, but he certainly has the RIGHT to breed salamanders. Just as the farmer has that right to breed salamanders because he breeds chickens, homosexuals have the right to get married, because heterosexuals do.

>>My opponent has not proven there is no love in Polygamy, Bestiality and the such.<<

I have proven that the partners involved in "Bestiality and such" cannot be IN LOVE with each other. Polygamy, again, is not between two people, and therefore it cannot qualify as marriage.

>>I never implied that SS couples would cause Heterosexual couples to "change preference".<<

Actually, in Round 1, you said "without heterosexual couples the human race would become extinct." This implies that allowing for homosexual couples to marry is going to somehow cause the world to be without heterosexual couples.

>>there is no reason to allow it(SSM); thus we should not.<<

We should allow it to promote social equality, a core American value.

>>- SSM couples do not take less from the economy than they put into it, as they are still providing only for themselves.<<

What does it matter if the SS couples are married or not? Aren't they still going to be together, not producing children, regardless if they are married or not? SS couples are putting the same amount of money back into the economy whether they are married or not. It is a nonsensical argument to say that SSM's should stay illegal because they are not putting as much money into the economy as HSM's are. This argument only seems legitimate on the outside, but if you think about it, this argument in particular is a house of cards.

>>- I already stated why this is not irrelevant.<<
// he is referring to when i said that the following argument was irrelevent [Homosexuals couples typically do not keep children; for heterosexual couples it is seen as strange not to have children]

There is NO place in the definition or qualifications, regarding the institution of marriage, that says you must have children if you get married, thus SSM couples cannot be criticized for not having children.

>>My opponent still has not given us any proof, only a claim<<

You want proof? Take a look at every gay couple that wants to get married. There's a lot of them. That's all the proof, you or anyone needs.

I am running out of characters. So, I am not going to be able to adequately defend the rest of my opponents attempts at refuting what I have said earlier. Hopefully, you, the reader can find the flaws in what he say after this. They are very evident, and not very well disguised. This is not an emotional plea, but a passionate call for the right decision. My opponent says I have not given a reason to vote for me. What do you think?

Conclusion: Where, in the definition of marriage was it said that the partners had to make children(his procreation argument)? Or put more back into the economy(his Greater Eco. Stimulus argument)? Nowhere.
Same-sex marriage marriage is currently legal in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and the District of Columbia. It seems some people agree with me.
5 years ago, 32% of the respondents to a national news poll were in favor of SSM.
In March, 2011, the same poll was re-administered. Now, 51% were in favor of SSM.[2]
It seems the MAJORITY agrees with me. And for a good reason...
There is no legitimate reason not to legalize Same Sex Marriage.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] http://www.politico.com......

Vote logically. Vote Pro.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Honestly I've said all I can say.
I won't wast your time with lots of unnecessary line by lines, but instead I'll just give a few quick voting issues.

-> Legalizing SSM without a valid reason will lead to movements to legalize other forms of sexual debauchery, simply because it's wanted.

-> My opponent has given no real reason to legalize SSM other than simply saying they think it's right.

->My opponent has, out of necessity had to spend a large majority of his time refuting my arguments instead of making constructive arguments for his own stance. As such this proves that he has provided utterly no ground as to why we must vote for him.

Please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
Dimmitri.C is a DBAG. Enough said.
Posted by Lomcevok 5 years ago
Lomcevok
Alexander the Great. Why does the government care about our love life? I can name dozens of people I love in a non romantic sense. Why isn't my "love" recognized by the government? Marriage clearly has to be about something more firm than "love."
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
It seems like every anti-gay marriage argument is the slippery slope.
Posted by ThunderNick 5 years ago
ThunderNick
aw heck. almost my entire voting reason got cut off. No way am i typing that all again.... i would give conduct to con, but they forfeited round 3. And i cant give sources to con, because he had that faulty link, and not to pro either because they used wikipedia... unreliable. Although some of pros arguments were insufficient(all-encompassing WTF), the majority made sense. I just really didn really agree with con on alot of the things he said.
Posted by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
It's alright. I know I made the respond time only 24 hours... pretty short +_+
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Dude I'm so sorry, it timed out on me before I had the chance to respond!
Posted by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
So, my opponent has forfeited the round... What happens now?
Posted by Alexander_The_Great 5 years ago
Alexander_The_Great
well it aint over yet
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I agree with coconut
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
I agree with Cliff.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by TheFreeThinker 5 years ago
TheFreeThinker
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the better arguments.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't prove why gays should marry, and he had the BOP. Con did forfeit.
Vote Placed by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate however, Pro was the better debater.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter vote bomb.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no justification until round 4, which is a little abusive and counters the forfeit by BangBang. BB has some fairly weak arguments, it is hard to even imagine that if the ghays are allowed to marry then all us normals will go extinct, we can still marry too. While Adam's does refute these arguments and they come out on balance his own arguments are weak to pleas to "we should" with no normative foundation. 4:2 Con.
Vote Placed by Alexander_The_Great 5 years ago
Alexander_The_Great
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: ">>we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct< This is where your argument begins to show obvious signs of its faltering." We allow two people to marry to show the bond of love that they share(roughly). Society will remain alive without the institution of marriage. People are still going to reproduce whether they are married or not. Thus, society will remain intact. >>we allow two people to marry to stop society from becoming extinct<< This is where your argume
Vote Placed by ThunderNick 5 years ago
ThunderNick
Adam_The_AnalystBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Seemed as though con could not prove why his main two arguments(proceation