The Instigator
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Brainmaster
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,171 times Debate No: 17132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I would like to debate gay marriage. First round is for acceptance.
Brainmaster

Con

In this case, I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I would like to thank Brainmaster for accepting this debate.

Gay marriage is basically the marriage between two individuals of the same gender, I trust my opponent will have no problem with this definition.

I will be arguing for gay marriage, and that it should be legal. I will be arguing that everything that does not physically harm other individuals should be legalized, gay marriage is one of these things. I will also be arguing that by banning the gay marriage we have gone against human rights.

C1: Gay marriage does not physically harm other individuals in any way shape or form therefore, it should be legal. A marriage is a union between two individuals that love eachother, and it basically only effects these two individuals. If it is banned then it is hurting people, and if it is legalized then it isn't hurting anyone.

C2: Banning gay marriage is against human rights. Every person is born with the equal human rights which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, banning gay marriage goes against to of these fundamental rights. How can someone pursue happiness when they can't marry the one they love? How can someone have liberty when they are not allowed to marry the one they love.

I await my opponent's response.

Vote pro!
Brainmaster

Con

Thanks for the response.




R1. My opponent must prove this hurts no one.


However, same-sex parents in adoption cannot raise children as well as the biological parents. As they do not have the biological DNA, they are less effective at rasing children. (source 1)

Children do best when raised by opposite-sex parents who gave them their DNA. One study indicates that “it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.”


R2. If you read the argument above, it can infringe on the child's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

If "every person" is born with these rights, does the child not also possess these rights? If someone is hurt by this institution, does this not infringe upon their rights as well?



C1. The obvious offense caused to religious is too much to ignore.

An excerpt from Romans 1:18 of the Christian Holy Bible:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.


And Matthew 19:

“that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?"


Rather than simply shove religion down your throats, let's look at some statistics, shall we?



According to Source 2, 78.4% of all Americans are also Christians. Even accounting for discrepancies, inacurracies and lies, this still makes up a massive amount of the US population that is Christian, and thus most likely against gay marriage. Note that this does not even count other religions against homosexuals.


For these reasons, vote CON.



Sources Cited__

1 http://www.citizenlink.com...;


2 http://religions.pewforum.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Rebuttels for my contentions:

R1: I do not need to give proof. It is clear that it would only hurt other people who are against it's feelings, but banning it is hurting the people who are for it's feelings, so it is pretty clear that either way someones 'feelings'. We might as well make the choice that gives rights rather than take them away.

My opponent claims that homosexual couples who adopt children can't raise children as well as the biological parents, this is true in some cases. However, if a child is up for adoption then that means the biological parents are not capable of raising the child properly. Homosexual parents are better then no parents at all. Also, if you use this same logic then straight parents are not fit to adopt either. Therefore, this is bad logic.

R2: My refutation of my opponents first rebuttel applys to this as well.

Rebuttels for my opponent's contention:

R1: My opponent brings religion into the matter. first off it doesn't matter, there are alot of Atheists, Jews, ect. that are for gay rights. Wht are we to say to them? Also, The christian thing works to my avantage since the majority of christians are for LGBT rights[1].

Vote pro!

[1] http://www.hrcbackstory.org...
Brainmaster

Con

Thanks for the reply pro.



R1. My Opponent's Faulty Logic


Since either way it hurts someone, see below.

Because a child is put up for adoption doesn't mean they had bad parents. Their parents may have died of natural causes. Obviously, in this case a child is with inferior hands with homosexual non-natural parents.



R2. See R1


R3. If they are pro gay marriage,


they can't really be Christians because they obviously don't agree with the Holy Bible's teachings.




For these reasons, you should vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

R1: It does not matter a straight couple would be 'non-natural' parents also, because they are not biological. If a child's parents die then they need someone to look after them and raise them. Homosexual parents are better then no parents. There is vertually no difference between straight parents and homosexual parents.

R3: It does not matter if they are really christians or not they are recognised by the government as christians and the majority of them support gay marriage and thus the majority of religious people are for gay marriage.

In conclusion,

Gay marriage does no physical harm to other people.

The gay marriage ban goes against human rights.

Gay marriage should be legalized.

Vote Pro!
Brainmaster

Con

Thanks for the response Pro.


R1. How does your argument cancel out hetero adoption?

It would still be best for the child to have a mother and father, as emphasized by Source 1 in Round 2. Let's not forget that heterosexual couples can adopt too!


R3. Not counting other religions


Note that Christianity is not the only religion in the world! Islam is also against gay marriage as well. (Source 1.)


__

My opponent demonstrates logic with multiple holes. For this reason and others, you should vote CON.


__

Sources Cited:

1 http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Stop misinterpreting the Bible part. I'm not shoving religion down your throats, I'm pointing out people who may be offended.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ok
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Make it 5K characters please. I don't want this to be a joke debate but I can't handle an 8K slogfest.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
ok take your time :)
Posted by Brainmaster 5 years ago
Brainmaster
Er.... I've never really debated a serious topic before, but I might be able to pull this off with a few days of research.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Equal rights
Vote Placed by TheNerd 5 years ago
TheNerd
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Brainmaster was unable to show how same-sex parents are more harmful than different-sex parents, or even why marriage should be restricted to only those who are raising children.
Vote Placed by Anarcho 5 years ago
Anarcho
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had faulty logic with the difference between heterosexual and homosexual adoption, if your point is that they aren't biological parents then it would be the same for either couple raising the child. Also, the Bible is not proof of anything.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was really horrid to read. Both debaters could have done better with their points. I'm giving vote to Con becuase he had better Attacks and better sources.
Vote Placed by Adam_The_Analyst 5 years ago
Adam_The_Analyst
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con says basically that having gay parents will hurt the kids, but the kids they will be having are kids that would have been in an adoption place or even orphanage(same thing? lol). So really, although gay couples may not be as beneficial for kids as straight couples, they are better for the kids than the orphanage is. It seems as though Con begins to argue against Gay behavior in general at least for that point. Brings up religion which has been deemed not to influence politics, which this is.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments simply made more sense. Con was claiming that we should not provide human rights because it's against some group's particular religion. Last I checked, rights are not and SHOULD not be invalidated by a religious belief. Con also provides no proof that homosexual parents are in any way inferior (with a reliable source anyway).
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bop to show why marriage law should be cahnged. He did not accomplish that, nor did he show that we are violating human rights. Pro's only source was an lgbt site. He loses a conduct point for spinning one survey, linked from that site, into an argument that the majority of Christians support gay marriage.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: All Pro did was affirm all abortion was more harmful than natural child raising he did not refute that all gay couple have to have children this way which is not an overly strong argument. 3:1 Con
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
DeathbeforedishonourBrainmasterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made horrible arguments. One doesn't even work to persuade non-Christians. Con never fulfilled his job to refute Pro's contentions.