The Instigator
cequa_11
Pro (for)
Losing
27 Points
The Contender
goldspurs
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

Gay Marriages

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,741 times Debate No: 74
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (58)
Votes (26)

 

cequa_11

Pro

I am in favor of gay mariages, because it is who they must be. God might not have said it was right, but did he also say that being straight is right. Now i do not want to bring god into any of this because most peopele do not believe in him. Now, what are the people doing to us, what are they doing for you to dislike them? Nothing at all. Once someone told me how do you know you are gay if you never had sex with a guy, and i simply answered how do you know you are straight if you never had sex with a guy. and he simply just walked away not knowing what to say knowing that i was right. They are people just like you, and really you have more right that we do, We can not get married in a church, We can not show a simply kiss or we will get gay bashed. Wich in my opinion is unfair to us. Even though it says that we are alltreated the same, that is not true.
goldspurs

Con

I'm happy to debate you on this matter but I do ask that you keep things factual. First off your comment about "most" people not believeing in God, that is inaccurate. Many polls put the number around 85-90% of the population that believe in a Creator. Secondly, what most people see wrong about homosexuality is that it is immoral. I believe it destroys the foundation of what a family truely is. Also it is unnatural. The human body wasn't designed for intercourse with someone of the same sex. Lets just imagine if the whole world decided they were gay and nothing else. The whole human race would only continue to exist through test tube babies. How is this natural?? As far as gay rights go, I seem to recall a certain homosexual group able to get away with desecrating a Catholic Church. Would a heterosexual get away with the something to that extent to a homosexual organization without nationwide coverage??

A big point I would like to make is that the majority of the country (washingto post poll) think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. Last I check this is a democracy, put it up for vote. Even in the 2004 campaign when the gay and lesbian lobby tried to putting it on the ballot they were shot down in every state that ran it. Even in Oregon where most of their campaign was focused the measure was shot down. I do not think there should be a constitutional amendment, but left up to the states.
Debate Round No. 1
cequa_11

Pro

Most people do believe in a creator but that does not mean that they believe in God. Yes it may be immoral but people do immoral things everyday. It may destroy the foundation, but I believe not that many people will turn gay, and there are families when they treat them to not be gay, so they wont come out to it, and yes i do believe that they will get away with something if they destroyed something of homosexuality. Most of the country doesn't not agree with it, but it should be something that they live with because it the people in there in country or in there state, it is like them turning them away like they dont want them to be there.

Now put yourself in there position.
What would you do, if you felt like the outsider of everyone because you couldn't come out about your sexuality because no one agrees with it.
goldspurs

Con

First, they believe in a Creator but not God??? WHAT?! That makes no sense. Actually from the poll it said God not Creator so, sorry. Also, you admit that it will destroy the foundation of marriage, but say we should just deal with it?? Did you only slightly ignore my question about this country being a democracy and the votes should decide. It sounds like you completly ignored that question. Why should the majority have to live with something only to appease the minority. Not saying homosexuals are murderers, but since the majority of the country believes murder is wrong should we have to live with it because some people think its right?

You also fail to address my point about the unnatural aspects of homosexuality and what life would be like if everyone choose this lifestyle. The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center have stopped their longtime position HIV and posted on billboards throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a "gay disease". Obviously nature agrees with me.

The sole reason behind marriage is family. This is to include children. Obviously with same-sex couples, if the child is not adopted then that means that one of the "parents" would not really be related to this child. The use of a surrogate or test tube would have to be used.
Debate Round No. 2
cequa_11

Pro

There are many religions out there and not all believe in God. There are different creators out there for everyone, or some dont believe in it at all. Yes it destroys it but we should deal with it because everyone is guaranteed the pursuit of happiness. The votes should mind, but what harm would it do for not allowing it, and murder and being gay are to totally different things. Not everyone has plans to get married and have children. It is not like they woke up one day saying, "I'm gay now". It foes not matter if the child is adopted or not just as long as they are in a loving home and family. Not weather it was test-tubes or not.
goldspurs

Con

Once again I am shocked of your lack of understanding about religion. I have already proven you wrong about your opinion that "MOST do not believe in God" even though there are many polls that prove you embarrisingly wrong. Now you continue to admit that same-sex marriage would destroy the foundation of what a marriage is but all Americans should deal with it?? Why should the majority deal with it? And how exactly would you let the votes count, seeing as it has already been put to vote in many states and was strongly rejected?

Point 2 is I never said people woke up and started saying,"I'm gay now". That has nothing to do with the debate. My biggest point are that we live in a democracy where votes do matter and the majority don't want to allow same-sex marriages.

Also in the Bible it does say being straight is the right way.Genesis 2:18:25 ,Romans 1:27, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 to name a few verses.

Let me ask you this. What is the reason the goverment bestows so many benefits to two people that decide to marry? Why does it promote the idea of marriage? What common good does marriage provide? Is it because the goverment wants to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals? I don't think so. Granted everyone has a right to the pursuit of happiness, but the goverment does not provide happiness. It is not the goverments responsibility. The reason the goverment gives these benefits is for many reasons. The states has stock in marriage because it provides an almost definite method for ensuring the future of the country through NATURAL procreation. Marriage in its natural form does not provide the next generation through artificial means or adoption,while same-sex relationships are sterile and must use these unnatural methods for children. Human anatomy has not changed in a natural way to allow homosexual couples to produce children. While the goverment endorses traditional families because of the obvious benefits it provides, why would it for same-sex marriages? Like I previously stated, the goverment was not established to give you your happiness. Are you saying that same-sex couples cannot be happy without the benefits of goverment?

Another problem with same-sex marriage is what it does to the family. When Scandinavia passed laws to allow same sex marriages 10 years ago the results have been devastating. In Sweden where it is legal to marry someone of the same sex divorce rates for gay men are 50% higher than heterosexuals and for lesbian women 170% higher. I really hope you fully address all the issues I brought forth. I respect peoples right to their own sexuality, but do not see why we should allow them the benefits of marriage considering my previously stated points.
Debate Round No. 3
cequa_11

Pro

First off i would like to say, how do we know your information is right you have not stated where you have found your information out or not.

Secondly, All of the bible verses that you have given me i went through all of them and read them over, and I keep reading them over and over and none of the state clearly that being straight is RIGHT, and being gay IS NOT right.
We live in a democracy right, well it is what the people want, or what majority want, maybe they have not realized the growing population of homosexuals, maybe they just dont want to listen to the very few who have the courage to stand up for what they believe in.

Yes it does, if two people love each other and they make them happy, why shouldn't they be aloud to be together, why shouldn't they be able to love who they love. Well, they government does provide happiness, because they have to do what the people want, and if they do then the people are happy, so technically when you really think about the government does provide happiness. The only reason why they dont approve of gay marriage is because, they dont have this NORMALNESS, of how you call it. Well would you rather have two people together who dont like each other, or two people who love each other. What it does to the family, is between the family, as long as it is in a loving home and is being taken care of well, they should be left alone, if it makes another baby out of an orphanage or and adoption agency then I see no problem with it at all!

Those results are in Sweden to say I am not there, people are different all over the world.
Basically what you said is contradicting itself you said you HAVE NO PROBLEM with gay people together, but you do not think they have the right to marriage, it is the same thing only they have sworn themselves to each other for the rest of there lives.

Also, I was going over what you said how HIV/AIDS is a gay disease.
what kind of rude and cruel person would say something like that.
Straight people get that disease too. the disease is just more common to be found in homosexuals.
goldspurs

Con

I'd would like to start by saying everything I have stated is easily availible. I have ONLY included FACTS in my argument. What information have you provided to dispute my claims?? Any polls or data that proves I am wrong??

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
(romans chapter 1:27) You sure you went through every verse??
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."
—Romans 1:26-27

To your next question,"Yes it does, if two people love each other and they make them happy, why shouldn't they be aloud to be together, why shouldn't they be able to love who they love." Why do you have to be married to love who you love?? If marriage is just a law binding agreement, why do you need it to prove that you love someone?? And the goverment DOES NOT provide happiness. They give you the freedom but does not provide the hapiness. Where does it state in the Constitution that the goverment must provide YOU happiness? I'm not contradicting myself because having a right to be together and having a right to marry are two diffrent things.

My next point is why can't you accept that the results in Sweden can be duplicated here?? Do you have proof?? Also, to awnser your question about HIV/AIDS being a homosexual disease, that came from a gay/lesbian group. You even admit that it is more common in homosexuals. How does that make me rude and cruel to state a FACT??

Lastly, you have failed to awnser any of my questions about what benefit the goverment has in providing gays the right to marry. You have also failed to address the issue of the countries that have legalized same-sex marriage and paid a high price for it. I have simply stated the facts while you have ONLY provided opinions. I would suggest that in your Closing Argument you provide at least one fact.
Debate Round No. 4
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
"i am in no way trying to tell you when and when not you can state your opinion, only reminding you that "debates" usually work with less personal opinion and more fact."-la bella vit a

At least we agree on something.

If you feel that not agreeing with you is somehow rude or disrespectful...sorry...I believe I have been more than civil.

Will be waiting for the challenge.
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
i'm tired of writing the same thing over and over, because i've explained everything to you in the past three posts. my response to what you've just written would only be the same thing i've already posted, worded a different way in hopes that you would be able to understand it.

i am in no way trying to tell you when and when not you can state your opinion, only reminding you that "debates" usually work with less personal opinion and more fact. some people might disagree with me, and thats fine.

i have only been straightforward and clear in my posts, so please try to respect that. i am not being sarcastic or rude, as i sense that you have been in a couple of your responses to me. i'm merely stating what i understand to be true in the best way i know how.

i think i would like to debate you. expect to receive a challenge in the near future.

ciao
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
la belle vit a, I have read your post quiet well. I believe it is you who that is having the hard time comprehending this.

1) How did I not back this point up? It was witnessed in the 2004 campaign, and all polls prove it right. I felt that this point backed up my argument, because I and many others believe they have a right to have their voice heard and their vote should count. You don't have to agree with what I say, but it doesn't make it wrong because you say so.

2) I think I have backed this up more than I needed to with during the debate. If you would like to challenge me on it, SEND IT! I know exactly what I am arguing thanks.

3)No, you didn't prove that it has no place in the debate. If I choose to bring morality into the debate their is nothing wrong with that. YOU have no place in telling me what I can and can't bring into something I am debating.

4) Obviously you felt I should know. Why else would you bring it up?? Enough said.

5) Just posted a link below to help you out with this.

After this little chat with you, I feel YOU are the one who fails to understand what a debate is. You wish to keep my arguments , when you aren't even debating me, to include things only you find acceptable. I can't wait for your next fun filled post. Can I tell you what you can and cannot say??
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
"goldspurs, acording to you. What the majority believes is reality or the truth, or "right". So if everyone believed and voted that it would be best for us to all kill anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion because that would ensure the progress of the society the majority most wants, then that would make killing "right"."-artc

But that isnt the case is it? You still aren't giving a clear reason why the majorities voice shouldn't be heard in a democracy. I believe my argument IS based on logic and facts. Don't see my FACTS provided on my arguments being proven wrong.

This link will back up my claim on the point you to me to "Prove that right!"

http://www.focusaction.org...
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
you clearly don't read my posts well, and you clearly have a misunderstanding of what a debate is.

1. you're not proving your point right when someone says "why should gay people not be married" and you say "because if there was a vote thats what the outcome would be". THAT IS NOT DEBATING because you are not PROVING or BACKING UP your point. it's not about me saying "i'm right" about anything, its the simple fact that your point was not backing up your argument.

2. BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH PROCREATION. you have NOT backed that up as an argument at all. so some marriages procreate and some don't. and this is why gay people shouldn't get married? i think you're forgetting what you are arguing here.

3. i'm not trying to prove anything wrong in your STATEMENT, because thats a topic for a DIFFERENT DEBATE.... which is the whole point of why it has no relevance here. All i was proving was that your statement has no relevance in THIS DISCUSSION... which it doesn't... and which i DID prove because it doesn't in any way answer the question of WHY GAY PEOPLE SHOULDN'T GET MARRIED.

4. why do you think that i thought you cared whether i voted or not? i don't need or expect you to care about that at all.

5. some countries that allowed SSM has seen it tear families apart? um, is this because of the SSM law or because the fact is that one of the people in the couple is GAY?? before i dispute that weak statement, YOU need to prove thats true or give me a source because i have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
goldspurs, acording to you. What the majority believes is reality or the truth, or "right". So if everyone believed and voted that it would be best for us to all kill anyone who doesn't agree with the majority opinion because that would ensure the progress of the society the majority most wants, then that would make killing "right".

popular opinion does NOT make something right. Logic, and reason based on facts makes something right.

"One point that you never even touched on was the fact that many countries that passed laws to allow SSM have seen families destroyed. Try proving that fact wrong." -Prove that right!
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
1) Why doesn't it make it right? It could. Just because you say it doesn't does not make you right. So you didn't prove me wrong there. This is a democracy where votes count, and I say that their voices should be heard.

2) I agree that some marriages do not procreate, but in my argument I never said every songle marriage will. Obviously some marriages will be infertile even though they are not the same-sex. My argument was that the goverment provides these benefits because the vast majority of marriages WILL procreate and help continue the existence of that country. I just did back that up, thanks.

3) Maybe you felt that including the statement that homosexual behavior is not natural to the human body had no relevance, but I did. You never proved me wrong on that point either.

4) I don't really care that you didn't vote. You claim my information is incorrect, yet you show nothing to prove how wrong you say I am.

5) One point that you never even touched on was the fact that many countries that passed laws to allow SSM have seen families destroyed. Try proving that fact wrong.
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
actually i did say things that refuted your three arguments (or what i saw as your three arguments), and i will restate them again if you feel that they weren't clear.

1. as i wrote below "debating the issue of gay marriage by pointing to facts about how many people believe its right or wrong isn't debating the actual issue"

i said that your argument is irrelevant because numbers of people who believe something doesn't make that thing right or wrong.

2. i also refuted your idea that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. thats NOT an opinion. the fact is that marriage is around "to be a union between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, and who want others to know that they made that choice" (also what i said below)

it's simply not true that marriage is around in hopes that people will have babies. i'd really like to see you try to back that up.

3. as for saying that "nature is on your side" in relation to AIDS, this also has nothing to do with the idea of whether or not gay couples should be allowed to get married. i don't see you addressing the actual question, but instead arguing for why you feel being gay is wrong.

also, please re-read what i wrote at the end of my previous post. i think you definitely had the upper hand, in that your opponent simply wasn't a good debater.
i even would have voted for you even though i disagree because i think you could have won the debate, had your points related to the actual argument.

maybe sometime we will have the chance to debate each other
:)
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
la bella vit a, Sorry you feel that way but I feel I argued my case well and provided what I believe to be a strong argument against SSM. My only reason for bringing religion up was to prove the pro wrong on her opinion.

"the only points i saw in your argument for not allowing gay marriage was 1. that lots of people don't want gay people to get married 2. that marriage isn't about people that love each other it's about procreation 3. that "nature agrees with you" and that people just shouldn't be gay

all of your arguments are either incorrect, or have nothing to do with proving the point of this debate."

Well thats your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I must point out you are welcome to debate me at any time. Didn't see you saying anything to refute my argument besides cryuing that I am wrong.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
The person arguing for gay marriage did a horrible job.

goldspur is entirely correct when he states that most people DO in fact believe in god.

I take the pro-gay marriage stance all the way but I can't vote for that debater.

God really does need to be in this debate though because the majority of people who take the stance that gay marriage is wrong believe this because of their religion.

One point that should be made though is that the constitution does not need to be amended to allow of gay marriage. The constitution plainly states that all law abiding citizens have the same rights already.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by govchapman 9 years ago
govchapman
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by patriots16-0 9 years ago
patriots16-0
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by easy2know 9 years ago
easy2know
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
cequa_11goldspursTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03