The Instigator
Conspiracyrisk
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Conspiracyrisk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 89991
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (2)

 

Conspiracyrisk

Pro

I challenge ViceRegent to this debate on whether gay (same-sex) marriage should be legal. This is not about States' Rights or whether the Supreme Court was in the wrong or whatnot. This is about whether gay marriage should be legal.

May the best debater win!
ViceRegent

Con

"Should" is the language of moral obligation. Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?
Debate Round No. 1
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

"Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?"

Where do you get your morals from that homosexuals aren't normal people? This is a legal debate, not necessarily a moral one.

Marriage is simply a union between two people. Homosexuals are still people. We should extend marriage rights to them as well. Their desire is simply to be happy with the person that they love. The three "unalienable rights" listed in the Constitution are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The freedom to marry someone of the same sex falls under both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

While some religions object to homosexuality, there is no reason that this should influence legislation. The first amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The founding fathers also strongly promoted a separation of church and state. Therefore, religion has no place in this debate.

Marriage has traditionally been between a male and a female, but this simply because the majority of the populace throughout history A. was heterosexual and/or B. believed in a religion which prohibited same-sex marriage. However, many today do not object to homosexuality. While procreation is certainly a big aspect of marriage, people do not marry simply for the purpose of procreation. Most in America marry for love. That is the purpose of marriage - to show a bond between two people. I see no reason why we should not extend this bond to homosexuals.

Some have a moral objection to homosexuality. However, these morals tend to be based on very weak grounds, often in religion. As I explained earlier, religion should not be a part of this. A large majority of people in America do not think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. [1] Therefore, it would be inappropriate to enforce these anti-homosexual morals on others.

For as long as we tolerate different religions, we have to tolerate beliefs that don't agree with some of our religious teachings. I think that this applies very strongly to gay marriage.

Source:
[1] http://www.isidewith.com...
ViceRegent

Con

You are just spewing sodomite talking points. Answer my Q of where your pro-sodomite immorality comes from?
Debate Round No. 2
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

I'm basing my arguments on the point of happiness. Every human has the right to happiness, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. It's just basic morals that anyone can agree with. In the meantime, you have refused to refute any of the points I made. Go do that.
ViceRegent

Con

So if it makes me happy to rape and murder your child, I have the right to do that? You are the typical brain-washed, pro-sodomite non-thinker.

BTW, it is not for me to refute your point, but for you to prove your points. And saying there is a right to happiness is nonsense, not proof.
Debate Round No. 3
Conspiracyrisk

Pro

"So if it makes me happy to rape and murder your child, I have the right to do that? You are the typical brain-washed, pro-sodomite non-thinker."

This is a textbook example of the strawman fallacy. My point was that marriage is a bond between people that shows their love, and is backed by the constitution in its belief that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights. There is nothing inherently wrong with marriage, so because it makes people happy, it's backed by the constitution. My opponent misconstrued this point by implying that I believed that anything that makes people happy should be legal, including rape and murder. This could not be more blatantly wrong.

My opponent then claims that they don't have to refute my points, which is simply incorrect. The burden of proof means that I have to provide evidence that helps prove my claims, and you have to try and refute my points. That's how debate works. You have to offer rebuttals.
ViceRegent

Con

You claimed that the moral basis for pervert marriage is the "right to happiness", that one has the right to do whatever they wan to make themselves happy. Well, if that is true and what makes me happy is rape and murder your child, then I have right to rape and murder your child. It is not a straw man. It is reduction ad absurdum, showing the world how foolish your immorality is by exposing where it goes if one is consistent with it. I am sorry that consistent is not part of the thinking of the sodomite and their sympathizers.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: beanall// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, and Sources), 3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I believe pro had the better conduct and spelling along with the only one who had a source. However, I do have to give the argument side to con because pro didn't not refute the objection that con presented on the side of happiness. Con it would do you good to keep your debates a little more civil and through some facts from sources. However you did have the more convincing arguments in my opinion.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct and S&G are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side should get these points, and that there was some unknown lack of civility from Con is not enough to explain these point allocations. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than simply compare the quantity of sources, and must establish that the sources provided by Pro were actually relevant to the debate. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter only states that a point was dropped, but fails to assess its strength or compare that strength to Pro's arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: MaxLamperouge// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to give good arguments. Unfortunately Con did not do well, and in one round he only gave a single sentence for an argument! Pro on the other hand, gave strong logical arguments that remained unrefuted.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is not explained. (2) The voter fails to assess any specific arguments in their decision, and therefore the decision does not meet the standards for an argument vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: CAHAL101// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: no reason they just had the better arguments

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a restatement of one of the point allocations.
************************************************************************
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
I love exposing fake Christians.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 10 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
jesus never claimed to be a king and where does it say gay people should be execute? cause i'm PRETTY SURE it doesn't.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 10 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
Look, the real reason I started this debate was because I was unsure if you were a troll or not, and after this, I still can't tell. If you are a troll, I respect your abilities. You truly are the best troll I have ever seen. If you aren't a troll, then you seriously need to get a life.

That is all. I will be replying no more.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
When your opponent runs away, you will.

I need no other basis than King Jesus says sodomites should be executed, not married.
Posted by Conspiracyrisk 10 months ago
Conspiracyrisk
I already told you, I won't be responding to any more arguments until you answer my question. Answer it and I will respond to your claims.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
I guess this fool has no rational basis to say sodomite marriage is moral.
Posted by ViceRegent 10 months ago
ViceRegent
Because YOU based your argument on the DOI. If you are abandoning them, tell me where your morality comes from?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by secarl19 10 months ago
secarl19
ConspiracyriskViceRegentTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does not have any evidence to support "claims". Meanwhile, Pro gives a lot of solid information supported by evidence.
Vote Placed by WhineyMagiciann5 10 months ago
WhineyMagiciann5
ConspiracyriskViceRegentTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments- pro focused on pursuit of happiness in his argument. saying how if they aren't causing harm, it is fine. con then says this... "You are just spewing sodomite talking points. Answer my Q of where your pro-sodomite immorality comes from?" can is failing to present an argument and then poses his own question, which has almost no affect of the debate. pro's case of happiness being sound and con presenting nothing that counts as an argument throughout the debate, effectively give arguments to pro Conduct- conduct is simple, pro presented his argument and stayed well within the format of the debate. con refuses to present an argument, saying it is not his job even though that is what he took up as con. If I forgot any RFD then I will gladly provide it in the comments.