The Instigator
gbpacker
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Jhate
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Gay marriage should be illegal in the US.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
gbpacker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,328 times Debate No: 21401
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

gbpacker

Con

Use the comments for rule clarification and make your first arguments in the first speech. Please only serious acceptances and try to be civil throughout. I'll allow my opponent the first argument. Only rebuttals in the last round. Anything I forgot, ask in the comments.
Jhate

Pro

First i will be debating i think Gay marriage should be illegal in the US.
These are my key debating points to start off
- 1.Gay marriage is unnatural
- 2.Gay marriage defies religion
- 3.Gay marriage is unhealthy

First here is the definition of marriage. Marriage- the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

For one marriage has always been interpreted as a guy and girl. This has always been this way.

My first point
1. Gay marriage is unnatural.
First id like to say gay marriage is unnatural. Gay couples cannot reproduce together so this in a way is defiant to
nature. This point it short but it speaks for itself.

2. Gay marriage defies religion.
Gay marriage is not accepted in the bible or by God. This debate you almost have to bring in religion because these views are what matter most often. You cannot call religion an invalid argument due to the fact that marriage does require a preacher. Now on with my point. Here are some examples of verses in the bible about God not acceptig homosexuality.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26-27

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And like wise 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

I could mention more but i think everyone gets the point. Now it is ungodly to have a preacher preform a gay marriage ceremony that goes against his God. This matters because our country was founded on christian principles. Do i need proof? Sure. Take the pledge of allegiance and original songs that were used in older times that mention God. The pledge pretty much lets you know that "yes we Americans did use this pledge not only as our pledge but as a reference to the founding fathers.

3. Gay marriage is unhealthy.
Gay marriage is unhealthy because it leads to more STDs and HIV then regular heterosexual couples

Common sexual practices among gay men lead to numerous STDs and physical injuries, some of which are virtually unknown in the heterosexual population. Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs. In addition to diseases that may be transmitted during lesbian sex, a study at an Australian STD clinic found that lesbians were three to four times more likely than heterosexual women to have sex with men who were high-risk for HIV.

it is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.

http://factsaboutyouth.com...

Thats my source. Now you may say "ok, so homosexuals have sex with each other as long as its not with me then thats fine i wont get an STD." I also want to inform you that bisexuals could have gay sex, Male/Male, or Female/Female, then go have sex with someone of the opposite sex potentially threatening there life.

These are my arguments as stated.
My overview: Gay marriage should be illegal because it is unhealthy, unnatural, and against Godly views and should not be allowed as there is nothing they gain from Gay marriage.

I wish my opponent luck in the next round and i did not state many points because im hoping my opponent will address them so i have something to rebuttal thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
gbpacker

Con

Thanks to my opponent for the response. I'll be going over his three points and adding a few of my own. The definition presented is totally correct. Keep in mind that it is about the state legally recognizing the union and not any religious organization. This will come up later.

Contention 1: Unnatural
My opponent states that same-sex marriage is unnatural. I have a few responses:

A. Marriage in itself is unnatural.
If my opponent's criterion for being natural - reproduction - is accepted, then the conclusion is that the best way to reproduce as much as possible is for males to gather as many females as they can and reproduce as much as they can. You might call this group of a man and his partners a "pride." Marriage is two people in a union. This limits the amount of breeding as therefore is also unnatural by my opponent's criteria.

B. Many marriages are unnatural, yet still legal.
Using my opponent's criteria marriages between the elderly, the infertile, and those that just don't have to have children are all unnatural. Condoms, Plan B, and every other type of birth control are unnatural. Anything that prevents the production of more humans is unnatural. This is where my opponent's logic falls apart.

C. Conclusion
This leads to the conclusion that either my opponent's criteria or simply the idea of being natural is absurd when applied to marriage. There are plenty of things we do that are unnatural if the goal is just more children. That doesn't mean they should be thrown out.

Contention 2: Religion
I again have a few responses to this argument.

A. On Leviticus.
This passage follows the idea of separating the Jews from the pagans. Other laws included are the death penalty for work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14) and the death penalty when a child curses his parents (Leviticus 20:9). Leviticus laws should not be applied to our society today. Just for run, here are some other fun Leviticus laws:

Cattle shouldn't graze with other kinds of cattle.

Only plant one kind of crop per field.

Don't wear clothes with more than one kind of fabric.

Don't cut your hair.

The list could go on if it really needed to, but I think the point is made. The idea of Leviticus being a guide for our lives in modern times is ridiculous.

B. On Romans.
This is not about homosexuality. It is about the cultic prostitution that went on in Rome during the time Paul wrote Romans. Cybele the fertility goddess was worshiped in Rome and the Empire. This is the historical context in which Paul was talking about sexual immorality. He's talking about shrine prostitution, not about modern, faithful, same-sex relationship.

C. It doesn't matter.
Christianity saying that something is bad is not a reason for a modern democracy to outlaw it. Christianity says that idols are evil. My opponent says that marriage requires a preacher, but his own definition of marriage goes against that. It doesn't mention a preacher at all. It says that marriage has to with a relationship recognized by law, not by Pastor Tim down the road.
"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
If we follow biblical law here in our laws, we should kill the 22% of Americans that don't follow Christianity and spend a decent amount of time and money ensuring that the 78% who do are following the right kind of Christianity and are being totally truthful (http://religions.pewforum.org...). Wow! That's 67,924,018 people (according to the 2010 census http://2010.census.gov...). Better get killing!

D. My point
Religious law in America is a terrible idea and is unconstitutional. A law saying that homosexuality, or anything else the Bible says is bad, is illegal violates the first amendment. This whole religious argument should have no effect on how laws are made in the United States. I'd like you leave you on this point with Galatians 5, which says "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." No law against love, huh?

Contention 3: Health

A. Mental Health
My opponent uses Facts about Youth to support his claims of depression and other mental issues. First off I'd like to point out that a person is probably happier when they just be who they are then when they are rejected by society and the law for something they can't change. Suppressing homosexual feeling would be worse than accepting them.

According to Dr. Caitlin Ryan, Dr. Rafael M. Diaz, Jorge Sanchez (all of San Francisco Statue University) and Dr. David Huebner (of the University of Utah), family rejection is the cause of poor health outcomes, depression, suicide, and drug use. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...) Making same-sex marriage illegal would only increase family rejections by giving legal basis to the stigma against homosexuals. The best way to decrease mental health problems displayed by homosexuals is to accept them legally for who they are.

B. STDs
STDs should have no effect on whether something is legal. Unprotected sex with strangers leads to more STDs and that isn't illegal. Additionally, when people are allowed to be in a legal monogamous relationship, they will probably have fewer sexual partners. This would lead to lessening the spread of STDs. Finally, STDs are prevented by having safe sex and knowing your partners. Paul Schindler, writing for Gay City News writes, "as long as LGBT people are kept in the shadows, there cannot be an effective public health program to tackle HIV and AIDS." (http://gaycitynews.com...)

And my addition, Contention 4: Rights

According to Paul Schindler writing for Gay City News, "They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens, while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm. I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people — human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity — who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time." He continues, "There are costs to not protecting these rights, in both gay and straight lives lost to disease and violence, and the silencing of voices and views that would strengthen communities, in ideas never pursued by entrepreneurs who happen to be gay. Costs are incurred whenever any group is treated as lesser or the other." America is a leader in the world and its acceptance of homosexual relationships show that we are committed to human rights. Lawrence D. Rosenberg wrote for the Yemeni National Organization for Defending Rights and Freedoms that "On issues of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, the United States sets the example for the rest of the world." We need to set an example for the rest of the world that includes the respect of humans, no matter their sexual preference.
Jhate

Pro

My opponent stated
"B. Many marriages are unnatural, yet still legal.
Using my opponent's criteria marriages between the elderly, the infertile, and those that just don't have to have children are all unnatural."

First off procreation does not make something natural. Man and woman were created to be together. My opponent is basing this of procreation. If homosexuality was meant to be natural then answer my question. Why cant they produce? Men were not designed to be with men. Woman weren't designed to be with woman. If its natural then why are gays more likely to attract Aids and HIV. Aids and HIV are not natural disease. They are not common. Since they are not common in nature and they are common in homosexuality, then this makes homosexuality not natural. Lets view another point. If the whole world became homosexuals then the population would die off. How is this natural? How is homosexuality which would cause the human population to decline and disappear if everyone went that way considered natural. Also you said "Condoms, Plan B, and every other type of birth control" These are manmade items. Man does not create nature. Man made choices to kill babies and things like this dont justify that.

The question also isn't why isn't it natural the question should be how is it and id like my opponent to answer that.

My opponent said "Leviticus laws should not be applied to our society today"

Leviticus is not a guide for our modern lives.

My opponent must not know much about the bible. I gave references. Now in the New testament it is said that we shall and should not live in the laws oft he old. Not ALL the laws. Now yes homosexuality was considered wrong. But the laws that God did not act upon were considered wrong. God destroyed two cities due to homosexuality.

Also heres a verse or few about homosexuality in the bible in the New testament.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Keyword- effeminate meaning a man who is feminine in an appealing way. Also who acts feminine

my opponent said about my Romans verse "This is not about homosexuality. It is about the cultic prostitution that went on in Rome during the time Paul wrote Romans. Cybele the fertility goddess was worshiped in Rome and the Empire. This is the historical context in which Paul was talking about sexual immorality. He's talking about shrine prostitution, not about modern, faithful, same-sex relationship"

Heres what the verse stated

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

And like wise 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"

Now lets read the Greek version translated into English of this verse and more.

Romans 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The New testament was written mainly in Greek and this was the original translation.

Also tell me this why would you want take an institution that was a religious ceremony for a man and women and change the definition of it and dynamic of it. The state was not invented by government. Marriage was invented by God and it started with Adam and Eve.

My opponent said
"Christianity saying that something is bad is not a reason for a modern democracy to outlaw it"

Its not a democracy we have a democratic republic. Our founders knew it would not work, it did not work in Rome and they knew it wouldn't work here. There is a difference.

First off my opponent stated "Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)"
" If we follow biblical law here in our laws, we should kill the 22% of Americans that don't follow Christianity"

Now i just stated the New testament frees us from the old laws in the old testament by the blood of Jesus Christ. I also said that is why we dont follow all the laws in old testament only the ones God re mentions in the New.

My opponent said
"Religious law in America is a terrible idea and is unconstitutional. A law saying that homosexuality, or anything else the Bible says is bad, is illegal violates the first amendment. "

First i want to know how this violates the first Amendment? Second or constitution was BASED OFF RELIGION. My opponent ignores the fact and hasn't researched it obviously.

Saying if we follow a law in the bible s bad then your saying that, Murdering, adultrey, Assault, Stealing, etc. Is good!
My opponents argument is invalid due to that.

My opponent said
"Making same-sex marriage illegal would only increase family rejections by giving legal basis to the stigma against homosexuals. The best way to decrease mental health problems displayed by homosexuals is to accept them legally for who they are."

Homosexuality has always been illegal so there is no "making same sex marriage illegal" It already is.

Homosexuality was illegal in all 50 states, and it was called crimes against nature. Every state had laws called crimes against nature up until recently it was taken out by some states. Again another thing thats unnatural.

My opponent said "Unprotected sex with strangers leads to more STDs and that isn't illegal"
This is illegal; however it isn't enforced. Read a law book.

Tell me this scenario. Someone has gay sex and get an STD. They decide they wanna be straight and date opposite
sex. They do and that person finds out about the STD or HIV and dosent date them. Now this will make homosexuals feel bad about what they did and they might hide the truth about their disease which is illegal.

Unprotected sex with strangers leads to more STDS; however its normally opposite sex which is way more common then homosexuality. Homosexuals are still more likely to contract HIV and STDS. It is proven

My opponents last statement is very biased.
People are beaten every day for doing something wrong or because they have a drunk parent. My opponent is saying its only gays. People get beaten and made fun of for how they dress, how they act and everything. I want my opponent to name one case where someone was denied a job because of their orientation? Because it would be taken to court. Find me a case about that. Elena Kagman is on the supreme court and is also gay. She isn't denied her position.

My opponent said "They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm."

This debate is about the US not about other countries as my opponent jumps off the case

My opponent has made several biased arguments and contradicts himself several times.
Gays have the same rights as straights.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
gbpacker

Con

Contention I: Naturality
My opponent totally goes backward on his one sentence srgument from round one. He said, "Gay couples cannot reproduce together so this in a way is defiant to nature." He doesn't respond at all to my arguments and basically just goes on preaching for a while. The fact is that according to him, procreation is the definition of natural. My argument is that this definition is absurd and applying it the civil law is even more absurd. Without this definition, his argument is literally gone.

A. First he doesn't respond to the idea that marriage in itself in unnatural. It attempts to limit the amount of breeding and therefore limits the amount of procreation.

B. He doesn't respond to the idea that expanding his logic to the whole population means not allowing the elderly or infertile to marry. Additionally, his idea that reproduction is the ultimate goal and that the law should uphold that lead us down a slippery slope. Soon wanting more reproduction becomes wanting better reproduction and genetic engineering like a great idea, despite the moral ambiguity involved. This is however, probably the topic for another debate.

My opponent next says that contraceptives and birth control are manmade and not natural. Again, based on his logic all these are off the table because they are unnatural. By that definition cars and planes are unnatural too. He fails to show why natural is a good thing or a necessary thing.

C. This leads to the same conclusion. Either my opponent's criteria or simply the idea of being natural is absurd when applied to marriage. There are plenty of things we do that are unnatural if the goal is just more children. That doesn't mean they should be illegal. Additionally, he fails to prove that being unnatural is bad. He has the burden to prove his argument here and he simply isn't fulfilling it.

II. Christianity

A. My opponent again switches stances here that not ALL of Leviticus's laws still apply. I'm very glad that he is in this debate because he seems to know so much about which ones do. I'd like to ask, however, about how he knows that Lev 20:13 should be used as a basis for our laws when Lev 20:9 is totally out of the picture.

B. He also doesn't seem to understand the idea of historical context. The Bible was, st. ngely enough, NOT written in modern times. Romans, specifically, was written by Paul in Corinth c. 55 AD. As to what marriage is, again refer to my opponent's original definition, "Marriage - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Marriage may or may not have been started by God. Personally, I'm agnostic, but I don't want to get into that because I trouncing my opponent enough already. The fact is that in modern times, marriage is a legal institution.

C. Again I'd like to point out how great it is that we have someone here smart enough to decide which biblical laws are the right biblical laws. Strange that he isn't smart enough to respond to any of my actual points. But hey, since New Testament laws appear to be okay, let's look at some of those:

-Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)
-Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
-Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
-Not allowed to call anyone "father" (Matthew 23:9)
-Women should be quiet and learn their place (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

He says my argument is invalid because the Constitution was based off religion. Dude…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. According to Black's Law Dictionary, "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another." Pretty sure gay marriage being illegal based on Christianity is favoring it over other religions.

III. Health

A. He says making homosexuality illegal wouldn't change anything because it already is. Homosexual marriage is not illegal in all the states and the trend is toward making it legal, as more states do. He has to defend that the government should make homosexual marriage illegal. That's the topic and he's the pro. He doesn't respond to the point backed by doctors that family rejection is the main cause of mental problems and homosexual marriage being legal reduces family rejection.

B. As for the unprotected sex with strangers, find me the law that says that is illegal. On his "scenario", there are people that have STDs that aren't gay. Heterosexual sex can lead to STD even if neither person has ever engaged in homosexual sex. He also doesn't respond to the point that homosexual marriage being legal is the only way a halth program can effectively fight HIV and AIDS.

IV. Rights

I never said that only gays are beaten. My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal. In some places, the penalty is literally death. The US having legal homosexual marriage and supporting rights goes a long way to solve this, as the US is leader in this area. This was written by a Yemeni National Organization and my opponent doesn't respond to it at all. This contention is about the US because US leadership would help to solve these problems. Again, he doesn't understand my argument and barely responds to it.

V. Conclusion
I have no contradicted myself and my arguments aren't biased in any way. My opponent has gone on ranting about religion and totally ignored the points behind my arguments without responding to the majority of them. He can't state why his first two contentions matter or how I'm wrong about the second two. Then he says that homosexual have the same rights as straights when they clearly don't. They don't have the right to marry who they're attracted to and in many countries they don't have the right to be themselves without facing jail or the death penalty. Look for my opponent to ignore the same points he did this round and not answer any of my arguments. When you see that, you'll know that there's no good reason that homosexual marriage should be illegal in the US. This allows you do to two things. First, you can vote for me. Second, and more important, you can support the rights and health of people in the country and across the world by supporting legal homosexual marriage.
Jhate

Pro

I want everyone to see how my opponent hasn't rebuttled and twists my words. My opponent just said "the fact is that according to him, procreation is the definition of natural." I said "First off procreation does not make something natural"
My opponent twisted my words and just typed an invalid argument.
Second my opponent said applying to to civil law is absurd.

If it is absurd and it is natural for gay marriage then why do states have laws against it known as Laws against nature and her is one of the statements about it.

"Crime against nature" has been defined by North Carolina courts as "sexual intercourse contrary to the order of nature," including all "acts of bestial character whereby degraded and perverted sexual desires are sought to be gratified." While this definition is incredibly broad, enough so that it could conceivably include masturbation or sexual positions once thought "unnatural," the CAN law is now only used in cases involving oral sex (fellatio and cunnilingus) and anal intercourse.

Prior to Lawrence, the CAN law was used to prosecute two male sexual partners as well as male and female partners. Apparently no CAN case has ever been brought against two women in North Carolina, although a woman in Tennessee served two years in prison for consensual CAN with another woman before that state's sodomy law was declared unconstitutional. Lawrence made clear that law enforcement officers may no longer arrest hetero- or homosexual people for CAN activity in private, but officers are still making CAN arrests for activity occurring in public as well as for solicitation to perform acts of CAN in public or in an unspecified place. Theoretically, arrest and prosecution under CAN laws are also possible at this point in a few additional situations: where one of the participants is a minor or an incapacitated or disabled adult incapable of consent, where prostitution is involved (that is, money or some other material thing of value is exchanged for the CAN act), or where one of the participants is coerced.

The website for this for more info is http://www.ncgala.org...

My opponent has stated my main goals for me? I havent said anything was my main goal. What kind of debate is this? Really? these are key things needed to see for voting. My opponent said "He fails to show why natural is a good thing or a necessary thing." My opponent never asked me this as this is not a debate about wether natural is good however unnatural can be bad.

My opponent posted his meaning of the verses hear
-Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20) lets read the verse shall we Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal

My opponent supplied false info as this verse is stating not to be materialistic by opponent shows a lack of reading i this.

-Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)
heres the verse, the meanin is not to work and only want to provide things you need but work also to live a christian life so you can have eternal food in eternal life -Again my opponent made another false accusation
John 6:27
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.

-Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)
the verse - Meaning: this does say dont have sexual urges, again another invalid case by my opponent
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

-Not allowed to call anyone "father" (Matthew 23:9) If you read the verses before this verse you would see its talking about preists and some people call their priests father and then say the last name again my opponent with another false display
-Women should be quiet and learn their place (1 Corinthians 14:33-35) im not gonna post the verse because again my opponent made an invalid statement and proving him wrong takes up to much space. This verse means women should not preach and they should ask their husbands about things instead of preaching, this is because the preacher was normally a guy and thats how it was.

I said that it was based on religious views again my opponent is putting words in my mouth. And our constitution is on some parts.

My opponent said i should stick to my pro side and that this topic is about gay marriage and why i think it should be illegal. How is me stating the reasons it should be illegal wrong? Im debating this fine again my opponent with another false accusation.

Again my opponent said i jumped off topic well this last round lets see what he said
"My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal"
This is a debate about the US as i stated last round and he is again bringing other countries into it.
here it is again in his last few sentences

"and more important, you can support the rights and health of people in the country and across the world by supporting legal homosexual marriage."

Gay marriage should be illegal because
- it is unnatural, only male and female can reproduce also if it is natural why would states have had laws against gay sex called "Laws against nature" this proves my point

-unhealthy- again homosexuals are more likely by thousands to contract disease then normal couples.

Religion- Marriage definition was seen as woman and man, also its against God and marriage was normally done by a preacher

Lets answer my opponents arguments since he ignores mine and twists my words in hopes of a win.
Oh wait i answered them earlier.

You cant debate this without bringing in religion so its not ranting about religion. My opponent is the one who brought up the laws of new and old testament not me so him jumping off subject was his fault.

Straights do have the same rights my opponent did not tell me the rights we have that they dont. If i say i want to marry a guy because i stopped liking girls i cant. If i become attracted to a guy and become bisexual i cant.

Heres another mention to the world and not the US like this debate states its about

he said "I never said that only gays are beaten. My argument is that there are many countries in which homosexuality is totally illegal. In some places, the penalty is literally death"

My opponent says that family rejection is main cause of mental problems.
Here are some other things that cause depression as well.
Other factors that may contribute to teen suicide include:

Divorce of parents.
Violence in the home.
Inability to find success at school.
Feelings of worthlessness.
Rejection by friends or peers.
Substance abuse.
Death of someone close to the teenager.
The suicide of a friend or someone he or she "knows" online.
You cannot say homosexuality rejection overrides all of these.

The reason i didnt respond to the doctor thing because the whole page is a study on Gays and not every cause of rejection, unreliable source.

One me fun false fact by my opponent

"Religious law in America is a terrible idea and is unconstitutional. A law saying that homosexuality, or anything else the Bible says is bad, is illegal violates the first amendment"

First amendment is a right of free speech. Homosexuality i what people do.. You can talk about it all day so i dont see the point.

Second Laws in the bible that are current laws
- no murder
- stealing
-adultery

those are a few laws that are religious so another invalid thing by my opponent.

Reasons to vote pro
- My opponent ignores arguments and states the same points after i prove it wrong
- My opponent supplied biased sources
- My opponent made several invalid arguments
- I debated why t is wrong and my opponent went of topic even when i proved him wrong
- As shown, i showed my opponent twisted my words

Vote pro
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yurlene 2 years ago
Yurlene
Marriages happen in city hall...
Posted by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
Sophist.....the people who told Socrates he was wrong because nothing was true (moral truths).
Posted by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
Yup...and every court case I have ever tried. I shall state the truth. Your argument is nonsense.
Posted by Jhate 2 years ago
Jhate
@logic rules, dont start with me youve only won 1 debate my friend
Posted by gbpacker 2 years ago
gbpacker
btw, logicrules, can you explain how my argument is sophist? I'm not upset, just curious.
Posted by gbpacker 2 years ago
gbpacker
Dude, I didn't mean to cause offense, but obviously I did based on that last post. I'm sorry, but I really believe that I addressed every one of your arguments logically, while you dropped a significant portion of mine. I'm not gonna get into an actual argument with you, but try to not turn things into rants about religion. And just to clear up the international thing: Having a positive effect on other countries is what making homosexual marriage legal would do. That was not off topic, as it was just another reason that homosexual marriage shouldn't be illegal. Again, I'm purely trying to offer constructive criticism, but try to read and understand my arguments before you respond to them.
Posted by logicrules 2 years ago
logicrules
@Jhate....that is goofy. The state took over marriage in 1517....some people should learn history.
Posted by Jhate 2 years ago
Jhate
how was i offensive? you have to bring religion into this becasue in modern times marriage was done in church!! gosh you people know nothing about history
Posted by Jhate 2 years ago
Jhate
how was i offensive? you have to bring religion into this becasue in modern times marriage was done in church!! gosh you people know nothing about history
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
gbpackerJhateTied
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: I'm tired of seeing people vote on debates based on "offensiveness." Regardless of how offensive an argument is, the only thing that is important is how logical it is. Both debaters used flawed logic at various parts of the debate, but Pro's argument was FAR more logically unsound. Guys, keep emotions out of this... This is a debate, not an episode of The View.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 2 years ago
DevonNetzley
gbpackerJhateTied
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: Pro should not have brought in religion. Overall in my opinion, his statements were offensive and immoral. Conduct goes to Con for this.
Vote Placed by Islam_Forever 2 years ago
Islam_Forever
gbpackerJhateTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was offensive
Vote Placed by girg 2 years ago
girg
gbpackerJhateTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I think it was a bad idea to even bring religion into this, and I agreed with Con before the argument anyways