The Instigator
USA1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
welsh12
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Gay marriage should be illegal

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 6 votes the winner is...
welsh12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,055 times Debate No: 33627
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

USA1

Pro

I think that gay marriage should be illegal,because me as an American should be walking around with my little son and see a gay couple having love. I also think that it is dangerous to the a adopted kid that is growing up in a gay household.
welsh12

Con

First of all thanks for leaving this as an open debate.

You say that you and your son are walking around and might see a gay couple making love? Well where do you take your son? To look into apartment buildings. I mean gay couples do not make love in public. Nobody does.

You say that an adopted kid should not grow up in a gay household. Well at least now they have a household. Would it be better for them to be switching between foster parents and having no family. They will have parents.
Debate Round No. 1
USA1

Pro

Right, however when the kid gets older and he learns he does not have a Mom or Dad, what is he going to think when all of his friends have a mom and a dad. Plus when the boy/girl learn how kids are made, they are much more likely to become gay when they get older. If the kid is strait he might turn gay without a choice.
welsh12

Con

You said "when the kid gets older and he learns he does not have a Mom or Dad, what is he going to think when all of his friends have a mom and a dad" The kid never had parents in the first place. The most likely place that could would be is raised by a gang. Then either shot or thrown in jail. The kid will want naturally want the other sex as that is in our hormones. You cannot force someone to be gay. Overall it should not be up to us how others live their life. Its God job to judge not our.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mexicanmhitman 3 years ago
mexicanmhitman
Gay people are still people. Just like straight people.
Posted by AnonyFeline 3 years ago
AnonyFeline
The semantics between "marriage" and "civil union" is important, but not as important as the benefits of the resultant "pairing". These benefits include emotional companionship, economic discounts, tax breaks, death/inheritance decisions, and finally religious benefits. No one should be denied the right to choose their life companion, husband, or wife. This would segregate anyone considered an "outsider" or not falling within the "norm" from being counted as a true equal citizen. We must all be afforded the ability to lessen our economic and tax burdens, as well as choose whom to leave responsible for us in sickness, and what we leave behind in the event of our passing (remains and property). The society would not be equal if it would allow any particular or group any more or less of these (civil) benefits. The only caveats are the those associated with religion. In the United States, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another." --Justice Hugo Black (1947) Using this concept as a model for the aforementioned "society", and using "paring" to replace "marriage" and/or "civil union", it is clear that all individuals within the society must have access to all the above benefits, but the society cannot REQUIRE any church or religion to accept all of these individuals into their fold. If one were to establish the (hypothetical) First Church of Same Sex, that required all "paired" members to be of the same gender, then that church/religion must have the same status within the state as any other. The important thing is that any "pairing" or "coupling" must be available to all citizens of a truly equal society.
Posted by USA1 3 years ago
USA1
Sorry this was only my second debate, I am still working on getting better.
Posted by welsh12 3 years ago
welsh12
Thank you for that and also voters it was only a 500 letter debate.
Posted by AnonyFeline 3 years ago
AnonyFeline
The definition of "marriage" is the keystone to this argument. Marriage is the the religious and/or civil union between two individuals, and should be a civil right extended to all human beings. Period. People have a number of channels in which to create a civil union of marriage (justice of the peace, ships' captains, etc.) but limited means of establishing religious unions of marriage (Christian Church, LDS Church, Catholic Church, etc). In the U.S., the first amendment mandates the separation of Church and State, which limits the overlap of the term marriage between them. Here is where semantics become paramount. Is it a marriage? a civil union? or both? If we define civil unions to be valid within the scope of the State, then we must not infringe that ability to any individual. None. We are all a part of the Society and hence each have an equal voice within that society that should neither be amplified nor muted based on our choice of partnerships and/or companionships. Civil unions are not official within any religious entity unless that entity deems it to be valid, nor is the State permitted to control the entity's acceptance or denial of any union (see first amendment). Marriage then becomes a question of a label: 1) Is marriage a church union that is also becomes a civil union? or 2) is marriage a civil union that can be validated within a particular religious institution? or 3) is marriage only a civil union without the interference of any religious entity (which is also protected by the first amendment)? So the choice becomes how we define the institution of marriage. Civil unions are open to all, just as any civil right and a church need not accept all civil unions, which is their institutional (civil) right. That being said, people should have the freedom to choose which institutions under which they wish to validate their unions. (QED?)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
USA1welsh12Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were nothing but conjecture. Con refuted them all anyways, so he gets arguments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
USA1welsh12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: WTH was Pro's argument against gay marriage? Icky? This was ridiculous; was it a troll debate and I missed the joke? Arguments for obvious reasons, S&G was about equal, and nobody used sources. While I'm tempted to give Conduct to Con for the mess that Pro made, there wasn't anything actually egregious enough for me to give it.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
USA1welsh12Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest, the views held by Pro were easily shot down. Seriously where is your kid seeing sex? Also, the logic "gay parents will make gay children" is like saying "straight parents will make straight children." both are not factual statements.
Vote Placed by Devonal 3 years ago
Devonal
USA1welsh12Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually countered things.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
USA1welsh12Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never hit his BoP, and con beat down the claims... I have to wonder where he's taking his son that the kid sees people have sex.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
USA1welsh12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con countered Pro's arguments.