The Instigator
jamccartney
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
cherrytree
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage should be legal in every state.

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...
jamccartney
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,243 times Debate No: 42771
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

jamccartney

Pro

I would like to debate with anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal in every state. Please feel free to accept this debate challenge.

Here are my points:
1. There is nothing a gay person can do about the fact that they are gay.
2. There is nothing immoral about it.
3. The concept of traditional marriage does not have an actual limit or boundary. Who says gay marriage is crossing the boundary?
4. "Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage.[1]

I have more, but I am only listing a few for the time being. If anyone wants to challenge my stand on the matter, go ahead.

[1]http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
cherrytree

Con

i look forward to argueing this topic wit u!
Debate Round No. 1
jamccartney

Pro

Hello and thank you for accepting.

I will first begin with explaining my previous points.

1. "There is nothing a gay person can do about the fact that they are gay."

I believe that people are born being gay. A straight man could not even begin to consider kissing another man. In their eyes, that would not be normal. So why do people think that gay people chose to be gay? No one could even imagine choosing that.

Recently, scientists came up with a theory that explains why people may be gay. They say that they may get the gene from their opposite-sex parent.[1] This actually makes sense, because even mental genes can be passed on like that.

2. "There is nothing immoral about it."

There really is nothing immoral about same-sex-marriage. People may say that there is, but I really do not understand why. Do you think you might be able to explain that to me?

3. "The concept of traditional marriage does not have an actual limit or boundary. Who says gay marriage is crossing the boundary?"

Last I checked, there was no rulebook for marriage. There were no moral laws placing boundaries on marriage. Some average citizens may have written and published one, but it is not official.

Now yes, I think you may be thinking "The bible is the rulebook for marriage. It talks about it." Well, I'm sorry to say, the bible also says that if you do an activity other than church and God on Sunday, you should be stoned to death. How many of us really follow the word of the bible?

4. "Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage."[2]

What people think of marriage has changed over time. So even if the bible defines marriage, people have not followed it for hundreds if not a thousand years already. Why begin following it now?

These are only s few of my points. I will give the rest later.

[1]http://www.usnews.com...
[2]http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
cherrytree

Con

1. gay ppl can stop being gay. being gay has been proovin 2 b genitic. dats just not true. your lying.

2. its imoral cuz its a sin n da eyez of God. america is a christian nation n we cant stand 4 marrage between homos.

3. no boundary? so shood ppl be able to mary animals n stufff????????

4. the majority view dont matter.. the majority of da world think US freedum of speech is 2 strong but that dont mean dat the US gotta change it's laws.... feel me?
Debate Round No. 2
jamccartney

Pro

Hello and thank you for responding.

First of all, people cannot stop being gay. You cannot override genetic code without the use of extremely advanced tools. I am not lying. That is a fact. The tools used are: Agarose gels, polyacrylamide gels, PFE, etc.[1]

The whole "sin in the eyes of God" thing is poor rationale. Like I already said in the previous round: "[T]he bible also says that if you do an activity other than church and God on Sunday, you should be stoned to death." Do we still do activities on Sunday? Of course. I know I do and I'm pretty sure you do since you responded to this debate twice today.

I did not say there was 'no boundary'. I said there was no 'clear' boundary. Of course there's a boundary. There's a boundary to everything. What I mean by 'There were no moral laws placing boundaries on marriage' is that the boundaries are unsettled and do not have an indefinite boundary. It changes.

I understand your point on majority view. I will grant you a win on that one.

[1]http://dwb4.unl.edu...
cherrytree

Con

1. there aint no real evidance dat homosexulity is genitic man stop makin those asumptions ferreal

2. usa is a country of judiochristian values since it began, our morrals r bassed on Gods values.. alota ppl forget dat when they talk bout gay marraige

3. ok so wheres the boundery then man? why cant u marry ur table or ur dog? u be playin favorits man... make a boundery

4. word now u gota give up on da other ppoints lol,.

Debate Round No. 3
jamccartney

Pro

First of all, there is evidence that homosexuality is genetic. If you noticed, I cited my source[1]. But I will read off the line from the article anyway:

"A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.""The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities."

There is your proof that homosexuality is genetic. While it is not completely genetic, I was still right.

Okay. Yes, the US is a country of religious values. But the founding fathers made it so religion would not interfere with government. They specifically wrote the constitution in such a way that religious values would have no part in the government. So it is not right to make a law that says homosexuals cannot get married because of God. That is actually unconstitutional.

Of course you cannot marry a table or a dog. They are not human. But homosexuals are perfectly human. The boundary is: They must be human.

I know I stated earlier that I would give you my other points. I now feel that those are not needed, which is why I did not state them.

It seems this is the last round. I will hear your response. Then, it will be time for the people to vote. Thank you for debating with me.

[1]http://www.usnews.com...
cherrytree

Con

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

homosexualty aint been proovin by science to be genitic man, ur lieing check real scienctific sorces bro

2. wether u like it or not our cuntry was made bassed on religus morrals and u cant change dat, mariage is parta dat

3. u bein HIPPOCRITICAL MAN, u say "must be human" so u b "descriminatin" against ppl who want to marry things dat aint human, duble standard man.. u want equlety but u keep sum ppl out. u cant say the currint rule is wrong n then say dat ur rule is superier cuz ur stil excludin ppl!

4. i won on da 4th pt n dis guy addmits itt.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by johnrevula 3 years ago
johnrevula
Pro was basing his first point on real scientific studies whereas con just denied it ignoring the evidence. Religion is not a basis of constitution since it itself is immoral and simply holding a fairy tale status. Third point never was attempted to be proved wrong and i think it is irrelevant. The majority argument does not count as well as the current definition of marriage. All in all, second point is the most important in favor of gay marriage and it was not refuted rationally.
Posted by Sukhmeet 3 years ago
Sukhmeet
Con sounded much more educated in another debate, The Death Penalty, I am sure he is going the wrong way
Posted by Sukhmeet 3 years ago
Sukhmeet
Con is probably a teen trying his or her first debate like it's a joke, well your first debate says a lot about you, whether you lose or win it really shows a lot.
Posted by Bendurisgrate 3 years ago
Bendurisgrate
Con needs to work on his grammar.
So do I.
Posted by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
Yes a happy marriage should be legal, homosexuality not so much
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I'd take this if I weren't in a gay marriage debate right now... -.-
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by amik10 3 years ago
amik10
jamccartneycherrytreeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refutes nothing, and seems to be taking this like a joke... all points to PRO
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
jamccartneycherrytreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: this was fun and CON made me smiling :) his grammar and the way he wrote reminded me my childhood, anyway RFD: PRO gave us link and more than that he refuted CON on the issue: according to god it is sin and not allow and then PRO replied: according to god we have to do nothing excepot praying on SUNDAYS and showed us that the USA is not a country governed according to the bible, however out of 4 points made by PRO just one refuted by CON and that was not refuted completely. CON just gave us a link from WIKI wich says homo is not genetic. for reasons like this I vote for PRO.