The Instigator
chrissychaaos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized?

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/18/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 49420
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

chrissychaaos

Pro

In this debate, we will have the following
1. Acceptance
2. Crossfire
3. Refutes/Rebuttals
4. Final Focuses/Conclusions

I wish my opponents the best of luck.
TheRussian

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
chrissychaaos

Pro

Before we begin, I"d like to wish my opponent good luck in this debate.

Patti Stanger once said "I"m an advocate for gay marriage, I have more gay friends than Carter has pills."

And it is because, I stand in affirm of the following resolution resolved "Should gay marriage be legalized?"

In support of my stance, I will provide the following contentions

Contention #1: The "traditional marriage" is completely inaccurate.

The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms.

Contention #2: Gay Marriage is protected under the constitution

Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses."

Contention #3: Gay marriages can actually boost economy

Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city"s economy and $184 million to the state"s economy over three years.

In conclusion, the pro side of this debate has proved

1. The traditional marriage, be it by man & women in inaccurate
2. Gay marriage is protected under the constitution
3. Gay marriages can boost the economy

Thank you for your time & consideration.

Sources :: ProCon.Org
Huffington Post
My own knowledge
TheRussian

Con

First, I would like to bring to your attention the Bible (along with other religious texts). I am not a religious person, but for those who are, there is a clear answer in, for example, the Bible. There are multiple verses saying that homosexual BEHAVIOR is wrong. Not the condition, but acts of homosexuality.
http://christianity.about.com...
As well as the Quran.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...

Next, there has been research suggesting that homosexuality is for the most part, psychological. If gay marriage was legalized, gayness would be regarded as normal. As a result, many more people would be prone to being a homosexual individual.
http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com...
First and foremost, this would cause social upheaval. Also consider that there are radical individuals who harm, or even kill, people because of their sexual orientation. If there were to be more homosexuals, that may result in more people getting hurt.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

Finally, the support and complete acceptance of homosexuality would damage to the population. If there are more couples who cannot produce offspring, then that would (obviously enough) be detrimental to the population growth. This may sound cruel, but biologically speaking, a homosexual individual is useless.

I am not for the abuse of people because of the sexual orientation, but do not believe that homosexuality should be regarded as a good thing.

It can also be noted that more often than not, marriage is conducted in a church (or other religious institution). The religion itself does not support homosexuality.
Debate Round No. 2
chrissychaaos

Pro

For crossfire's, we will simply ask questions, and answer them in the refutes/rebuttals, rather confusing, but since I'm posting first, you will get the concept completely. Max of 5 questions :)

1. Many gays (According to the Huffington Post) do not believe in God/are in a different religion, so what's the point of the Bible in this debate if many do not believe in God/are in a different religion?

2. On your final contention, you claimed it would "damage the population" can you further elaborate?

3. Isn't it good that it damages the population? It is allowing us to lower population, which means less death and poverty in the US.

4. Why don't you think homosexuality is a good thing?

5. How would people get hurt if there were more homosexuals?
TheRussian

Con

1. Why do you think homosexuality is good?

2. Why do you believe it should be supported?

I'm afraid those are all the questions I have. I have much more to say in the "refute/rebuttal" section.
Debate Round No. 3
chrissychaaos

Pro

chrissychaaos forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

TheRussian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
chrissychaaos

Pro

chrissychaaos forfeited this round.
TheRussian

Con

Well, this has not been a very fruitful debate, but I will finish it off.
"1. Many gays (According to the Huffington Post) do not believe in God/are in a different religion, so what's the point of the Bible in this debate if many do not believe in God/are in a different religion?"
About 58% of gays are Christian.
http://www.usnews.com...

"2. On your final contention, you claimed it would "damage the population" can you further elaborate?"
It is quite simple, the more gay couples, the less couples that can produce offspring, meaning the population goes down.

"Isn't it good that it damages the population? It is allowing us to lower population, which means less death and poverty in the US."
Population is directly related to everything. Industry, military, food supply etc. With the decline of population, a country's economy, defense and many social factors will be negatively affected.

"How would people get hurt if there were more homosexuals?"
If there are more homosexuals, then there would be more "targets" for radical anti-gay individuals.

Finally, the very definition of "marriage" goes against your argument.
mar"riage
G2;marij
noun
1.
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

I see no reason that gay marriage should be legalized. For centuries homosexuals and heterosexuals lived alongside each other and there was no trouble. I don't see why there should be trouble now.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by adolfzz 2 years ago
adolfzz
i dont think i like the idear of men having sex its just plain gay
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
chrissychaaosTheRussianTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits, Points con.