The Instigator
dancerxx2
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Merda
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Gay marriage.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Merda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,631 times Debate No: 16759
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

dancerxx2

Pro

Everyone should be able to marry who they love. Why can I marry who I love, but someone who is gay can't? There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Not allowing some people to get married is discrimination. There is nothing different about them besides the fact that they are homosexual and others are heterosexual! It is a human right to marry who you love; if they can't, no one should be able to.
Merda

Con

Before we begin allow me to define marriage according to U.S. law.

Marriage: a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife[1]

My opponent makes a few assumptions in her case. They are that:

Everyone should be able to marry who they love.

Why is this? My opponent brings no warrant for this assertion.

Why can I marry who I love, but someone who is gay can't?

The answer is complicated, but the short answer would be that marraige is by definition a union between a man and a woman. Thus, a homosexual couple cannot possibly be married. Gay marriage is the same as yellow blue, a contradiction in terms.

It is a human right to marry who you love

Again, why is this? My opponent again brings no warrant to her assertion. I would write more but there is a 1,000 character limit. So, in conclusion, my opponent has not upheld her burden of proof and so I urge a Con vote.






[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
dancerxx2

Pro

First, I would like to thank my opponent for entering this debate.

It is true that a marriage is said to be between a man and a woman, but is it not true that voting used to only be for white, land-owning men? Is it not true that it was legal to enslave colored people? My point is as society grows, we make changes. This is one change that has to be made for our country.

My opponent asked why everyone should be able to marry who they love. To answer that, why should heterosexual couples get married? If your answer is that it is legal, then why should women vote? It is simply how the world works. Everyone deserves the same rights and I believe that that's what we believe as Americans. All people can be lawyers, all people can be teachers, all people can vote, therefore, all people should be able to get married.
Merda

Con

My opponent tries to counter the definition of marriage with an analogy about woman's suffrage. Her line of reasoning goes that once woman could not vote and now they can. Therefore the definition of marriage should be changed. However my opponent again provides no warrant as to why the definition needs changing.

Well I'm wrong, she did provide one reason. It was that not allowing homosexual couples to marry was discrimination. Of course it would only be discrimination if homosexual couples were beig denied the right to marry arbitrarily. I however showed that homosexuals are denied the right to marry for the valid reason that marriage entails a heterosexual union. So really, my opponent's logic is circular. My opponent's reasoning hinges on the definition of marriage already having been changed to allow homosexual unions, thus actually discriminating.

My opponent has not upheld her burden of proof as her only argument was based on circular logic. I urge voters to Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PhantomLemon 5 years ago
PhantomLemon
You could also bring up the argument to "Everyone should be allowed to marry who they love" with questions such as "If one person loves another, but the feeling isn't mutual, do they have to marry them anyway?" as well as "A child and an adult may be in a 'relationship', but would it be wise to have them be allowed to be married?"
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
dancerxx2MerdaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Votebomb was removed removed, but Con had better arguments as well as sources
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
dancerxx2MerdaTied
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: Pretty clear.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
dancerxx2MerdaTied
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 wins s Dancerxx2 failed to establish her case.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
dancerxx2MerdaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets the point for the only source. He also get the argument vote because pro's argument was basically that because other laws have been changed, this one should too.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
dancerxx2MerdaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Tim, 2 pt to Dancer for a new member starting a decent topic though warrant would be nice.