The Instigator
selena16
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
lyokowarri0r
Con (against)
Tied
4 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2016 Category: People
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 331 times Debate No: 90633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

selena16

Pro

I believe that people deserve to marry who they want without the judgement of other people. People can not help the way they feel. People are who they are, everyone deserves happiness in fact many of my friends are gay, bisexual, lesbian but that doesn't make them less of a friend as my straight friends. They are all equally amazing people. They breath the same air, they live on the same world, they have all the same feelings as everyone else. They are not afraid to express themselves but they often find it hard as many people are so judgmental towards them.
lyokowarri0r

Con

I understand the desire for equality in this sense,and I am sympathetic to the LGBT community. My roommate in college is gay. But the issue here is marriage. The feelings and happiness cannot interfere with law. The recent court case in the Supreme Court was unfounded. Nothing in the constitutions states that the government can manage marriage, thus, the 10th amendment states that this issue goes to the states. If said state does no want gay marriage, then it should be allowed to bar it. This is a issue of states' rights. I do not hate these people, I just want to keep with the law.
Debate Round No. 1
selena16

Pro

With gay marriage though you will have less transfer of STD s, I have never seen it any where in the constitution that it is gay marriages are wrong. I recently did my world history project on the constitution, when I realized that it is no where stated in the constitution that gay marriages are not allowed. So I decided to ask this; Why are people so against gay marriages? many say it is unnatural, but it really isn't, if it was unnatural I guess it is unnatural for women and men to get married, because gays feel the same way for their partners as men and women do.
lyokowarri0r

Con

The only thing that holds ground here is the constitution. It does not say that the government can regulate and make laws involving marriage, thus, under the 10th amendment, the power goes to the states. The constitution has no bias or opinion. If a power is not explicitly given to the fed, it then goes to the states. We also need to understand that in almost all regards, gay people have equal rights to everyone else. Marriage is hardly anything major when it comes to rights in light of freedom to speak, be educated, and vote.
Debate Round No. 2
selena16

Pro

There are more than those simple rights stated in the Constitution, people also have the freedom of religion, freedom to petition, right to bear arms. The state representatives can only go by what the people of the state want, which there are many people of those states who are gay. Many gay people are judged and looked down upon for who they are, which is not right. The states cannot always have control, the Constitution does hold very important things to it also the congress and others of the Judicial Branches have to follow it by law, or they can be taken out of office.
lyokowarri0r

Con

The percent of gay Americans ,off the top of my head, is around 5%. This is a very small number to legislate around the Constitution. There are many rights given in the Constitution, all of which gay people ought to have, BUT marriage is not one of them. I understand the hardships that the gay community must go through but gay marriage is not everything. Society is not ready for this new wave. If Congress amends the Constitution to include marriage, fine...that is the law. But until then, gay people are not granted the the right to marriage by the federal government.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Keagen// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Pro and their argument.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Agreeing with a given side doesn't explain why their argument was better, nor does it explain the decision to award conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by selena16 7 months ago
selena16
lol
Posted by selena16 7 months ago
selena16
My question is why aren't you actually cast your votes.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: firefury14620// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Con did nothing to change my opinion on the matter. The things he argued pretty much just encompassed that a law hasn't been made yet. I believe he was supposed to argue why it shouldn't be legalized, not that it hasn't been, because that is what pro is speaking out against.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G and conduct aren't explained. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to specifically assess points made by each debater, and not merely generalize about the applicability of general arguments made by one side.
************************************************************************
Posted by selena16 7 months ago
selena16
Thank you, firefury14620!!
Posted by firefury14620 7 months ago
firefury14620
I would like to point out that, just like in your argument, you have absolutely no good arguments viceregent. All you have said is that women are completely bad because they believe something different than you. If I follow that, men shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Posted by selena16 7 months ago
selena16
And what exactly is a 47 year old doing arguing with a 16 almost 17 year old besides looking very immature.
Posted by selena16 7 months ago
selena16
Stop being sexist this is the 21st century not the 18th. many women are more political than you are, infact I will have my complete nursing degree by the time I am 20. What did you have. i believe you are just angered at the fact that you were just proven wrong because you did not fully read nor understand the text in which you read.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
This chick is a living example of why we should abolish government schools and why women should not vote.
Posted by ViceRegent 7 months ago
ViceRegent
You said everyone deserves to by happy. Does this not include rapists and murders?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by firefury14620 7 months ago
firefury14620
selena16lyokowarri0rTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with pro before and after the debate because con didn't say anything that would change my mind. Most of his arguments were about the fact that a law hasn't been made, not that a law shouldn't be made. Conduct goes to pro because I believe pro was more professional. Con did have better spelling and grammar that pro, as I found numerous mistakes in pro's arguments. Pro made more convincing arguments because he gave reasons why con's arguments held no ground. There weren't many sources cited on either side.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 7 months ago
Phenenas
selena16lyokowarri0rTied
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: Con gave an actual argument based on Constitutional law. Pro mostly ignored it, and her attempt to refute it was rather weak and uninformed.