The Instigator
TheVoiceOfReason67
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Gay people should be able to get married.

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 3 votes the winner is...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 30731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

First and foremost I would like this debate to be short, sweet, and to the point. We will start simply by stating our views. Also, all controversial definitions will be solved by using the website "dictionary.com"
1Historygenius

Con

Hello, I am against gay marriage. I await my opponent's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

I would just like to ask how homosexual directly harms you. Please do not use religious texts, or hypothetical scenarios. Keep in mind that if you use the Bible, you are also saying that you agree that children who jeer their elders should be torn apart by bears (2 kings 2:23-24), and that at one point unicorns came down from the heavens and killed everything. (Isaiah 34:7), and that you should have sex with your jewelry. (Ezekiel 16:17)
1Historygenius

Con

My Case

Gay Marriage in Society and Government

Heterosexuals have a special value to society. This is because they can make children and continue the survival of society. If heterosexuals were not allowed to continue marry, they could not continue the survival of society. Homosexuals cannot produce children and thus cannot benefit society. To recognize gay marriage destroys this special value of heterosexual marriages. Because gay marriage cannot benefit society, the gov. does not legalize it.
Debate Round No. 2
TheVoiceOfReason67

Pro

So what you are saying is that men and women who are not fertile, should not be able t get married. Also, what about all of the orphans, who need to be adopted?
1Historygenius

Con

Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefitting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it. Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TD_Cole 3 years ago
TD_Cole
Even so, there are plenty of children in the world that don't have families or other's in there lives already why do we need to keep populating so massively when we don't even have enough parent's to take care of the children we do have. Vito con on that alone.
Posted by TD_Cole 3 years ago
TD_Cole
Your view point is by that? hmm someone never heard of a Surrogate. Gay people can't marry because they can't reproduce? A surrogate or even a sperm donor takes out that with logic. Marriage though is suppose to be for reproduction but there are certain benefits Gay people want to have and to show their love for one another. That's what marriage is suppose to be about. Love not populating the earth. Even so a sperm donor for a lesbian couple takes care of that and a surrogate for a male gay couple handles that. Sorry I can't vote yet but if I could I'd go pro just based upon con's reasoning in the first round alone. Including sources should of also been in your debate not on the comment board that's for us to reflect so your "sources" shouldn't be allowable.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
My sources for this argument:

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
My sources for this argument:

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
TheVoiceOfReason671HistorygeniusTied
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: Pro had the burden of proof. To meet the burden of proof, you need to make affirmative statements, and then support them with logic or evidence. Pro just asked questions, never tried to make a case. Con did make a case, even though he didn't have to. Pro didn't refute Con's case, just asked more questions.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
TheVoiceOfReason671HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented a framework where the USFG's job is to "promote the survival of society." While this argument doesn't seem particularly strong, Pro never really contested it. Instead, he brings up legal counter-examples (such as infertility). The counter-examples, though, don't necessarily mean the state is obligated to support homosexual marriage. At best, it shows the government is inconsistent. Con's conclusion is that the State has no need to change the status quo, which negates the "should" aspect of the resolution. Since there is no need for affirmative action, Pro has not met his BoP.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
TheVoiceOfReason671HistorygeniusTied
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 had the BOP and failed to be convincing in those parameters.