The Instigator
David.McIntosh
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
charles997
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay people should be allowed to marry

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
David.McIntosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 34476
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

David.McIntosh

Pro

I ask that since Con goes first, he/she leaves the last round free of argument. I would also like to state, I thank Con in advance for the debate and hop we both bave fun!
charles997

Con

It Is Not Marriage. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and we should not change that. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother. A child will always be missing either a father or mother after gay marriage. This makes a child have different intrests than a normal child and will be an outcast. This child might be laughed at for being different and noone will accept them.
Debate Round No. 1
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank con for his opening round, however he has failed in his attempt to show why there should be no Gay Marriage.

Con puts forward a few assumptions that I would like to deal with individually.

Con asserts that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, and that because of this we should not change. That the child will be missing one of the parents (a mother or a father), that this makes the child have different interests than a "normal" child and that this will make it an outcast. Lastly Con asserts that gay marriage might open the child up to ridicule, bullying and other negative things.


Always a man and a woman

I first will look at this one. Con has stated this, however he has not backed this up with any source. I put it forward that Con is blatantly wrong, for the following reasons. Same-sex marriage dates as far back as ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, recognition of it in western culture dates back to the early middle ages and polygamist marriages date back to before recorded history. [Sources 1 and 2 provide this.]

Modern religions may put forward that marriage has always been between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN, but this is just simply not true, they are lying as shown. It has been between a man and man, a woman and woman, or even a man and many women. So, having same-sex marriages now is no change, at all.


Keep things the way they are

Con asserted that because there has never been same sex marriage (which has already been proven wrong), that this means we simply should not change things. By that logic, we shouldn't have started to use the Internet, for, we never did before. But... here you are on the Internet. By the same logic, you could say they shouldn't have changed the laws regarding keeping a slave, and shouldn't have given ethnic minorities equal rights. Should we just start sending black people to the back of the bus and not let them marry any white people?

Laws change all the time, they change because our knowledge of things grow, and we adjust our moral compass accordingly. We learn that we shouldn't be discriminatory by colour, and we set about changing those laws. Why should that be any different from discriminating based on sexual preference?


The child is "denied a mother or father"

Con states that by having 2 fathers or 2 mothers, the child is denied one of each. While obvious, I must ask "So what?" I say this because you asserted this like one of each is better than having 2 mothers or 2 fathers. Again, certain religions and politicians claim this, however no study has ever shown that having 2 mothers or 2 fathers is any worse than having one of each. In fact, the only studies on this I've ever seen have pointed to the opposite.

We must look at the bigger picture. With a one male / one female couple, if they aren't thinking ahead they could very easily end up with an unplanned child. In the US alone there are over 3 million unplanned pregnancies each year (just shy of half of all pregnancies!). That means, almost half of all pregnancies in the US are to a family who may not have thought about having a child, may not have planned in advance for having a child, may or may not have the funds to keep this child, might have to make sacrifices to keep the child (e.g. Cut working hours etc.). They might have addiction, substance abuse or alcohol problems etc.

A child born unplanned, while there's all the chance that it could be perfectly happy, there's also plenty chance that the couple simply aren't able to cope with the new addition. Now ask yourself, how many one night stands in a same sex scenario do you think end in unplanned pregnancy? Take that thought, and now think, how many unplanned babies do you think they have? At the very least the odds are instantly better that the family will be prepared, that the family will love and care, that they will be financially ready and that they them self are at least partially ready to be parents.

I would also like to quickly touch on the fact that you are completely missing out any "normal" male/female parental couple that split up, leaving the child in a single parent scenario. Are you saying that a single straight parent is any better for a childs up bringing than a gay couple?


A child from a gay couple will not be normal

Does Con have anything to back this up? First off I don't know what you are defining as normal, but by my definition a child from a gay couple is just as likely to grow up normal than anyone else. If you can elaborate then maybe I will have more to go on, but I cant see how they wouldn't be normal just because of the parents orientation.


The child will be an outcast, will be luaghed at, will be different and no one will accept them

Where the hell is this kid growing up? Cause where ever it is, I don't want any kid, gay straight black or white growing up there. Clearly the town your reffering to has a real issue with how they treat people and instead of insisting that they dont have gay marriage, maybe they should crack down on the discrimination that the local inhabbitants seem to be dishing out. Do they do the same with race and religion? or are they just bigots.

There was a time when black people where outcasted, there was a time when people who thought the earth was round were laughed at, and there was a time when other religions were not accepted. Fortunately, most people have realised that they have no right to discriminate on anything they don't agree with. This issue should be no different.


Conclusion

Marriage predates religion. It was never "only a man and a woman". Change is how our society evolves. People discriminate, that doesn't mean gay people shouldn't marry, that means the people discriminating should learn to grow up and get some manners and respect.

Marriage is a legal contract drawn up between 2 people. There is no reason to deny that based on colour, race OR sexual orientation.




[1] www.nbcnews.com/id/20464004/#.Ua5_SEAT5lA

[2] http://books.google.co.uk...
charles997

Con

charles997 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
David.McIntosh

Pro

Con has conceded his round. Vote Pro!
charles997

Con

charles997 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Go vote :)!
Posted by person314314314 3 years ago
person314314314
Charles997 just copy and pasted.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Stubs, 2 reasons. Because my first round is already up, and 2, we live in a world where we don't stop people from doing something unless there is reason that they shouldnt, therefor the arguement should fall from a "why they shouldnt be allowed" point of view. Con can take any reason he/she likes, I simply cannot see one.

16kadams, cons last round yes, however that would leave me with only 1 arguement round and you with 2 if my side was summery in last . I would agree not to bring up any NEW points and only rebutle yours though.

TheDarkMuffin, I'l need to go check yours out! :)
Posted by stubs 3 years ago
stubs
why is con going first haha?
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
I will accept if the question is answered
Posted by TheDarkMuffin 3 years ago
TheDarkMuffin
Interestingly, I'm in a debate on this right now. And it's a very fun and challenging subject. I implore someone accept this. This is promising. I promise.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Do we get a summary last round?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
David.McIntoshcharles997Tied
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 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: FF
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
David.McIntoshcharles997Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.