The Instigator
drisj
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
NotReallySmart
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Gay's should be able to marry

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 6 votes the winner is...
NotReallySmart
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 38984
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (6)

 

drisj

Pro

any one should be able to marry, auspiciously Gay's. I mean why the gay's and not the strait. and do you hate your sister or some thing cause she's gay, i know what u are your a big bully even to your sister shame on you tony
AUSTRLIA HATES YOU TONY FAGETT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NotReallySmart

Con

I accept this debate and hope that it will be entertaining and thought-provoking.

Burden of Proof is on PRO, but I will bring up sufficient evidence for my arguments.

I debate that gay people should not and are not able to marry people of the same sex (according to the definitions given below).

Marry: Join in marriage. (1)
Marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. (2)

#1 https://www.google.com...
(The first definition)

#2 https://www.google.com....
(The first definition)

Vote CON!!
Debate Round No. 1
drisj

Pro

drisj forfeited this round.
NotReallySmart

Con

I am displeased that PRO has forfeited this round and hope that he does not forfeit next round and that they will post an argument next round.

As PRO has not yet made an argument, I cannot make rebuttals, but I will further explain my argument.

As the definition of marry is, as I said last round, " Join in marriage."(1) and the definition of marriage is "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."(2), gays are not able to marry people of the same sex. A couple of the same sex cannot be husband and wife, since they are the same sex. I will further explain this by the definitions of wife and husband below.

Wife: A married woman considered in relation to her husband.(3)

Husband: A married man considered in relation to his wife.(4)

Therefore since gay couples have the same sex they cannot marry, there have to be different sexes for the marriage to occur. Now, since gay people cannot marry due to the very meaning of the word 'marry' we come to the conclusion that the resolution is unclear and that since gays cannot marry people of the same sex they "should not be able to marry" people of the same sex.

#1 https://www.google.com...
( The first definition)

#2 https://www.google.com...
( The first definition)

#3 https://www.google.com...
( The first definition)

#4 https://www.google.com...
( The first definition)

Vote CON!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 2
drisj

Pro

drisj forfeited this round.
NotReallySmart

Con

I am (yet again) upset that PRO has not posted an argument or rebuttal to my argument and forfeited this round. I hope they will post some material next round.

I have no arguments to post at this time. All arguments are extended.
Debate Round No. 3
drisj

Pro

Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. Although same-sex couples in de facto relationships have had most of the legal rights of married couples since July 2009, there is however no national registered partnership or civil union scheme.

Public opinion polls in Australia consistently show majority support for same-sex marriage, yet political and legal opposition to it has stymied a number of recent attempts at state and federal level to legislate for "marriage equality", which would require amending the federal Marriage Act.

Should marriage only be between a man and a woman, or are same-sex attracted people being denied the right to have their unions honoured by church and state in a moderm society which should recognise long-term commitment in relationships, regardless of sexuality?

What are the social, political, legal and religious considerations in the same-sex marriage debate? A balanced range of opinions from key commentators is presented in this book
NotReallySmart

Con

I am pleased that PRO has posted this round!!!

Rebuttals:

"Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. Although same-sex couples in de facto relationships have had most of the legal rights of married couples since July 2009, there is however no national registered partnership or civil union scheme.

Public opinion polls in Australia consistently show majority support for same-sex marriage, yet political and legal opposition to it has stymied a number of recent attempts at state and federal level to legislate for "marriage equality", which would require amending the federal Marriage Act."

PRO fails to understand that his resolution says "Gay's should be able to marry" although his resolution is grammatically incorrect the only fault is that instead of 'Gays' he uses 'Gay's'. So it is correct to assume that they mean 'Gays should be able to marry'.

I have already given definitions for marry(1) and marriage(2) which I am debating by.

PRO argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed, but does not argue that 'Gays should be able to marry' as his resolution says. Due to the definitions of marry and marriage that I have already given PRO is not making an argument supporting this debate's resolution.

#1 https://www.google.com...
(The first definition)

#2 https://www.google.com...
(The first definition)

Vote CON!!!!!!
Debate Round No. 4
drisj

Pro

Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? Australia is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most Australian "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do. I could give you a big lecture on how homosexuals should have equal rights because we are all the same however the argument is much more simple than that. Don't force your beliefs into law so that thousands suffer because of it. Like I said it all stems down to the fact that Australia is a very Christian nation. There is no other argument for being against gay marriage apart from religion. Religion is on a decline in Australia anyway With this decline in religion, the more states are accepting gay marriage. Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 1 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based. A person can attempt to use excuses such as polygamous however the simple fact is that they would not have these anti-gay marriage ideas anyway without some influence initially stating that gay marriage is a bad thing. The only influence of course, being religion.

Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion
NotReallySmart

Con

I would like to firstly say that I am happy to see PRO posting again.

"Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? Australia is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most Australian "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do."

PRO (again) fails to support the resolution 'Gays should be able to marry'. PRO argues that gay marriage should be allowed, but does not argue that 'Gays should be able to marry'.

"Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 1 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based"

I never said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia and we aren't arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, we are arguing whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not.

"Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion"

I will state again that we are not arguing whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in Australia, but whether 'Gays should be able to marry' or not, therefore your question is irrelevant. As we are arguing by the definitions I posted in the first and second round, since PRO hasn't stated otherwise (even if PRO had, they would still have to argue by my definitions since I posted the first definitions), your arguments do not support the resolution.

To conclude PRO thinks (upon inference from what he has posted) :

-- We are debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized
-- I said that gay marriage is now legal in one state of Australia

I have enjoyed this debate and hope that I may debate with PRO another time, soon.

Thank you for reading this debate.

Vote CON!!!!!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NotReallySmart 3 years ago
NotReallySmart
My arguments were very flawed, but PRO didn't take advantage of that. If he wasn't too busy copy-pasting maybe he would have realised that gay people are able to marry people of the other sex, but his resolution was unclear either way. He also should have expounded on his resolution in the first round and made definitions.

Proof of PRO's plagiarism (or ignorance of citations and/or quotation marks)

http://spinneypress.com.au... (The very beginning)
(Argument in 4th round)

For the second argument I couldn't find anything (because my Internet is bad and I can't copy-paste the whole argument on to Google), but the very fact that PRO's response was strange makes me doubt that it wasn't copied.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
If the contender wishes to have a proper argument on someone on the pro side of this debate, id be willing. The pro person on this debate does not seem like he/she will go anywhere good with this.
Posted by artydublu 3 years ago
artydublu
Careful, you might lose points for spelling and grammar.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
birdlandmemories
drisjNotReallySmartTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate on the part of pro. Bad conduct to start, some awful spelling, and poor arguments.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
drisjNotReallySmartTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro focuses on Australia--the resolution is not applicable to any particular nation. Pro has shown gay marriage to be desirable in Australia, but has not met the burden of the resolution. The resolution cannot be supported by one example alone; it must be affirmed on balance. The anti-religion tirade seemed more a personal rant than a well-constructed argument. It never addressed Con's core argument, and was therefore more of an aside than a real point of clash. Con never once used the bible as a justification for his assertions; in fact, Pro was the first debater to even mention the bible. It was not so much that Con presented the more convincing argument, but simply that Pro utterly failed to rebut anything or uphold her burden, that I am reluctantly forced to vote Con. Con gets argument points, and conduct points (for not forfeiting.) Con is also award s/g b/c of Pro's horrible round one grammar.
Vote Placed by Eliter 3 years ago
Eliter
drisjNotReallySmartTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO FF TWICE. WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE IS THAT FAGETT? BAD WAY TO START A DEBATE.
Vote Placed by QandA 3 years ago
QandA
drisjNotReallySmartTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor display from pro, Con argued this very well
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
drisjNotReallySmartTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Missed rounds. S&G: Spelling in first round was horrible.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
drisjNotReallySmartTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: UGH!!! Gritting teeth.... You saw what happened here.