The Instigator
Tyler_P
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
BornToDebate
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and have equal rights in the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 7 votes the winner is...
BornToDebate
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,572 times Debate No: 35856
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

Tyler_P

Pro

Homosexuals SHOULD be allowed to marry one another in ALL 50 states. There is no real logical/legal reason to hamper this ability.
BornToDebate

Con

USA is currently suffering from an aging population! (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org...)

Homosexual couples do not, between themselves, and only do so by surrogate which takes up a woman's time from another relationship anyway.

In order to avoid America's ever-growing pandemic of an aging population the government must at the very least offer some sort of superiority to the sexual orientation that will help the nation get out of the rut it currently is hurtling into at full speed!
Debate Round No. 1
Tyler_P

Pro

I do agree that the USA's population is aging, however I believe this trend to be due to the "baby boomer" generation kids reaching their 50's and 60's.

According to http://www.census.gov... 3.98% of the USA's population is still ages 0-5. That is about 12,589,655 citizens just 0-5. So the notion that gay marriage will stunt our re-population is false.

(I was getting to your 3rd point but can't due to my idiotic self putting it at a 500 character limit. I apologize for the restriction)
BornToDebate

Con

Can a gay couple have children without cheating on their partner technically? No.


This is immoral and detrimental for society and harmony of people in it!

Government must save us!

http://godhatesfags.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Tyler_P

Pro

While your first statement is true. I don't feel that gay people lacking the ability to procreate is an incredibly important issue, if you read my previous statement.

Just because gay people CAN get married, doesn't mean that all of a sudden a bunch of straight people will just decide to be gay. That's not how it works.

All I want, is equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. Especially when it comes to marriage.

-Thanks for joining me in this debate!
BornToDebate

Con

The government has a duty to save it's people and if a way in which it can do so is by forcing its people to uphold to view the penises were created to be inserted into vaginae then all the better!

I have ultimately won this debate because my opponent admitted that what I said was true and even admitted to me, secretly, that he'd rather see straight pornography than homosexual pornography and this bias is thanks to brainwashing!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
Dominomac
I am curious Yummycod if you would be ok with the rougly 2500 governmental benifits that are currently given to heterosexual couples to be taken away and marriage would only be viewed by a religious institution. Which means no more joint tax returns, no more visiting rights, no more legal say to what should be done with your spouse if they can not speak for themselves. (i.e. in a coma)

By the way, a marriage license is a contract between the two parties and the government, not the church. With that in mind, same sex marriage is currently legal in some states. With the repeal of the 3rd part of DOMA, Federal benefits are now offered to same sex married couples in the states they get married,(also if they move it seems). I would be fine if domestic partnership rights are expanded to be identical to married couples, (even though the word married itself carries weight).
Posted by TheYummyCod 4 years ago
TheYummyCod
I have a few things to say also about the topic.

1. Homosexuals are allowed to marry. In fact, homosexuals have rarely not been allowed to marry, you only see that in Islamic Extremist Theocracies, where they kill homosexuals. In America, you have the (or used to have) the freedom to do as you wish and think as you wanted. If you were a homosexual and you wanted to get married, you go to a church that supports your lifestyle, and you get married. I find it interesting that the topic would be whether or not they should be 'allowed to marry', because it's giving the implication that people believe that they shouldn't be. Look, SWAT teams raid factories and arrest people every week for things like posting anti-government comments on a facebook wall, or giving money to the President's political enemies, or selling raw milk. If that isn't happening with gays, then I don't see how you can say that they aren't being allowed to marry.

2. In terms of equal rights, I don't see how gays aren't being given equal rights. Gay marriage laws are less like the Bill of Rights that people make it out to be, and more like the DOMA. In fact, it's exactly like the DOMA, giving the defining of marriage to the Government! The government has no right in defining marriage, and under no circumstance do they have the authority to! It is the domain of the individual, and for the government to attempt to force a viewpoint upon people by passing said laws is a complete abuse of power and breach upon the private lives of American citizens.
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
Dominomac
I have a few things to say about this debate, and the topic in general.

1. The idea that marriage is being redefined for the first time is observed. Marriage has meant something very different depending on when and where you lived. Polygamy was legal and "moral" in many cultures throughout history. Marriages were also viewed as legal contracts for the transfer of property (land, wealth, and/or the bride herself). Marriage was seldom done for love, that is a relatively new concept.

2. Marriage has legal ramifications. The idea that it is a religious practice has no merit to be used in a debate. (I know it wasn't in this one but it has in many other debates) Congress is not allowed to promote a religion, or prohibiting the practice thereof (to a point of course) according to the first amendment. There are thousands of legal rights that are only allocated to "married" couples. Domestic parterships do not have access to all of those rights. Imagine you are happily married to someone of the opposite gender and you moved to another state. Your spouse gets into an accident and is put on life support. Now imagine you tried to tell the doctors that your spouce didn't want to be on life support and they say you have no legal say. This is a problem that many same sex couples have to deal with. Also imagine your partner is injured and needs a blood transfusion. You have the same blood type, but if you are gay you are not allowed to donate blood.

3. The notion that homosexuals have the same rights is only true if you have the mindset that if a person of dark complexion in the 1950s had the same rights as a person of light complexion so long as they hid their African ancestry. This was done by many people who had some dark skinned decedents.

4. Aging population is a foolish argument. It is primarily due to the baby boom generation. Also the idea that if same sex marriage was legal everywhere that women would stop having children is ludicrous. Marriage equality for a
Posted by Tiff 4 years ago
Tiff
I find this debate very lame to say the least. To be honest, I find homosexual couples to be odd looking. However, I do not think they should be DENIED certain rights as someone in a less odd looking relationship. Why is this such a huge deal? If they do not allow marriage in one state, then marry in another state and return. Uproar and causing many protests and disrupting the peace is a bit unnecessary. It's what blows things out proportion and causes people to point fingers at the 'bad people' who really aren't bad people at all.

'BLAME THE CHURCH! BLAME HIM! BLAME THE GOVERNMENT!'

That's why this is such a huge issue.

Let's be very honest, 'male' and 'women' marriages are more natural. They repopulate the human race. They are biologically correct. Two males being wedded or two females is more of a 'partnership.' Not biologically acceptable looking, therefore 'weird,' and 'unappealing.' Something a straight person would not be able to absorb fully like someone who is 'bisexual,' or 'homosexual.'

Yes, homosexuals and such should have rights. But there is a line. They should be allowed to eat, drink, see their loved ones in hospitals, whatever it is the case and treated fairly like humans. But I do not think they should be freely allowed to 'marry,' and promote that same sex marriages are CORRECT. And that male reproductive organs were structured to go into a mans anus and not a woman's vagina, and that woman's vaginas are made to bump up against each other and that's the sole purpose.

Men are characteristically designed for women and vice versa. Though being gay is OKAY, it's GREAT, let's not forget that the biological design of Male and Female were for each other, to thrive with each other. Perfectly designed to mold one another.

Being gay is a okay, but I do not want our future to forget what it means to be 'male' and 'female.'
Posted by TheYummyCod 4 years ago
TheYummyCod
This debate is despicable.

Btw, I want to note, that the wording of the resolution turned it into a hypothetical debate -- assuming that homosexuals do not have equal rights, which is not true.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
This has gotten 9 likes, seriously?
Posted by Tyler_P 4 years ago
Tyler_P
Also, I appreciate the troll from BornToDebate in his argument. Funny, but a bit annoying for someone who was trying to have a legitimate debate.
Posted by Tyler_P 4 years ago
Tyler_P
In response to donald.keller- You are partly correct, but also incorrect. While churches and other religious establishments have their own marriage laws. It is also listed in the United States Constitution that the government has the power to create marriage laws. You don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
Posted by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Marriage is a Religious thing. You can't could make laws about it. It'd go against separation of Church and State. You don't like it? Make you're own Civil Union. Stay out of the Church's practices.
Posted by Daus 4 years ago
Daus
I think that it should be allowed in the US. Because really its just natural these days and whats so wrong about it??? I'm sure if you were gay you would want equal rights. Because love is a strong thing and there is no reason to have it broken up... I'm not gay myself but this is what I think on this topic.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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 stronger logical reasoning to why gays should not marry. Pro never really countered this and gave no strong arguments. Pro failed to fulfill the BOP.
Vote Placed by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm giving conduct to Pro due to Con's personal attacks in the last round. Spelling and grammar to Pro too, since there were a few mistakes in Con's grammar that significantly impacted the readability of the argument (second paragraph of round one said that homosexual couples do not, between themselves," - this doesn't say what they don't do; as well as him saying that it is a government's duty to save it is people. I'm particularly unforgiving over its vs. it's). Pro seems to have established the burden of proof on Con with his argument, and Con did not meet this burden of proof, since Pro seems to have adequately refuted Con's arguments. I gave Pro sources since I would be unable to sleep at night had I not done this, considering how Con cited the Westboro Baptist Church as a source (I do sincerely hope he was trolling...)
Vote Placed by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro because Con made a personal attack in their last argument. Unfortunately Pro was not up to the task here. There are simple arguments for gay marriage and even though Con presents Pro with the reasons why anti-gay marriage is ridiculous, Pro does not jump on it. Pro comes close when saying gay marriage doesn't lower heterosexual procreation and they almost make the connection that heterosexuals won't become homosexual (advice to Pro: you need to state these arguments more explicitly rather than alluding to them). These arguments aren't presented until the last round--they should have been presented in the 2nd round and more fleshed out. Furthermore, Con makes a case why it doesn't make sense to allow for gay marriage in terms of national interest and this is never fully refuted by Pro. Ultimately, Pro does not justify why gay marriage SHOULD be allowed, even if you accept the "no harm" argument from Pro.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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 did show that there was a logical reason not to allow Same-Sex Marriage. Adding in Conduct to out way what appears to be a Votebomb from Juan. This kind of topic, the side you don't agree with simply is going to be offensive to you. Neither side presented better sources (leaving out the Con's last source, they were even with only 1 good source each.) You really couldn't give either side anything but Convincing Argument.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to say that much of the content in this debate was offensive. Pro demonstrated that Gay and Lesbian couples should be allowed to marry. Con argued that they should not because the nation has a responsibility to reinforce matrimonial unions that result in the production of Children. His sources were unreliable and prejudicely slanted toward a specific view. He also failed to show that adoption cost can be cheaper both domestically and internationally than having a child through natural pregnancy. I ultimately awarded the win to Pro on multiple factors!
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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: agree with thett3. Kinda trollish by CON but whatever flips your bird, pun intended.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
Tyler_PBornToDebateTied
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: Pretty bad debate as Pro made no arguments at all. Saying there is no logical reason to deny rights to same sex couples may be true, but it is an assertion, not an argument. Pro mitigates the impact of Cons argument because..quite frankly, its a really really bad argument, but since Pro has no arguments and Con at least does (not to mention Pro having the burden of proof), Con wins by default