The Instigator
123456789123456789
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Motormouth
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is gay marriage ok

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...
123456789123456789
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 979 times Debate No: 55509
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

123456789123456789

Pro

First round is acceptance, no new arguments in round 4 just rebuttals
Motormouth

Con

Gay marriage is NOT OK. I know about free will but, If your a christian and a true believer in Jesus Christ than you would know.
Debate Round No. 1
123456789123456789

Pro

I read the comments and I define "ok" as morally acceptable and should be legal.

I will now present my arguments:

P1) Unjust bigotry: People are discriminated against for their sexuality, even to the point of lynching [1]. In the workplace, some gay employees will be paid less, fired, or not hired in the first place do to these prejudices [2]. The legalization and normalization of gay marriage would help with this issue greatly.

P2) Financial benefits: By the law, marriages are both a civil and financial union, denying gay people this right will hurt their income and assets. This could cause debt to rise or poorer credit. [3]

P3) Tax benefits: Gay unions could bring in many millions of dollars tax revenue year round [4a]. This is proven by the NYC city income increase with gay marriage [4b].

P4) Fairness: It is not at all fair if the LGBT community cannot marry but the heterosexual community cannot.

P5) It is not a choice: If it were a choice no one would be gay. Not because it is wrong, because of the discrimination.

P6) Who is it hurting: If you are right, being gay is not moral and gays will go to hell, (if that is in fact what you believe) they are already going to hell and it doesn't matter if they can get married lawfully.

P7) Government: The USA has no official religion, its ideals of impartiality should reflect that.

I will now rebut possible arguments by my opponent:

R1) Argument rebutted, It is agains the bible: specifically it is against Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, If we choose to follow Leviticus, polyester should also be illegal, Leviticus 19:19 says not to mix fabrics.

R2) Argument rebutted, God hates gays: John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.", if this is true god does not hate gays. If god is love and hates gays he is the opposite of himself, which is impossible.

R3) Argument rebutted, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve: I prey to god you don't use this argument, it is the N-word for LGBT people.

R3) Argument rebutted, Only use the word "marriage" for straight unions, use the term "Civil Union" for LGBT unions: So, separate but equal. That turned out great!!! (sarcasm)

I will now pose questions to my opponent:

Q1) if god hates gays, why does he do so?

Q2) What harm does it do?

Q3) If god hates gays, why do they exist

[1] http://www.wsws.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://money.howstuffworks.com... (read all slides)
[4a] http://www-personal.umich.edu...
[4b] http://money.cnn.com...
Motormouth

Con

In response to all of your interesting points: Marriage is between one man and one women. You may have a different belief than I would. This debate will not change your mind therefore I will not waste my time. Thank you but I quit.
Debate Round No. 2
123456789123456789

Pro

I maintain my previous arguments, I will start a new debate on this topic in hopes of an opponent who will complete it. I did not intend to change con's mind with this debate.
Motormouth

Con

My mind was never changed. I tried to change yours and I failed. Its all yours buddy. I shouldnt have taken on this challenge.
Debate Round No. 3
123456789123456789

Pro

123456789123456789 forfeited this round.
Motormouth

Con

Motormouth forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by T_parkour 3 years ago
T_parkour
People had free will since the beginning. They CHOSE to disobey God and eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Wait, people in Sodom and Gomorrah did not have free will, God simply made them that way and then killed them for no fault of their own? Damn! That's actually worse than God's policy of inaction during the Holocaust (the relevance of this, stems from which being worse; butt sex or mass genocide?).

I am not trying to be harsh, but this is a debate site. If accepting debates, please have an argument to put forward.
Posted by Motormouth 3 years ago
Motormouth
I case you haven't heard why GOD didn't destroy gays was because isn't true. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality. He then created free will. He didn't want to force anyone to do anything. He gave commandments and he wants us to follow them. He wont force us to follow them.
Posted by Motormouth 3 years ago
Motormouth
I got angry. I gave up simply because, I don't understand the reason why people are so Naive not saying that my opponent is.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Jesus not marrying has nothing to do with gayness either.
Posted by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
What the hell, Con. Why did you even start if you were just going to give up in the second round?
Posted by 123456789123456789 3 years ago
123456789123456789
Uhhh I am pro, I forfeited a couple debates because I forgot about them.
Posted by Motormouth 3 years ago
Motormouth
XD I won't forfeit and Jesus didnt marry because he didnt need to. It doesnt mean he was gay.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I suspect pro will forfeit, but otherwise con has quite a lot of work... Considering that Jesus did not marry, I fail to see the relevance of him to this debate. (this is not trying to debate in the comments, it's a reaction note to help con improve their case in later rounds).
Posted by doomswatter 3 years ago
doomswatter
Define "OK".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
123456789123456789MotormouthTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceeded.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
123456789123456789MotormouthTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession from Con. Pro constructed a full and sourced case, which nets arguments and sources. S&G was equal enough, and they both forfeited the last round. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.