Kimo vs. Pono; Social issues, gay marriage
Debate Rounds (5)
An incoherent statement, especially the last few line.
Here's my statement:
Gay marriage is not something we should allow.
Back to the point is there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, when you get married to some one you love them,(hopefully), and the gays out in the world most likely love their partner too!
Marriage should be allowed. There are several very practical reasons for this.
I would like for you to explain why gay marriage should be allowed. State the reasons
(That marriage is harmless in itself is not a reason. EG: Jumping is harmless in itself,
but jumping off a cliff is very harmless)
Before inputting supporting arguments, I would like to hear your reasoning for marriage.
I personally think we need some gay congressmen and women if we dot have some already.
One of the key reason gay marriage is not explicitly allowed in many legal codes is the immense base of opposition against its acceptance into said codes. To input such a code against such an army of opposition would incite discord. Recall the civil rights movements several decades earlier. Violence and hate exploded when demonstrators took to the streets in open proclamation for their cause. Unlike this gay marriage civil right, racial civil rights affected millions of people. The racial issue was much more pressing because it affected the people on a more fundamental level than does the gay-marriage issue. African Americans were forced into harsh living conditions and low waged jobs by discriminatory statutes. Many lived in poverty and had very little opportunities to succeed. The racial civil rights proponents fought for a worthy cause that elevate the living quality of millions who languished/suffered in horrid conditions. The gay marriage proponents fight for a trivial cause. Marriage is only legal contract binding two people. In older days, marriage was political and were used for economic/political unions (E.g.: the marriage of an Austrian princess and a French prince to solidify relations between the two nations). Instead of improving/saving the dreary lives of millions, allowing gay marriage only serves to give a small group of people the satisfaction of having a piece of paper binding them legally. The ends, however harmless, do NOT justify the terrible processes necessary to its implementation.
Marriage is not absolutely necessary. In fact, you could do very well off without such an inhibition. A relationship in which you live with your loved partner without legal restrictions...if it doesn't work out, then both parties can consent to a termination of said relationship without the difficult legal process/repercussions. It would also rid of the greedy spouse (those who marry for money).
"Lets just say you or I were gay, would you think it would be right marry he one you love?"
Once again, the proponent's goal is not to establish whether or not gay marriage is right because I already agreed that it IS right.
My opponent has the burden of proving gay marriage to be something that should be implemented; show me that it is absolutely necessary.
Why don't you just thank me directly? Asides from a little editing you will be prone to do, your essay is nearly completely made by my contribution...I think I deserve more credit than this. Plagiarism, while maybe tenable in high school, will not last you through college. The ultimate benefits of plagiarizing my work will not culminate into anything intellectually or ethically beneficial for you in the future.
By agreeing to the fact that gay marriage is not "neccesary at all" (necessary is its the correct spelling), my opponent has conceded to my points.
"On an online debate(debate.org), many people are debating whether or not gay marriage should be legalized and some are against, but, some without good arguments or sources, are in a way like Pono. But Pono said even though he was against gay marriage, he would let the states decide what they wanted to do about it. Pono would most likely agree with the forty four percent of Americans who believe same sex marriage should not be legalized and that it is unconstitutional."
As you can see I have not plagiarized, one because I do not wish to fail my class and two because I do not want my work plagiarized so I do not do that to other people. I did not thank you directly because other people have contributed by having other debates about the same topic.
"Thank you everyone who helped me do this" to one person in a solitary room.
My opponent has failed to address my points against gay marriage and has, therefore, lost this debate.
Con receives offense from having to do a debate against a dummy target that did not even intend to give any logical argument to unsupported statements. Conduct to con.
Con obviously exhibits the use of better spelling/grammar overall. This point also goes to con.
Con's contentions are completely uncontested. Argument goes to con.
Both sides have no sources: Tied in this area.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't refute Con's arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.