The Instigator
Babeslayer
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
CWL-GPA
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Legalization of gay marriage

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 3 votes the winner is...
CWL-GPA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 35438
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Babeslayer

Pro

Any person should be allowed to marry whoever they want to marry. If two people love each other, who are we to stop them?
Debate Round No. 1
Babeslayer

Pro

Well I guessed you would. Let me open with my argument for gay marriage, seeing as you've wasted round 1 with your stupidity.

What do most people have against gay marriage? Here are the 3 most common arguments against it, just so I can put you at a disadvantage.

1. It opens all kinds of doors for crazy marriages.
2. It ruins the sanctity of marriage!
3. It's unnatural, no other animal does it.

1: No it doesn't. Animals can't sign marriage documents and thus can't get married. Simple. Moving on!
2: Anymore than straight people already have? Look, if celebrities can be married for 12 hours then get divorced all for the sake of the cameras, then two guys or two girls who actually love each other should be allowed to get married.
3: That's because animals aren't capable of the emotional complexity of humans. Animals don't have serious relationships, they don't have wedding ceremonies. And if they do, it's because their owner did it, not the animal.

Hit me with your best shot, bro.
CWL-GPA

Con

1. And what about incest? polygamy? Heck, even children can sign their name. All my opponent has proven is that beastiality won't happen, but gay marriage can still certainly open the floodgate for a guy to marry his cousin.

2. And who says I'm opposed to laws regarding that? Fair enough, the government could implement a regulation that a marriage has to last a year in order to maintain the sanctity of marriage. Just because dumb things are legal doesn't mean they ruin the sanctity of marriage.

3. Penguins mate for life. Dolphins have recreational sex. Now that I've implanted those images into your head, I've also shown that some animals are in fact capable of emotional complexity. If they don't have to be gay, why do we? All part of the weed agenda I'm sure.

Also, let's not forget that over 60% of AIDS cases are caused my male to male sexual intercourse. Legalizing gay marriage could easily encourage the spread of disease. That being costly, as well, as health insurance premiums skyrocket.

My opponent has not met his burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
Babeslayer

Pro

"And what about incest? polygamy? Heck, even children can sign their name."
No, gay marriage doesn't open the door to incest. Two people loving each other regardless of gender is fine. Two people loving each other regardless of whether or not they're related by blood is not. That's two different points. And yes, children can sign their name, but again, it can't be a one - way thing. Marriage is a two way thing. And I haven't proven that beastiality won't happen, I'm proveing that a dude can't marry a rock. A guy and a guy getting married is on the same level now as a black guy marrying a white girl used to be in terms of social acceptability. It's different.

"Just because dumb things are legal doesn't mean they ruin the sanctity of marriage."
You think, honsetly think that a woman wanting to marry another woman because they're both in love and they want to get married is nearly on the same level as some dumb teen saying "Oh no, I'm prego, better marry the father right away!" or a celebrity saying "Like, I know I have a bazillion fans, but I don't have enough attention. *gasp* I've got it! I'll marry this person for a week to get some buzz!"?

"If they don't have to be gay, why do we?"
Yes, I know animals mate for life, I'm not retarded. But unless it's a disney movie (which I wouldn't be suprised if that was a large portion of your research material) animals don't have marital problems, they don't have affairs, and even if they do they don't have big breakups over it. And nobody HAS to be gay you blithering twat, it's something you figure out. And btw, you'd be suprised how many male dogs I see humping each other, so there's that.

"All part of the weed agenda I'm sure."
Didn't we already have this debate? What does this have to do with this debate?
Simple fact: WEED HAS NO CONNECTION TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AT ALL.

"Also, let's not forget that over 60% of AIDS cases are caused my male to male sexual intercourse. Legalizing gay marriage could easily encourage the spread of disease."
Okay. Firstly, what in the holy hell have you been reading? Secondly, even if that stat was true (which it probably isn't), how would keeping gay marriage illegal stop the spread? How would legalizing it assist in it? People wouldn't want to be gay more often if gay marriage was legal. You didn't see white guys rushing to the plastic surgury place when interracial marriage became legal.

CWL-GPA

Con

"Two people loving each other regardless of gender is fine. Two people loving each other regardless of whether or not they're related by blood is not."

That's not how a debate works. My opponent never explained why they're different, so we must assume that they're not.

"And yes, children can sign their name, but again, it can't be a one - way thing. Marriage is a two way thing."

So... the adult signs it, too? I was refering to pedophilia, not beastiality.

"You think, honsetly think that a woman wanting to marry another woman because they're both in love and they want to get married is nearly on the same level as some dumb teen saying "Oh no, I'm prego, better marry the father right away!" or a celebrity saying "Like, I know I have a bazillion fans, but I don't have enough attention. *gasp* I've got it! I'll marry this person for a week to get some buzz!"?"

Since you haven't explained otherwise, yes.

"And nobody HAS to be gay you blithering twat,"

Well that wasn't very nice.

"Okay. Firstly, what in the holy hell have you been reading?"

This: http://aids.gov... exact stat is 61%.

" How would legalizing it assist in it? "

Some homosexuals abstain from sex before marriage (e.g., gay Salvaiton Army officers), with them not having sex, less AIDS is transmitted.

" You didn't see white guys rushing to the plastic surgury place when interracial marriage became legal."

wut

Anyway,

The resolution has been negated.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
I believe gay marriage should not be legalized. There should be no law regarding marriage. If people ( or a group of people ) love each other the government should not say weather they can or can't get married. Although I don't personally agree with polygamy and incest, I accept it. If any person wants to get married let them just don't bother me. As far as the animal topic goes, what the heck. I have several dogs and they do have a complex hierarchy and thought pattern as far as I am concerned. My Terrier doesn't like the Collie if he eats the chip I drop on the floor. The collie knows so he lets the terrier have it. My Dotson can't drink water until the pit-bull does, but has to drink before the Chihuahua. And to be honest I think my German Shepard likes other girls. She always hangs around other girls but will never mate with any of the others we try to cross with. But hey she doesn't bark in my face every time she sniffs up a pretty little poodle in the dog park, so I still love her. Regarding the weed topic, Ummmm.. I think I missed something. Just some of my thoughts.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
BabeslayerCWL-GPATied
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: I really, really hate voting for such an indefensible position, but Pro argued very poorly for the right side. It would be incredibly easy to point out that there are 1,500 species which have been observed partaking in homosexual relationships, that gay marriage is between two people capable of entering into a contract (thus eliminating the possibilty of children signing on), or that "sanctity" is irrelevant to the legal system in terms of marriage.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
BabeslayerCWL-GPATied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with LWAV; very disappointing. Con was more civil, so (s)he gets conduct, while PRO gets spelling and grammar by a hair. CON gets arguments because (s)he actually made some.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
BabeslayerCWL-GPATied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was disappointing. I came in thinking, hmm I wonder if con will have a well structured argument against gay marriage. I bet he would have but there was no reason to. Pro was horrible. I was almost vomited when I saw some of the vulgarity and rude behavior, ( Calling people stupid, and saying a word I am uncomfortable saying. ). I gave pro spelling because I noticed fewer mistakes. I gave conduct to Con because he didn't swear and the such. I gave arguments to Con because pro didn't meet BOP. Lastly I gave sources to con because he had sources. If anyone cares about my opinions I will post it in the comments.