The Instigator
Bruinshockeyfan
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jegory
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Legalizing 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...
Jegory
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 633 times Debate No: 35344
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal because people should have the right to marry whomever they want, same gender or not. Even if your against it i dont think you should be the reason to denie people marriage benefits and rights. Even if god or religion tells you its wrong that also shouldn't keep people from marrying who they love. Yes, people say marriage is between a man and woman but its the 21st century. Things have changed. Women can vote, segregation has practically ended, we have made many technological advancements, ect. Back then women voting seemed wrong but now its normal. Gay marriage can be the same. .
Jegory

Con

Firstly, I request that my opponent posts their arguments as soon as possible and I will try to do the same, as I will only be available for a couple of days.

Marriage is a tradition that has been in our civilisation for hundreds of years. Is it right to cast aside these rituals to make room for new ones? What will come next? Will we start giving Easter Eggs at Christmas? Will we start playing pop music at funerals?

Also, do homosexuals really want to get married? Marriage draws attention to the couple; would homosexuals really want that kind of attention?

In addition, homosexuals would feel pressured into getting married, even if they do not really want it.

Due to character restraints, I've had to keep this short. Over to PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

I understand that marriage is an old tradition but legalizing gay marriage isn't going to remove it. Its just going to allow gays to have the marriage benefits that everyone else enjoys so why should we denie them those benefits? I understand its going to be a big change. When woman began voting it was weird for people back then but they got used to it. Now its normal. When blacks and whites bagan going to the same schools some people didnt like it but now its normal. If homosexuals want to get married they will get married. Yes they will draw attention but i don't see why we should worry about that. Its their descision and i don't see why we should get into their buisness. If they want to marry let them do so.
Jegory

Con

There is nothing that says homosexuals cannot live together. There is nothing that says they cannot have children, in the case of Elton John, or adopt them. However, marriage is a tradition that should not be changed; traditions are made to kept, not to be changed at will.

I agree that people would get used to it, however there will still be some who disagree strongly.

I believe that the majority of homosexuals would not want to draw undue attention to their sexuality; who they choose to live with is a private matter and should not be publicised.

I also think they would feel pressured into getting married. We passed a law saying they could so a certain thing so they would feel obliged to do it, even if they do not want to.
Debate Round No. 2
Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

It used to be tradition that women didnt have a say in society and not vote but look how far we've come. Now a lot of women work, vote, and take part in society and it isn't wierd at all. Marriage also comes with benefits that they should deserve too

. Some people disagreed strongly with blacks and whites going to the same school but now its normal. A lot of people support diversity in schools and there isn't anything bad about it.

If they didnt want so much attention then they wouldn't get married but they should still have that right. As said before. Who are we to keep them from marrying.

I disagree. Allowing them to get married will give them the oppurtunity but wont pressure them to

Sorry 4 shortening the amount of letters
Jegory

Con

I don't really think women not having the right to vote is a "tradition" as such. A tradition is a ritual and a celebration of something that has been passed down for generations rather than a pre-existing sexist stereotype.

We already give homosexuals all the rights we have; the right to live together, to adopt children etc. However, marriage is a tradition rather than a "right" as such.

Passing a law allowing homosexuals to marry would most definitely put pressure on them to get married! In addition, people, especially those who object to gay marriage, would feel angry if homosexuals didn't take advantage of new laws.

Marriage can bring bad things too; more marriages, more divorces?

I thank PRO for this very interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
I strongly suspect that this debate was crippled by it's rules. A character limit seems to have been made with unreasonably strictness, and greatly hamstrung these contestants. I hope that this will be reconsidered, and that the debate may be replayed.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
No problem. I do agree thats marriage is a tradition but i still think gay marriage should be legal.
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
Thanks for this debate :P. It's been a pleasure debating this topic with you.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
BruinshockeyfanJegoryTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments that Con didn't address. Pro refuted Con's argument. Victory: Pro.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
BruinshockeyfanJegoryTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Among the very many good reasons to support an argument for marriage equality, I saw almost none of them used here. Pro emphatically states his own (very reasonable) opinions on the matter, but seldom seems to form a coherent argument with which to support those opinions. "Why not?" does not, to my mind, rise to the level of a decisive argument, as it permits the opinion of the opponent to remain viable. Con did not answer these opinions with any argument, either, but Pro took up the BOP in staking out the assertion in R1. I would hope that Pro leaves this debate, forms these facts into useful propositions, and returns with a strong conclusion in support of gay marriage. As this contest stands, I see very few scoring opportunities for either side. The scoring catagory for arguments does not (by itself) insist that we take into account such considerations as BOP, but asks "who made the most convincing arguments?" As the arguments seem only supported by opinions, my score is, as well.
Vote Placed by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
BruinshockeyfanJegoryTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro needs to work on his spelling and grammar, Pro also needs to work on forming strong arguments that stay outside of what could be considered, poll opinions. It seems that anyone can see Homosexuality as allowable in marriage because it is the right viewpoint. Tolerance is applauded, Con's argument here is most applicable. Tolerance towards a tradition is a good view, however, traditions are erected by groups of people, to be used only by those groups of people. Outside of this tradition there are others. Traditions are exclusive by definition. Even though Con's argument was stronger, it was still lacking influence. Pro, again, needs to develop a "Why?" to support his argument. Good job Pro, Con, witht the short character limit you made your thoughts known, that is a useful ability and I applaud both of you.