The Instigator
TheRoyalBob
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
compuadam
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Marriage equality should be accepted and allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
compuadam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 986 times Debate No: 30981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

TheRoyalBob

Pro

I am for marriage equality. The arguments against it rest on morality and religion but as far as politically they're are few valid arguments. In the case of North Carolina (my home state) it is clear that the republicans were to scared to hold the vote in November and held the vote during the primaries in May. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal. Thank you.
compuadam

Con

I accept this debate, and I look forward to hearing my opponents opening pitch.

Thank you, and good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRoyalBob

Pro

My opponent Has failed to give any rebuttals to my former points. I fell that my opponent either is flustered or doesn't care. If the republicans of North Carolina had been confident in there ability to win the marriage amendment they would have voted on it in November. I am suspecting my opponent is going to pull the religion card. Do I believe it is a sin yes. Do i believe it needs to be regulated by the government. NO! I again look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
compuadam

Con

My opponent hasn't clarified whether he wants to debate over gay marriage or North Carolina politics.

Marriages are costly. The state should not allow gay marriage if it has no chance of propagating society, and thus will drain society every time. [1] Also, studies show that children need both male and female parents.[2] A gay union would deny this to the child.


1. [http://www.freerepublic.com...]
2. [http://www.cfcidaho.org...]

Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
TheRoyalBob

Pro

My opponent does not give satisfying evidence as their are only two links.

And I maintain that Gay unions should not be regulated by The Government. If the Government can say that you Can't marry someone of the same sex why can't they say that you can't marry someone of a different race. Also a homosexual will not propagate society anyway. In conclusion I say Thank you for your time and let the voting begin in a maximum of three days.
compuadam

Con

The government is not regulating gay marriage by not allowing them. Rather, it is avoiding something very expensive that would be a major drain on the economy and society.

My opponents gender/race analogy is completely inaccurate. A marriage than includes multiple races can procreate, and can thus propagate and benefit society. A homosexual marriage, on the other hand, will drain the economy and society every time.

Thank you for your time, and for a very interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by DWolf2k2 4 years ago
DWolf2k2
I believe the Argument is concerning Marriage Equality in the current usage, as in that Marriage should be allowed without regard to the genders of the partners.
Posted by Sojourner 4 years ago
Sojourner
sorry...NOT directly related
Posted by Sojourner 4 years ago
Sojourner
Being a fellow North Carolinian, I am tempted to accept this debate, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by marriage equality. Marriage equality exists in NC today. Anyone is free to marry anyone else as long as they are someone of the opposite sex, and they are directly related.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
TheRoyalBobcompuadamTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
TheRoyalBobcompuadamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't argue anything and shifts burden of proof onto the negative instead of proving one's points.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
induced
TheRoyalBobcompuadamTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: by Cons logic, why shouldnt we just deny any assistance to anyone in society who isnt contributing enough? and who says that making babies is so beneficial to society. we have more than enough babies. gay people contribute to society too, asshole.
Vote Placed by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
TheRoyalBobcompuadamTied
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: I can see why Con used the first round for acceptance only, as I also didn't think Pro made any arguments in his first round and was also expecting a case--conduct to Con. Despite being instigator and Pro, he didn't present any arguments until the last round. Con refuted Pro's argument in Round 3, and due to limited rounds, Pro was unable to counter. Pro states two seemingly contradictory things, which is that he is for marriage equality, and yet "And I maintain that Gay unions should not be regulated by The Government." Not sure what to make of his position. Basically, arguments to Con because they were "less bad".