The Instigator
Ienjoysaturdays
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Truin
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Same Sex Marriage

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ienjoysaturdays
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 24014
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Ienjoysaturdays

Pro

Okay, this is my first debate so I'm not actually 100% sure how it works, I just wanted to debate someone. I was just in the mood. So here are some common arguments against gay marriage, and my responses:

The bible says- I'm going to cut you off right there. The bible says lots of things, I don't think that we should use that as a reference.

But god thinks- I'll cut you off there, too. Our nation was founded on the seperation of church and state, and incorporating religion into politics is purely unconstitutional.

If men start marrying men, they'll start marrying animals!- That's wrong. Scientifically, no animals mate with other species of animals, so why would humans do the same?

Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. That's how it's always been.- Also wrong. Men have been gay since the beginning of time; in native Americans tribes if you were gay you were celebrated and were considered sent from the gods.

So there ya go. Just four that I could think of.
Truin

Con

I accept and will agree that religion has no place in this debate.

If men start marrying men, they'll start marrying animals!- That's wrong. Scientifically, no animals mate with other species of animals, so why would humans do the same?

People have begun doing this. There are things like bestiality this is when a human has intercourse with a non-human creature.

Traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man. That's how it's always been.- Also wrong. Men have been gay since the beginning of time; in native Americans tribes if you were gay you were celebrated and were considered sent from the gods.

This is true. I know this is to be true in my study of history.
Debate Round No. 1
Ienjoysaturdays

Pro

Okay, I take back my argument that it just doesn't happen. Lots of things happen with humans though, and lots of people are born different ways. Some are born sexually attracted to even cars. However, that doesn't make it legal because the animals have no way of actually telling us that they are mutually okay with marriage. Even in that video when they talk about the stallion, it doesn't speak a language. There's no way of it contacting them about marriage, which is the topic at hand here. In same sex marriage, they can both agree to it.

Good argument! I'm excited to see where this goes.
Truin

Con

The use of finding a mate is to reproduce gays can not do this do to biology. So in evidence one must say it defeats the whole purpose of "mating". Gay marriage in the art of bringing on a stronger and better species is a harm. Genetic diversity is needed and marriage was first began for this reason. If one is gay genetics stop here being with one another is then a wasted effort as if one wants to have children the couple have to look elsewhere. It would be just easier to find one you can bring genetic diversity.
Debate Round No. 2
Ienjoysaturdays

Pro

One could also argue that there is no "use" in finding a mate.Most people say that the reason that the human population is here is to reproduce and continue the species, but what's the point if there's nothing special about the species to reproduce? The thing that separates humans from most species is that we are able to do activities and things that don't have to be about our survival. Homosexuals can adopt or find someone to carry their baby for them; there are plenty of kids that are born that people don't even want, so arguably what's the point of those couples? I know plenty of couples that are well into their fifties or sixties and have gone through their entire lives, and just don't want kids. Plus, with current overpopulation of our species today, isn't it fair to say that by not being able to reproduce it's even helping? Finding someone isn't completely based on reproduction. If it was, then we wouldn't have emotions, and people wouldn't be having sex for fun as well as reproduction. There are plenty of examples of representations of people having sex without the intention of reproduction.
Truin

Con

The special ability of genetic diversity gives people an edge in the concept of basic survival both in intellect, strength and protection from environmental hazards like disease. In this we better our race as a whole. If the outcome is not in the better then a individual with less ability is born and becomes less able to succeed in finding a mate.

If homosexuals adopt or look elsewhere for the use of creating a child then they are not combining there genetic code with there mate but with another. Either way the genetic of this partnership are never joined.

I agree with my rival that human population is over expanded.

I agree people like myself have sex for pleasure but that is different from mating. Sex is the act of doing the deed with another for fun. To find a mate is to find a life partner to share life with. A mate that cannot give a child is a useless concept for humanity.
Debate Round No. 3
Ienjoysaturdays

Pro

But humans aren't on the earth just for mating. We're here to have friends, learn about the earth, have fun, etc.

The thing that separates humans from most other species is that we are able to do things that aren't primarily for our survival, as previously mentioned. We're not here only to mate.

As it is, the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is 1:10, but the expected ratio including what we think are closeted is 1:3. That means that ether way, we still have a larger heterosexual population than homosexual. The human species will still carry on, and irregardless of whatever argument there is, we are still denying humans in our society their basic rights, which goes against literally EVERYTHING that our country was founded for.
Truin

Con

The purpose of all species is to attempt to thrive. We do this by learning about our environment it is what makes us the dominate creature. Physically we are not the strongest or fastest so we focus on knowledge. Everything is for the betterment of our race as a whole.

The recognition in the states for marriage is with a man and women those citizens who are gay are not included with this marriage is narrow and do not include and never have included same sex couples.
Debate Round No. 4
Ienjoysaturdays

Pro

So you agree with everything I said...

Listen, homosexuals have always been around, and ways will. Denying them the right to marriage doesn't change anything but add more prejudice to the world, which is something that we desperately need to get rid of.
Truin

Con

The process of legalizing same sex marriage will create a civil unrest, protest and even illegal beatings of gays will ensue among the public. Proof of this will be in our very history among the civil rights acts. Prejudice is wrong but the chaos and disorder it will cause the United States of North America at this point will create a bad situation (our public order has been declining in this economic hardship). Ex. Protests of Wall street. There is no point in legalizing till the government has stabilized. Still even then the governments definition of marriage will have to be changed. Even so change in government is rare and won't occur many believe that marriage should remain the way it is as gay families will never be considered the norm the the confusion it can cause children and so forth. Same sex marriage though not immoral is rationally not needed with the many more important issues. The constitution does not protect the rights of gays but it also does not prohibit the issue. I believe I have shown the reasons for holding out on this issue in government.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
Wow, what a fail debate!
Posted by Truin 4 years ago
Truin
I wanted to say I played the devils advicate in this debate. I believe in gay marriage and will gladly vote for legalizing it for my family has gay people within it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by K.GKevinGeary 4 years ago
K.GKevinGeary
IenjoysaturdaysTruinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: sources con for the video, spelling fine, pro was more persuasive hence the points for that, pro refuted cons points more superior in my opinion regarding the vote for arguments, the statistic regarding the ratio of heterosexual to homosexuals is strong, the species will survive regardless, The point on government being hipocritical for not allowing gays to marry is a point into the arguments, Con had points but the civil unrest that would supposedly occur seems like a fallacy hencenotpersuasive
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
IenjoysaturdaysTruinTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Really, the only argument that came up was on the continuing of our genetic code, which Pro negated. Also, I gave teh sources to the con because he actually used one. All in all: bad debate.