The Instigator
BIBLETHUMPER
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wundrweapon
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
wundrweapon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 83606
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

BIBLETHUMPER

Con

There shouldn't be same sex marriage because of the way it is affecting our society negatively.
wundrweapon

Pro

There should most definitely be same sex marriage. People who love one another, regardless of which gender they prefer to love, should be able to express that feeling in the way that people have been doing so for ages - matrimony (or whatever you wish to call it)
Debate Round No. 1
BIBLETHUMPER

Con

Thx for accepting!
I disagree, for example there was a cake shop and they refused service to a lesbian couple and they got sued, losing their company for standing up for what they believe in, which is unconstitutional, but due to the NEW law it was ignored.
wundrweapon

Pro

Should people run their company how they see fit? Yes, that's how I would do it myself. However, a company shouldn't be able to stomp on another person's beliefs just because the two contradict one another. In a better example, imagine a world where anybody who doesn't believe in Catholicism is punished by death. It's absolutely ridiculous! Now let's take that concept and replace it with something else - same sex marriage. If, in this world, any gay or lesbian was punished just because they're not like the leader of a given country, that's simply unethical. My point is this: it's not unethical to HAVE same sex marriage, but rather it's unethical to PUNISH same sex marriage.

And you're welcome - I love this topic :)
Debate Round No. 2
BIBLETHUMPER

Con

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
wundrweapon

Pro

The point of that argument is not to say that same-sex marriage and racial equality are equal topics, but that they are similar in essence - the racial equality supporters wanted to say that everyone is a person with certain unalienable rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence (not that they specifically said those words). Same-sex marriage supporters are saying the same thing - that whether or not you are a homosexual, you are still a person who has a right to marry the person you love. And does same-sex marriage "oppose nature" by having two individuals marry who cannot participate in intercourse with one another? I suppose in a way it does, but do you know what else opposes nature? Industrialization. The ozone layer of Earth's atmosphere protects its neighboring creatures from deadly UV rays, and that's really great. There's a problem though: when humans came around, eventually we got to industrialization, which is destroying the ozone layer bit by bit. Are you going to go around rioting about destruction of the ozone layer? No - after all, the machines pumping out greenhouse gasses are the things that made the materials for the forenamed riot. Plus, same-sex marriage just says that a few given people can't have kids. OK, whatever. Industrialization, however, is putting thousands upon thousands of species lives' on the line. After all of that, same-sex marriage is an issue? Of course not - it's just a change in human society as we know it, bringing people closer to a state of complete equality.
I guess it really boils down to this: a person's opinion on this kind of subject isn't based on the details of said subject. Rather, it's based on whether or not that individual is prepared for a changing world for the future. The people who support homosexual marriage are simply people who are not only ready for these changes, but the catalysts for them - and that's just beautiful.
Debate Round No. 3
BIBLETHUMPER

Con

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
wundrweapon

Pro

Are you, therefore, going to deny those people that gratification simply because they can't have a biological child? Of course not, that's denying them the right to the pursuit of happiness as defined in the Declaration of Independence. If may not be law, but that's part of the goal of the US government (just using the US as an example). Now look at that key word: biological. Children can be raised by gay couples through adoption, and it's been done before - a lot. Another thing is that you keep relating "true marriage" to sexual intercourse - true marriage is just a legal bond between two or more people by law. It has absolutely nothing to do with intercourse, especially considering that you can have children without being married, and you can be married without children. And here's another thing: homosexuality came to be due to a genetic mutation - some bases got flipped around, and people became more attracted to the same gender. If you ban same sex marriage, you might as well ban every other genetic mutation as well, or maybe you'll ban Down syndrome along with it, as that's a trisomy in chromosome 21 - unnatural. But do you know what banning those two things, namely the former, would mean? You'd have to create a genocide for every living creature on Earth. Are you going to do that? Of course not - it's stupid! My point is, banning same sex marriage is, in the simplest of terms, asinine.
Debate Round No. 4
BIBLETHUMPER

Con

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
wundrweapon

Pro

As I've said before, homosexual couples can raise children through adoption, a method that marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - supports. This completely invalidates your argument that marriage is built "toward the procreation and education of children." To further that statement, remember that a heterosexual couple - likely married, gave up those children in order to support the education of their children. As far as "the unity and wellbeing of the spouses" (which should be spelled "well being") goes, homosexual marriage does exactly that. Two people in love with one another are legally united and are happy to be with each other "till death do [them] part." Even you yourself said that homosexual marriage "propose[s] the union between two men or two women" even though you previously said that "marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman ... ordered toward the ... unity ... of the spouses." By saying that homosexual marriage denies the union of two spouses, then stating that it does, completely nullifies your argument.

I've said this once and I'll say it again: despite what you continue to say, marriage is not directly correlated with sexual intercourse or the raising of children, although it does support it. Marriage is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" OR "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." This means that by literal definition, both heterosexual and homosexual marriage are the same, in juxtaposition to what you claim.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: gametimer// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I agree that the homosexual way of life is kind of ruining our countries structure. I disbelieve in inequality, but getting married is putting people in jail, and causing riots, and therefore is bad on society.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to directly assess specific arguments given by both debaters, and not simply present their own views on the topic to decide the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 10 months ago
BIBLETHUMPER
now its gonna be a really long voteing period...............
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 10 months ago
BIBLETHUMPER
I am sorry, this was my frist debate idk how to set it...........
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 11 months ago
BIBLETHUMPER
Thank so much gametimer!!!
Posted by Hutch96 12 months ago
Hutch96
I'm going pro on this one.
Posted by BIBLETHUMPER 12 months ago
BIBLETHUMPER
ok then thx
Posted by raskuseal 12 months ago
raskuseal
Since this looks like one of the three needed for biblethumber to be able to vote, I'll be quick. I completely agree with BibleThumper on this.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 10 months ago
Wylted
BIBLETHUMPERwundrweaponTied
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: Tough to decide, given the extremely weak arguments on both sides. Pro gets the win nased on better positive arguments. His premises were better explained and went into more detail. As far as the rebuttals are concerned, pro knocked down every objection brought up. Kids through adoption for example knocks down the gays can't have kids argument. Con offerred practically no revuttals for tge positive arguments such as "fairness", while pro offerred rebuttals for everything