The Instigator
TheWorldIsComplicated
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Same-Sex 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 350 times Debate No: 92487
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

TheWorldIsComplicated

Pro

I believe that same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere. The opponent believes that it shouldn't. During this round please state that you would like to debate me. I respect everyone's opinion, and I am not trying to bash them.
David_Debates

Con

I accept the debate. However, I'd ask Pro to define his terms in the next round.

Looking forward to an enjoyable debate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheWorldIsComplicated

Pro

I believe that same-sex marriage is fine. Gay people don't hurt me, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings. Many people tend to bash gay people "in the name of God" like the Westboro Baptist church. These people are indirectly calling God a hypocrite because the Bible clearly states "Love thy neighbor as they self." The WBC says that God hates gays, the Bible never says that, but God loves everyone.

We are not trying to define the meaning of marriage (the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.) Note: This definition was updated to include same-sex couples. We just want gay people to be able to get married, there is absolutely no harm in that. The Bible states that there shouldn't be same sex, but it never says anything about the people themselves. So having sex with someone of your sex is a sin, so what? Judging, lying,and eating shellfish are sins, but we all still do those things. It doesn't make to sense to me how we throw a fit on a single sin in the Bible when there are hundreds of sins mentioned.

A lot of people say "It is unnatural" but what's unnatural about two people falling in love with each other? Gay people should not be treated as second class citizens, they should be able to get married and not be discriminated against. This is exactly like blacks in the 1960's, a lot of people hates blacks them but society eventually accepted them. We don't say letting a black man and a white women getting married is an abomination and it redefines marriage.

Gay couples, can't have biological kids (Unless they use a sperm bank," but isn't that good. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we are definitely running out of room and materials. They can always adopt and the "Children need a father and a mother" simply isn't true. Plenty of well-known people had only a father or mother, so they didn't have both. Two fathers/mothers don't effect a child. The only bad thing is that the child could get bullied, but I doubt the next generation will judge if someone's parents are gay/lesbian.

Being gay is not a lifestyle. If it was, when did you choose to be straight? Some gay people would choose to be straight if they could, who would want to be treated so poorly and harassed. Most of the stories you hear now a days are priests molesting little girls, so the whole gay pervert stereotype has died out. It does not promote polygamy or incest either. Incest a lot of the time leads to birth defects because of how similar the genes are. Comparing a man having more than one wife to a man marrying another man (or woman) doesn't make any sense. Gay marriage simply encourages a better life for gay people and makes them feel respected. It isn't hard to treat someone with dignity and love, regarding of who they love.

Let's not get into the transgender bathroom issue either, that's a whole different debate.
David_Debates

Con

Seeing as you didn't present any definitions, I will. By the way, your argument to not wanting to define your terms is detrimental to your case. Undefined terms are the bane of any debate.

Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship
Same-sex marriage: same as above, except between two of the same sex.

Now, I will rebut your points.

1) I believe that same-sex marriage is fine. Gay people don't hurt me, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings.
To paraphrase the validity of your argument by simply using a different term, stealing:
I believe that stealing is fine. I haven't had my wallet stolen from me before, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings.
Your argument breaks down once we analyse why you believe it is not wrong, specifically, that "they don't hurt me." This doesn't make something morally correct, it makes you ignorant to the repercussions that are caused to others. Just one of the victims in a same-sex relationship are the children. "A large and growing body of scientific evidence indicates that the intact, married family is best for children. In particular, the work of scholars David Popenoe, Linda Waite, Maggie Gallagher, Sara McLanahan, David Blankenhorn, Paul Amato, and Alan Booth has contributed to this conclusion (1)." I'd recommend you read the article I'll link below, it discusses these issues in detail.

2) We are not trying to define the meaning of marriage (the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.)... We just want gay people to be able to get married, there is absolutely no harm in that.
This is the same argument as above. There are harms that the media doesn't want to tell you; harms that affect the children and the couple themselves.

3) So having sex with someone of your sex is a sin, so what? Judging, lying,and eating shellfish are sins, but we all still do those things. It doesn't make to sense to me how we throw a fit on a single sin in the Bible when there are hundreds of sins mentioned.
The Bible outlines:
1) Same-sex intercourse is a sin.
2) Those who sin and do not repent are condemned to death.
3) Therefore, engaging in same-sex intercourse and not repenting for these actions condemn you to death.
However, the Bible is misinterpreted by many different people. Some radical Christians ignore a fundamental part of Christianity:
All men have sinned (Romans 3:23).
In other words, homosexuality is a sin, but it is no worse of a sin than if I were to be sexually promiscuous. However, it is not more of a sin to let it continue? I'll put it a different way: if I knew my friend was stealing, would it be alright for me to shrug it off? After all, he's not stealing from me.

4) A lot of people say "It is unnatural" but what's unnatural about two people falling in love with each other?
A lot of people say "It is unnatural" because a male and a male cannot reproduce, and neither can a female and a female. Basic biology, Pro.

5) Gay couples, can't have biological kids (Unless they use a sperm bank," but isn't that good. We have 7 billion people on this planet, and we are definitely running out of room and materials
To the contrary, Pro. Overpopulation is not an issue, and never will be. This myth has been seriously debunked, and believing in it is, to put it simply, blind faith. "Other instances of phony overpopulation occur when humans create artificially closed environments. If someone locked me in my office, most people wouldn’t blame my resulting demise on “the overpopulation of the office” but on the cruel person who locked me in. Similarly, if government policies prevent food from being transported to where it is needed, or distributed to those who are hungry, “overpopulation” is not to blame (2)." The site linked discusses other "evidence" for overpopulation, and shows how they are not even relatable to having more humans on earth.

6) Most of the stories you hear now a days are priests molesting little girls, so the whole gay pervert stereotype has died out. It does not promote polygamy or incest either. Incest a lot of the time leads to birth defects because of how similar the genes are.
Actually, most of the stories you hear now a days are about the Presidential Campaign. The media's role in information should not show that something is or isn't a stereotype. Also, incest leads to these adverse reactions because it is not natural. In the same sense, homosexual marriage leads to adverse reactions (STD's) because it is not natural. Your own argument backfires against your resolution.

In conclusion, Pro has offered no real evidence for his position, other than his speculative and clearly flawed opinions on the issue. Pro has not meet his burden, and therefore, vote Con.

Sources:
(1) http://www.frc.org...
(2) https://www.pop.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheWorldIsComplicated

Pro

I don't know what you mean by "define" in this case.

I believe you missed the point of my first arguement. I'm not saying that just because they do something wrong and it doesn't affect me it is right. They don't harm people, so who are you to judge who they love. Let's see, the children are NOT victims. It seems you don't think it is good for children to get adopted just because their parents are of the same sex. A man and a woman having a family is far more harmful, just look at the divorce rates. It would be much more likely for a straight couple to get divorced, which obviously hurts the child.

There is no harm in same-sex marriage. "Regular" marriage is much more harmful. There are far for cases in divorce, rape, abuse, etc in regular marriages. The only way it affects the couple is with happiness. Once again, children do not need a mom and a dad. Over 25% of children in the United States havea single parent, they turn out fine. So I guess by your logic we should ban single parents too.

Here is the thing about the Bible, God didn't write it himself. Scholars wrote the Bible for God, but it has most likely been greatly changed over the years. By saying homosexuality is a sin, you are also saying God is a hypocrite. If God is the all powerful being, he doesn't make mistakes. So gay people were all apart of God's plan. If he didn't want them to exist, he wouldn't have created them! Simple as that. Therefore, being gay is not a sin and was merely constructed over the years by biased writers. I'm not saying the Bible is bad, it is a great teach tool, but to make your decisions just based on it shows ignorance.

Homosexual activity is completely normal. If you do some research over 450 species engage in homosexual activity, so is it really unnatural now. Seeing has 450 species have it, but only 1 condems it. 450>1. You honestly can believe that overpopulation will never be an issue. Clearly we will eventually run out of room and supplies, it is basic thinking. As we live longer, we have more children. We have more children and we don't die out as fast so we have more and more people. I don't know how you got to the idea that it "bliinds faith," which has nothing to do with it. I'll look at one the points from that article. 3) "But we"re growing exponentially!" This article is clearly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. We have already gained 36 million people this year, so obviously the population is increases dramatically. That means we get roughly 72 million new people each year. In 10 years, that is 720 million people, which is almost 1/7 of the worlds population.

Once again, you missed my point. I'm talking about the stories involving a molestation case, not all of the news. If gay intercourse is unnatural because of STD'S then so is straight intercourse. A lot of STD'S were caused by straight couples, which lead them to spread. If you want to blame someone for aids, blame the hunters who killed the monkeys in Africa and contracted aids.

The con has backed up his information with ideas,that too, have many flaws and are based of off an authors biasm, not facts.
David_Debates

Con

This is what I mean by "define:"
Define: to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)
That is what anyone means when they say "define," right Pro?

1) Let's see, the children are NOT victims. It seems you don't think it is good for children to get adopted just because their parents are of the same sex. A man and a woman having a family is far more harmful, just look at the divorce rates. It would be much more likely for a straight couple to get divorced, which obviously hurts the child.
No, it seems that I don't think it is good for children to get adopted because each sex has a specific role when bringing up a child. They long for their biological mother and father. Also, studies have shown that children need both a father and a mother while being brought up (1). Did you read the article I linked?
Secondly, the divorce rate is because of poor decisions when it comes to marriage. Also, there is only a slight disparity when it comes to the divorce rate. "The percentage of those same sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually (2)." So then, out of every 1000 marriages, 20 heterosexual couples may divorce and up to 18 homosexual couples may divorce. This really isn't that big of a disparity. To point out as well, there are a lot more heterosexual marriages than homosexual, so I'd assume more heterosexual divorces would occur.

2) There are far for cases in divorce, rape, abuse, etc in regular marriages. The only way it affects the couple is with happiness.
And for a good reason too: there are more heterosexual marriages than homosexual marriages. This is like comparing the amount of murders between the US and Sweden. Of course there are more murders in the country with more people. Fix your statistics and cite some sources, please.
"...We have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive (3)."

3) If God is the all powerful being, he doesn't make mistakes. So gay people were all apart of God's plan. If he didn't want them to exist, he wouldn't have created them! Simple as that. Therefore, being gay is not a sin and was merely constructed over the years by biased writers.
I will change one of your terms and insert it into your argument to show its folly:
If God is the all powerful being, he doesn't make mistakes. So murderers were all a part of God's plan. If he didn't want murders to murder other people, he wouldn't have created them! Simple as that. Therefore, being a murderer is not a sin and was merely constructed over the years by biased writers.
I would assume your argument applies to all other sins outlined by the Bible, right? Or just the ones your don't want to consider sins?
By the way, nature was made imperfect by God as a result of man's sin. Genesis 3: 17-18: "To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field."

4) 3) "But we"re growing exponentially!" This article is clearly influenced by the authors personal beliefs. We have already gained 36 million people this year, so obviously the population is increases dramatically. That means we get roughly 72 million new people each year. In 10 years, that is 720 million people, which is almost 1/7 of the worlds population.
Did you read the response? The population is increasing by a minuscule amount: 0.77 percent every year, and this occurs in mostly in African countries (4). However, the population is declining in areas such as Europe. "Europe’s decline, however, is something to worry about. A UN report titled “World Population to 2300” paints a picture of Europe’s future if European fertility rates don’t rise above current levels: “The European Union, which has recently expanded to encompass 452-455 million people (according to 2000-2005 figures) would fall by 2300 to only 59 million. About half the countries of Europe would lose 95 per cent or more of their population, and such countries as the Russian Federation and Italy would have only 1 per cent of their population left.” In other words, the French, German, Italians and British will virtually cease to exist (4)." Although, of course, she must be biased for the side she is writing the article on. Because, as all of us know, having someone write an article against their beliefs is real evidence.

5) If gay intercourse is unnatural because of STD'S then so is straight intercourse. A lot of STD'S were caused by straight couples, which lead them to spread. If you want to blame someone for aids, blame the hunters who killed the monkeys in Africa and contracted aids.
"The data indicate that rates of HIV infection among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are more than 44 times higher than rates among heterosexual men and more than 40 times higher than women. Rates of syphilis, an STD that can facilitate HIV infection and, if left untreated, may lead to sight loss and severe damage to the nervous system, are reported to be more than 46 times higher among gay men and other MSM than among heterosexual men and more than 71 times higher than among women (5)."
The data really does speak for itself, Pro.

5) The con has backed up his information with ideas,that too, have many flaws and are based of off an authors biasm, not facts.
Actually, let's look at what I did. I
1) Disproved your argument that "Gays don't hurt me, so it's not that bad, right?"
2) Showed the fallacy in your "God created it, so it's not bad, right?"
3) Showed how homosexual marriage is unnatural.
4) Disproved the myth of overpopulation.
5) Showed how homosexual marriage results in complication with health (various sexually transmitted diseases).
You didn't prove anything, and I don't have the burden of proof. That lies solely on you, Pro.

I look forward to Pro's refutation.

Sources:
(1) http://www.frc.org...
(2) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
(3) http://www.frc.org...
(4) https://www.pop.org...
(5) http://bilerico.lgbtqnation.com...
Debate Round No. 3
TheWorldIsComplicated

Pro

It is quite inhumane to suggest that a child should not have a chance at getting adopted just because the parents are of the same-sex. If anything, it is causing more harm because we all know adoption centers aren't good places for a child to grow up in. The gender of the parents have little to do with the child, a child can not understand what a man and a woman is for the first year or two. "In their analysis, the researchers found no evidence of gender-based parenting abilities, with the "partial exception of lactation," noting that very little about the gender of the parent has significance for children"s psychological adjustment and social success." Besides breast-feeding, a child is fine with having same-sex parents. What would make matters worse is that a couple can't get married, you think that would improve their family?

There are very good ways of determining percentages based off a smaller population. Based on that, we still learn that heterosexual couples get divorced more often. Your quote: "...We have been left with large, scientifically strong studies showing children do best with their married mother and father--but which do not make comparisons with homosexual parents or couples; and studies which purportedly show that children of homosexuals do just as well as other children--but which are methodologically weak and thus scientifically inconclusive (3)." That quote you pulled out says they have only tested it with straight couples, so they have no idea about how if affects children of gay people. It says right there that children of gays do just as well, not really helping you out.

You seem to be disagreeing with God, take a look at this: Ecclesiastes 3:1-15

A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

So yes, God meant for same-sex couples to exist, so they should be able to get married shouldn't they? You are actually proving that the bible is quite hypocritical. Matthew 5:47-48 (KJV)
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Jesus said this, saying that Father (God) is perfect.

Nope, this isn't blocking out the rest of the sins. You still can not give a valid reason why God created gays if he knew they would sin. The answer is that God created them, just like he created you and me. You think God makes mistakes? If God is perfect then surely he doesn't make mistakes. Your arguement doesn't make any sense.

Once again, you don't seem to understand the population problem. Those articles say by 2300, but we will have most likely run out of room by then. At the rate of population growth let's look at 2216. We should have roughly 15 billion people by then, probably around 20 billion by the time of 2300. You must be indenial to think that we can fit 20 billion people on this planet. "Many scientists think Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people." If scientists think that we only have room for 9-10 billion people, they are most likely right. Even if they are off, there is no way they can be 5-10 billion people off. Look at this U.K. article, it is interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk...

I never said thatHIV rates weren't high in gay men, it is, and that's a fact. Most of the STD's were spread by straight couples, so it is clearly worse than HIV.

1) Disproved your argument that "Gays don't hurt me, so it's not that bad, right?"

I said before that you misunderstood this information.

2) Showed the fallacy in your "God created it, so it's not bad, right?"

Never said that.

3) Showed how homosexual marriage is unnatural.

Actually I debunked this, biology shows that there are over 450 species with gays. You seem to ignore that fact.

4) Disproved the myth of overpopulation.

I disproved your myth.

5) Showed how homosexual marriage results in complication with health (various sexually transmitted diseases).
You didn't prove anything, and I don't have the burden of proof. That lies solely on you, Pro.

I never said it didn't result in STD's, but you choose to ignore the fact that straight couples have spread more STD's looking back at history. I've proved a good amount, you are clearly just scared in admitting that. We have a word for people like you, homophobe. You clearly are scared of something you don't understand.

What you fail to understand is that two, independent, grow adults getting married doesn't effect you negatively. You don't have a right telling people off on who they love. Marriage is the bond of two adults. I hope that you open your mind and see how many of you misunderstand what God is saying.

Thank you for taking your time to debate with

Sources:
http://news.usc.edu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.livescience.com...
David_Debates

Con

I won't bring in any new evidence this round, as I have the last speech, and that would be unfair to Pro.

1) It is quite inhumane to suggest that a child should not have a chance at getting adopted just because the parents are of the same-sex.
Based upon your not wanting to define your terms, I don't know what "inhumane" is referring to. I'd assume it means
Inhumane: without compassion for misery or suffering
Based on this definition, I don't see how I am inhumane. I am simply questioning whether or not it would impact a child to not have a father, and whether or not it would impact a child to not have a mother, as opposed to a child with both parents. My research has shown that there is a negative impact when a child is raised by two of the same gender. I don't see how I am being inhumane when I want to research the psychological effects on children.

2) That quote you pulled out says they have only tested it with straight couples, so they have no idea about how if affects children of gay people. It says right there that children of gays do just as well, not really helping you out.
That quote I pulled out is the conclusion of the article. I'll translate it into different terms:
1) The statement, "Children do best when with their married mother and father," can be backed up and verified by many large, scientifically strong studies on the subject.
2) The statement, "Children do just as well with a homosexual couple," cannot be backed up and verified by any large, scientifically strong study.
3) The studies that seem to support the statement made in 2) are methodologically weak, and thus, scientifically inconclusive.

3) You seem to be disagreeing with God...
Let's see what you think I disagree with:
1) There is a time for everything.
I agree with this. However, this doesn't mean that these opposites are, in any way, morally right. For example, murder is not morally correct, but God acknowledges it will happen when it states "A time to kill and a time to heal." In the same way, homosexual marriage is not morally correct, but God acknowledges it will happen.
2) Matthew 5:47-48
I don't disagree with this either. You, however, are misinterpreting the scripture. It states, and I quote:
"...as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
This states that God is perfect, not the opposite. Unsure of how you interpreted it to mean the exact opposite of what it states quite clearly.

4) You still can not give a valid reason why God created gays if he knew they would sin. The answer is that God created them, just like he created you and me. You think God makes mistakes? If God is perfect then surely he doesn't make mistakes.
Your argument still makes no sense. I'll change one term and we'll see what happens:
You still can not give a valid reason why God created mankind if he knew mankind would sin. The answer is that God created mankind, just like he created the universe.
Problem with your argument is I can place any sinful thing in place of "Gays" and get just as a fallacious argument.
To your second point, that "God doesn't make mistakes." I agree. He doesn't make mistakes: we do. Man has fallen. We have sinned against God's will. God didn't make any mistake, we did by sinning against him. Does this make sense now, Pro?

5) Once again, you don't seem to understand the population problem. Those articles say by 2300, but we will have most likely run out of room by then. At the rate of population growth let's look at 2216. We should have roughly 15 billion people by then, probably around 20 billion by the time of 2300. You must be indenial to think that we can fit 20 billion people on this planet.
The rate of population growth (or depletion) changes rapidly. This year it is .77%, the next it may go up or down, much like the stock market. In short, there is no real way to say that the population will grow to be a certain amount, and attempting to do so is pure conjecture and speculation and has no place in this debate on homosexual marriage.

6) Most of the STD's were spread by straight couples, so it is clearly worse than HIV.
No evidence for your bold claim? My research all agrees: homosexuals are less healthy than heterosexuals as a result of STD's. You have brought no evidence for your claim that heterosexuals spread more disease than homosexuals.

7) Disproved your argument that "Gays don't hurt me, so it's not that bad, right?" I said before that you misunderstood this information.
"I believe that same-sex marriage is fine. Gay people don't hurt me, trust me I'm not saying that they don't commit crimes, but they are just normal human beings."
Your words, not mine. This is what you said in your Round 2 argument, right?

8) Showed the fallacy in your "God created it, so it's not bad, right? Never said that
"If God is the all powerful being, he doesn't make mistakes. So gay people were all apart of God's plan. If he didn't want them to exist, he wouldn't have created them! Simple as that."
Gotcha.

9) Showed how homosexual marriage is unnatural. Actually I debunked this, biology shows that there are over 450 species with gays. You seem to ignore that fact.
Actually, you didn't provide any proof for your claim. I won't accept your opinion on the subject as truth, and neither will any voter.

10) Disproved the myth of overpopulation. I disproved your myth.
I don't have to prove anything. You have the burden, bringing an affirmative statement and on the Pro side.

11) I never said it didn't result in STD's, but you choose to ignore the fact that straight couples have spread more STD's looking back at history. I've proved a good amount, you are clearly just scared in admitting that. We have a word for people like you, homophobe. You clearly are scared of something you don't understand.
Apart from calling me a homophobe, you suffer from an aliment known as "noevidenceitis," where you think you brought sufficient evidence for your points, but in reality, you have brought none. You have not given us any evidence whatsoever on "the fact that straight couples have spread more STD's looking back at history."

12) What you fail to understand is that two, independent, grow adults getting married doesn't effect you negatively. You don't have a right telling people off on who they love. Marriage is the bond of two adults. I hope that you open your mind and see how many of you misunderstand what God is saying.
What you fail to understand is that personal peace and affluence are not a logical way of approaching any moral question. Just because something doesn't affect you negatively doesn't mean it is wrong.
Also, why would I want to open my mind? That sounds kinda gross, brain is soggy and lumpy, I'd rather not open it up. :)

In conclusion, Pro has failed to do three things:
1) Give sufficient reasons for why same-sex marriage is morally and socially acceptable,
2) Give any evidence for his reasons, and
3) Fulfill his BoP.

For these reasons, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 5 months ago
Omniscient_Debater
Ok auto correct made me say that. I meant Con.
Posted by Omniscient_Debater 5 months ago
Omniscient_Debater
Once again it's a shame to see this debate end with no votes, Contra should have won easily.
Posted by TheWorldIsComplicated 5 months ago
TheWorldIsComplicated
Haha please, you may disagree with the way I argue. Go troll somewhere else.
Posted by usawinseverytime 6 months ago
usawinseverytime
Lame opening argument by pro. Claiming that you have no problems with people being gay is not a reason to legalize same sex marriage. Claiming that gayness is not a choice is not a reason to legalize same sex marriage. Telling us gays can't have children naturally is not a reason to legalize same sex marriage. Telling us that incest leads to birth defects is not a reason to legalize same sex marriage. Not once in your rambling did you even come close to making a legitimate argument for same sex marriage. You just did all gay people a disservice in this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.