The Instigator
Mysterious_Stranger
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
verrynice
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Same sex marriage does not harm anyone more than hetrosexual couples getting married.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mysterious_Stranger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,129 times Debate No: 34844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Mysterious_Stranger

Pro

A while ago you commented on my profile asking to debate something. I challenged you to another debate similar to the one in question however you failed to accept, or you declined. The outline for this debate is that same sex marriage does not and should not offend anyone more than a man and a woman choosing to marry. I bid you good luck upon accepting the debate.
verrynice

Con

Looking forward to my first debate here. My argument is that
.Gay people are not permitted in the Bible and that would offend some people
.People should not see gay people getting married as it would offend some people if gays were to marry
.Marriage is a ceremony for a man and a woman, if two people of the same sex were to marry it would offend peoples beliefs. Those are my arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
Mysterious_Stranger

Pro

[Gay people are not permitted in the Bible and that would offend some people] Response: Although I myself do not believe in God. Both Jesus and the Bible do not condemn same sex marriage. Although homosexuality is condemned in certain parts of the Bible however same sex marriage is never criticized.

[People should not see gay people getting married as it would offend some people if gays were to marry] Response: The concept of same sex marriage would offend SOME people and I capitalize some because it is only a handful of people would be offended which could be for several reasons (such as religion or just being intolerant in general) However peoples attitudes towards same sex marriage are constantly changing and they are changing in favour of same sex marriage with roughly around 70% people in favour of same sex marriage.

[Marriage is a ceremony for a man and a woman, if two people of the same sex were to marry it would offend peoples beliefs] Response: Marriage is a ceremony conducted for two individuals who wish to be joined in union in the eyes of God. Although some countries do not allow same sex marriage there are thirteen countries who permit same sex marriage, with the number slowly increasing it will not be long until churches will be made to give gay couples the same ceremony as heterosexual couples.

Sources

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.people-press.org...

http://christiananswers.net...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
verrynice

Con

Mysterious_Stranger wrote- it will not be long until churches will be made to give gay couples the same ceremony as heterosexual couples.
That is unlikely because most churches are against gay marriage and it is completely optional for churches to do marriages for couples so they will not be "made" to.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by dragonite1211 1 year ago
dragonite1211
to mysterious stranger, you say the bible doesn't condemn same sex marriage, actually by condemning homosexuality it by default condemns homosexual relationships which condemns same sex marriage, marriage is a covenant between a Husband( man) and wife( required to be female)
Posted by Mysterious_Stranger 3 years ago
Mysterious_Stranger
I believe the time on the debate ran out because it is not letting me post an argument
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I'm still seeing a round of arguments left...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Mysterious_StrangerverryniceTied
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: Argument: Pro never even had to back his argument up, since con only did an appeal to tradition which did not actually touch on the resolution "harm" is not even close to the same thing as "offend." Con to win this all you really needed to do was cite health risks. Sources: As much as I don't feel pro's were strong (wiki is weak), his sources greatly outweigh the half source con had. However the lack of numbering hurts them a little, closing the gap into the tied range (better yes, but not greatly so).
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
Mysterious_StrangerverryniceTied
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: A poor debate because both sides did little more than state beliefs without giving reasons why the beliefs are true. Pro had sources, but didn't say what source was supposed to support what point. Pro granted that gay marriage offended some people. Maybe they shouldn't be offended, but the resolution is that gay marriage "does not harm," so when he is grants that it does, that is a concession central to the resolution. the counter is that being denied marriage rites is harmful to gay people who desire them, but Pro didn't argue that and the resolution was not phrased with "on balance." the resolution should have been more carefully worded, and the arguments more pointedly aimed at the resolution.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Mysterious_StrangerverryniceTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didnt have any solid arguments to counter pro's claim that SSM doesnt harm anyone. He seemed to be distracted by a more minor and unrelated claim that the pro made, so arguments go to the pro along with sources since hes the only one who used them, and he used several.