The Instigator
LIL_ONE_BLUE
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,117 times Debate No: 74472
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

LIL_ONE_BLUE

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal. We are all the same just because we want to be with the same sex doesn't mean we are so different.
Lexus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
LIL_ONE_BLUE

Pro

Why should it matter if Gay People can marry? What is so bad about loving the person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them? It would be the same if Gay marriage was allowed as different sex marriage wasn't. You would fight for your reason.
Lexus

Con

Gay marriage legality is an issue because of the inherent harms that it creates.

These are just some of the harms that are created with a homosexual family, that are passed down to the kids [1]:
    • more marijuana use
    • more smoking
    • more likely of being arrested
    • pleading guilty to non-minor offenses
    • more likely to live on public assistance (note, not gay fathers, just lesbian mothers)
    • more unemployment (note, not gay fathers, just lesbian mothers)
    • lower family security than any other group
    • suicidal thoughts (note, note lesbian mothers, just gay fathers)
    • much more depression
    • more instances of sexually touched by a parent or other adult as a child
    • much much more rape (not victim blaming, just looking at the raw statistics)
    • more Sexually Transmitted Infections
    • affairs that were committed by the child
    • lowest incidences of heterosexuality (not inherently bad, but this leads to more children that grow up with the above bad things that happen to them)
As a society, we ought to protect people from the harms that are made by other people. We make laws in order to let the nation prosper and to let our citizens prosper -- what good would letting homosexual families be unified in marriage do?
Let me summarise this idea into a logical chain:
  • P1: Governments exist to protect natural rights [2]
  • P2: The right to life without factors that effect ability to live life is a natural one
  • C1: Governments protect the right of life without factors that effect the ability to live life
  • P3: Governments should not pass laws that impede on the rights protected by said government
  • P4: The recognition of gay marriage and more gay households impede on the rights protected of the children of these households
  • C2: Governments should not legally recognise gay marriage.

Now on to rebut some points made by my opponent/answer questions (I can do this since there was no general debate outline).
"Why should it matter if Gay People can marry?"
Read my post above.

"What is so bad about loving the person and wanting to spend the rest of your life with them?"
It impedes on the natural rights of children, basically.

"It would be the same if Gay marriage was allowed as different sex marriage wasn't. You would fight for your reason."
I'm personally an lgbt person and this is false. (My response is valid because my opponent was directly talking to me).

[1]. http://www.familystructurestudies.com...
[2]. http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...

Back to you pro.
Debate Round No. 2
LIL_ONE_BLUE

Pro

Why are you so against it?? what if you were part of the LGBT community and were trying to fight for your right to marry no matter what gender. Its the same for both sides. Homosexual marriages are as safe as traditional marriages. I hope to marry someone in the near future and it is a girl so you are going to tell me my sexuality should not be proclaimed to the one i legally want to spend the rest of my life with.
Lexus

Con

"Why are you so against it??"
I suggest reading round 2.

"what if you were part of the LGBT community "
I am.

" and were trying to fight for your right to marry no matter what gender."
Well I would be disappointed in trying to make myself impede on the natural rights of others.

"Homosexual marriages are as safe as traditional marriages"
Source please?
My case directly refutes this notion.

" so you are going to tell me my sexuality should not be proclaimed to the one i legally want to spend the rest of my life with."
Correct.
Debate Round No. 3
LIL_ONE_BLUE

Pro

My source is being part of the LGTB and having to deal with the fact that others are so against my sexuality and how much i have to change because others want me to. It wouldn't be such a big debate it isn't like it personally mess with traditional marriages but we have the freedom to marry no matter what sexuality.
Lexus

Con

I have nothing to rebut against, vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
hey you guys should start your own debate thanks
Posted by student1419 1 year ago
student1419
Where to begin. I would like to premise the following with the fact that I am female. Just to clear that up. (1) I wasn't calling myself ridiculous. I acknowledged that I was using an obscure example, which a rational person would identify as sarcasm, to prove a point about the argument made in the actual debate. (2) The point I was making was not to ban divorce. Lexus made the argument that gay marriage was harmful because of marijuana use. This was a justification for not legalizing gay marriage. I turned that around by using her statistics: that because marijuana usage is higher in homes with divorce, then divorce shouldn't be legal either. That's not something I'm saying should happen because that's nonsense - as is the idea that gay marriage should be illegal based on that same premise (or at all). So no, it wasn't out of no where; it was completely relevant. (3) What I'm saying about name-calling - I understand that some of the topics discussed on the internet, and this website in particular, are touchy. They are personal so people tend to passionate; I totally get that. What I'm suggesting to you is a sense of common decency. People will disagree with you. My point is not to NOT disagree, but to not be so rude about it. You don't have to attack the people, just the ideas. (4) If what I'm saying is relevant, which it has been, I'm not on a soapbox. I'm participating in civil discussion. There is a difference.

But @imnotacop, I wish you the best of luck in future discussions and comments. May you learn that not everything is about winning and you may not always be right. And I suggest you learn to moderate your tone (and use spellcheck) if you do intend on becoming a politician; you'll struggle getting voters if you're so harsh.
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Part 2

And, in the midst of me calling you bigots, I have been making arguments - arguments that have been logical, factual, and, other than my vote, undefeated. And, honestly, I was very upset at the time, I am passionate about the subject, and I was being a sneaky a**hole. If I'm wrong, be wrong and be right later on. That's my learning style.
But, back to my factuality. From my very first comment, I've been making my arguments. I used an analogy to describe the apposing side of the debate, comparing them to those who apposed interracial marriage. I brought up the constitutionality of gay marriage, and argued why it's constitutionally unacceptable to ban it. And what did I use through all of these arguments? Facts - facts that Student clearly doesn't care to use himself, since I'm responding to his lie right now.

And, as for Students point on my bringing up brandy. it was a comparison. Marijuana, a mind altering substance that you get thrown in jail for, compared to alcohol, a mind altering substance that's now considered the deadliest drug that's perfectly fine for you to drink.

And before you go back to your soap box bullsh**, you're commenting here too, and you're not commenting anyone's opinions but yours, and there is not a chance that I am backing down to you.

http://www.rawstory.com...

https://www.law.cornell.edu...

http://www.rawstory.com...
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
I need to proof read when I type fast...
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Ridiculous*
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
part 1

I'll go point by point.

"I was saying, then you would know that I was using ridiculous examples on purpose." Did you really follow asking me why you're rediculous with that? "Why am I rediculous? I'm only saying rediculous things." The fact that that's something to even point out is why you're rediculous.
Why did I say you were rediculous before? maybe it has something to do with your banning divorce idea, sarcastic or not. It was entirely out of nowhere.

So why wouldn't I assume you were being serious? There's nothing on your profile to suggest otherwise, and your presentation never suggested sarcasm. You stated something as though concluding with no justification for bringing it up, as divorce was never a subject before, then moved on. Where does the implication of sarcasm come in there? I must be missing it. (That was sarcasm.)

You have a problem with name calling? The internet is the wrong place for you, friend. and this is the comment section. There's no conduct score here. But, I will admit, I feel bad. And certain people who I called a biggot (I did that on purpose, you got me there, good job on getting that one punch in), I'm sorry. I really am. bluesteel, Lexus, and anyone else who stand on the logical side of this debate, you are not bigots, that was an honest mistake by me, but, to all the other people I've called bigots on this forum, I'm not sorry. If you hold a position against equal rights, based on gender, sexuality, race, and things like that, that's genetic, you hold a bigoted position, and that makes you a bigot. So, I'm not sorry. You're still a bigot.
Posted by student1419 1 year ago
student1419
Excuse me @imnotacop , please explain to me how I am being ridiculous. I did not once mention the war on drugs, you seem to be using this debate as your personal soap box. However, if you would have understood what I was saying, then you would know that I was using ridiculous examples on purpose. I don't seriously believe that if there were not divorces that those people wouldn't smoke weed, that's not even close to what I meant. Take a look again. I also hope you know that this a place of debate, not slander or name calling. So the next time that someone disagrees with you, instead of calling them a "bigot (which you spelled incorrectly), dumb-a**, ridiculous, or sad little person" you should come up with a legitimate, fact based argument to defend yourself. (Also, brandy is an alcoholic beverage and is legal, so no, unless he was driving drunk or publicly intoxicated he wouldn't be arrested or jailed)
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Oh,I was talking to student. Ur reply wasn't up until I finished writing.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
dude this was just me playing devil's advocate :X
Posted by imnotacop 1 year ago
imnotacop
Or, or or, We could have actual classes teaching people what drugs do and legalize it so that, instead of sending people to jail and ruining their lives. And, if marijuana ruins their lifes, what's the point of sending them to jail and making it permanent? Would you send some 32 year old guy to jail for having some brandy?
And how will forcing unhappy people to be unhappy make them not smoke Marijuana? Why do you think they're smoking? Why do you think they're getting a divorce? "I love you so much that I never want to be with you again, now let me do this drum to forget about my happiness."
This war on drugs nonsense is ridiculous., and so are you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lee001 1 year ago
Lee001
LIL_ONE_BLUELexusTied
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: Pretty easy to vote on. Pro had no argument. Con did. Pro didn't rebut any of Con's points. Con did rebut what little argument Pro had.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
LIL_ONE_BLUELexusTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided the only sources. Con also provided the only real argument, that homosexual households are not as good for children and that legalizing gay marriage would promote this homosexual unity which would in turn harm children. Pro *completely* drops this argument, and instead recites a typical rhetoric which was irrelevant to everything Con said. Thus, Con wins.