The Instigator
Ballergirl18
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Taonui
Con (against)
Losing
0 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 1 vote the winner is...
Ballergirl18
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 39125
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

Ballergirl18

Pro

I myself believe that gay marriage SHOULD be legal. I mean who are we to tell someone who the can or cant love? Sure it goes against God I understand that, BUT Its not about God its about someone loving someone so much that they want to marry them. We live in America, the Constitution says that we have the GOD GIVEN RIGHT to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit Of happiness. If a girl is happy with a girl or if a boy is happy with a boy, it don't matter everyone has rights and by not letting someone marry who they want you are taking away rights! JS!
Taonui

Con

Marriage has always been defined as the union between a male and a female. You can't go around changing definitions to suit people. I mean they already stole gay! Ironically that used to represent a man that slept with a lot of women mainly prostitutes and lived a life without morals. I have no problem if they want to love each other in their own home, just don't over do the pda, and don't think that because you're gay you can get away with indecent exposure during parades on public streets, it isn't acceptable! Yes I agree if two men or two women have decided they want to spent the rest of their lives together and feel they deserve the tax breaks married people get, I think they should get that, just don't call it marriage and don't expect a religious ceremony. Peace!
Debate Round No. 1
Ballergirl18

Pro

Ballergirl18 forfeited this round.
Taonui

Con

Taonui forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Ballergirl18

Pro

Ballergirl18 forfeited this round.
Taonui

Con

Taonui forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ballergirl18

Pro

Ballergirl18 forfeited this round.
Taonui

Con

Taonui forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ballergirl18

Pro

Ballergirl18 forfeited this round.
Taonui

Con

Taonui forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Ballergirl18 3 years ago
Ballergirl18
Okay? Who cares what it ONCE ment. NOW it means a girl and a girl or a guy and a guy. i myself am Bi. I like girls and boys. WHO CARES! JS!
Posted by Ballergirl18 3 years ago
Ballergirl18
Okay? Who cares what it ONCE ment. NOW it means a girl and a girl or a guy and a guy. i myself am Bi. I like girls and boys. WHO CARES! JS!
Posted by ryanchandler 3 years ago
ryanchandler
Oh yes, we can't go around changing definitions to suit people. The same way that we couldn't have changed the definition of a person to give black people rights. That's a ridiculous argument.
Posted by ryanchandler 3 years ago
ryanchandler
Oh yes, we can't go around changing definitions to suit people. The same way that we couldn't have changed the definition of a person to give black people rights. That's a ridiculous argument.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
I think Con should focus on backlashes of legalizing gay marriage in certain places. After all, not all people are open to the idea of gay marriage. Con can also recognize gay couples' right to union, but challenge the necessity to recognize them as legally married, giving models like civil union. But honestly, I think Con has a weaker grounds for argument.
Posted by LaszloZapacik 3 years ago
LaszloZapacik
"Marriage has always been defined as the union between a male and a female."

A 'union' of what exactly? Both partners remain two separate legal individuals after marriage. Rather than such a vague, fuzzy term, the term 'contract' would be more apt (and in fact has quite often been used to describe marriage throughout history). This would mean that restricting it to heterosexual couples is contrary to the principle of freedom of association.
Posted by Nicolas_Augustborn 3 years ago
Nicolas_Augustborn
Contendor: "Marriage has always been defined as the union between a male and a female. You can't go around changing definitions to suit people. I mean they already stole gay!"

Sure you can change definitions to suit people, its been going on since the whole concept of definition has been around. Its anive to think that conservatism is possible in the long run, thingss WILL change, they ALWAYS do. The question is how long and when. Any reference to spiritual fairy tales and personal faith in unproven forces automatically invalidates all arguments. I hope you don't take that route.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Ike-Jin-Park
Regarding Con's statement:

"Marriage has always been defined as the union between a male and a female. You can't go around changing definitions to suit people."

I would like to ask if Con is acknowledged with the fact that concept of marriage has in fact changed throughout the history as societies changed. There were times when women became legal properties of men after marriage. There were also times when interracial marriage was illegal.

If definition of marriage and laws regarding it has been altering itself to suit the people, can you explain what stops including homosexuality?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Ballergirl18TaonuiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok, sorry to say, but poor job debating on both sides. Neither responded to each other directly, and neither came up with good arguments for or against. Now, that being said, Con said some things that struck me as being offensive. Since there's nothing else to judge the round on, I'll give a conduct point to Pro.