The Instigator
Imhellspawn2
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
andymcstab
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Should Gay Marriage Be Legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
andymcstab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 48371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Imhellspawn2

Pro

Round 1 Is Acceptance
Round 2 IS State your case why it should be or not be legalized include evidence from webpages
Round 3 is rebuttials
andymcstab

Con

I am happy to argue against gay marriage.

Please state your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Imhellspawn2

Pro

Imhellspawn2 forfeited this round.
andymcstab

Con

Sadly my opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 2
Imhellspawn2

Pro

Sorry my aunt is in the hospital she has been there for 2 days now but back to the arguement
I believe that same sex Marriage should be allowed to express themselves in every way possible currently Gay marriage is accpeted in 17/50 states in america right now

In the video the president even says gay marriage should be legal in the united states

Sources
1.http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
2.Video
andymcstab

Con

Thanks con,

In summary then my opponents arguments seem to be:

"Gay marriage should be legalised because people should be able to express themselves in every way".

And

"Gay marriage should be legalised because some people think gay marriage should be legalised."


These are obviously compelling arguments but I feel I can manage the enormous strain of refuting them.


If the only reason for legalising gay marriage is to enable people to express themselves in "every way", why not legalise torture? Why not make it legal to gather all homosexuals in the world under a 100'000 ton anvil and squash them all? People should not be able to express themselves in every way. The survival of our species depends on it.

"some people think gay marriage should be legalised"
Unless you can show that these people are the objective standard for human kind who can speak no lie and have hearts as pure as expensive apple juice, we have no reason to consider them any authority above ourselves.

Having refuted my opponents arguments I shall give one of my own:

Homosexual marriage denies the child a mother or father.
Homosexual couples can only adopt. This poor child, already at a disadvantage in life, is denied a mother or father.
Both are hugely influential and important in the development of children. Children need positive interaction with adult men and women, and the only place they could usually be guaranteed this is in a traditional heterosexual family. Same-sex “marriage” therefore ignores a child’s best interests.

This concludes my arguments against homosexual marriage.



If you feel i have made better arguments than my opponent, please vote for me!







Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by andymcstab 2 years ago
andymcstab
Sorry about your aunt hellspawn. hope everything turns out ok.
Posted by Imhellspawn2 2 years ago
Imhellspawn2
@tennistanner

The format is
round 1 is acceptance
round 2 is state your case with evidence
Round 3 is rebuttials
Posted by tennistanner 2 years ago
tennistanner
What should the format of this debate look like?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Imhellspawn2andymcstabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets conduct for FF. Con's arguments were more logical, although not by much.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Imhellspawn2andymcstabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Both arguments were frigging terrible. Pro argued his feelings, as well as appealed to authority (Obama). Con slid down the slippery slope, saying that if you allow gay marriage as a way to express yourself, you'll end up allowing anything. Then Con made an unfounded argument as to why heterosexual couples are better at raising children. Pro's source was barely used, and was basically used to say how many states accept gay marriage. Con gets conduct points for the forfeit.
Vote Placed by Jackthemarine86 2 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Imhellspawn2andymcstabTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually made a debate, and Pro simply proclaimed an opinion and a video to make his case. Just because the President of the United States weighs in on an issue does not solidify a claim. Imagine if the reverse had happened, and Con had posted a video of a President decrying gay marriage - would his argument have been anymore substantial? Short answer: NO. Pro gets props for including the video as a source, while Con posted no sources.