The Instigator
Acarr130
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hylian_3000
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should gay marriage be legal or banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Hylian_3000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 68454
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Acarr130

Con

First round is acceptance round
Second round is opening statement
Third round is counter arguments
Forth round is counter arguments
Last round is closing statements
Hylian_3000

Pro

I accept, hopefully this will be a good debate

Since my opponent has failed to specify:
Pro: For gay marriage being legal
Con: Against gay marriage being legal

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Acarr130

Con

Acarr130 forfeited this round.
Hylian_3000

Pro

Hopefully my opponent will argue next round.
Debate Round No. 2
Acarr130

Con

I don't know how that happened, but I will get it this time, I do apologize.
=========
I think that gay marriage should be banned in all cases whatsoever, think about this for a minute. In nature, name one thing that goes together, positive and positive don't go together, acid and acid don't mix, grass dosen't breed together. Just think for a moment, gays are breaking the laws of nature and anyone who supports it should be punished.
=========
Reasons
1. The only logical solution would be to ban the marriage of gays.
2. According to gay marriage ProCon.com, if a girl is raised by two fathers is at higher risk of sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.
3. Also, gays are unnatural, unmoral, and to me, unlawful.
=========
Thank you and I apologize for my previous forfeit
Hylian_3000

Pro

Thanks for coming back Con!

I will abide by the rules. Since my opponent has forfeited round 2 I will list the rules again.
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Forfeited
Round 3: Opening Statement (No Rebuttal)
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Conclusion (Rebuttals? Tell me next round if we can rebut in round 5)
==================
Arguments
==================
1. Disruption
How will legalizing gay marriages negatively impact society? They won't. Think about it, they are just 2 people of the same gender, how will they disrupt society in any different way than a straight couple?
2. Genetics
Gays are born gays, they can't change that. Why would you force someone to like someone they don't, and restrict them from what they DO like?
Debate Round No. 3
Acarr130

Con

Acarr130 forfeited this round.
Hylian_3000

Pro

All points extend.
Debate Round No. 4
Acarr130

Con

Yes, we will be able to rebut on round 5
========
Think about this for a moment, does acid react to acid? Does negative energy react to negative? The North Pole and another North Pole. It just unnatural. They will disrupt the community more then straight couples because in the bible, I states the all humans must be married to the opposite gender, anyone who defies that law has sinned.

Gays are not born gay, they make decide all by themselves, so we must stop all people from making a bad decision. Again, the bible states the all humans are to be married to opposite genders, any opposed have sinned.
=========
I'm sorry for the forfeits on all rounds, I should have checked in, I'm sorry this wasn't much fun for you.
Hylian_3000

Pro

It's ok, at least you didn't totally forfeit!

Rebuttals
==============
Religion is one of the biggest argument in this debate, my question is, is this how we make our laws? Think about it, there are so many religions, and we don't make our laws of the religious beliefs of those religions. Why should we treat Christianity differently? Sure, there are a lot of Christians in America, but they shouldn't have control over laws. One common thing people forget in these debates is the First Amendment, and Separation of church and State. Basically, this is what separation of church and state means [1]"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Now, there is a part that says Congress can't make a law that prohibits a religion from following a custom. This law would not interrupt the Christian community. If it really is strictly prohibited by the Bible that 2 people of the same gender cannot marry, then no Christians would anyway. The law does not say "You must marry someone of the same gender," rather, it says: "Gays may legally marry". It doesn't prohibit the Christians from following their customs (I'm Christian, not an Atheist, so I kinda know a little bit about Christians customs), it just lets people who don't follow Christian customs to marry someone of the same gender

Apparently, yes, male and male mix. So does female and female. We can't compare them to chemicals, concepts, or compounds that have a set reaction to itself. We are human, each of us are different, some people are straight, some people are gay, and some people hate everyone. There are already proven gay couples, so you can't say it's not natural.

Are gays born gays? The answer is... Well, it depends. According to source [2], they can choose to be gay, or they could've been born gay. There are people who have made the decision to be gay, but there are people who are born gay and they cannot help it. Why should we limit what their genetics told them they were supposed to do?

How would it disrupt public? Straight couples don't affect public (well, they do add more people to the world, but it doesn't disrupt public). Gay couples are not very different from straight couples. It's just that they are the same gender. They wouldn't hurt anyone any more than a straight couple would.
===========

I thank Con for the great (half?) debate.

Sources
===============
[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Edwar3je 2 years ago
Edwar3je
@j4k3 If marriage was only a part of a Christian tenet then how is it that even atheist couples or couples of other faiths are still allowed to marry? It's because marriage has away from the church (or any religious institution for that matter) and into the state which can choose to legalize a marriage based upon the genders of the couple (in this case, it's usually a heterosexual couple). Also, keep in mind that some denominations of Christianity don't recognize gay marriage as a sin. For example: the Evengelical Network, the Presbyterian church, the Reformed Anglican Catholic Church, The Anthem Network, and much more. Of course I'm not too concerned with religion as I'm also an atheist, but this seems to at least disprove the claim that gay marriage is a sin under Christianity unless you take the bible word for word. On a final note, the venue for which a marriage takes place seems to be a major concern for your argument, but why should we care where a same-sex couple wants to get married. If a same sex couple chooses to get married in a Christian like manner (in the church, exchanging vows, etc.) why should we stop them and only limit them to getting a simple marriage license.?Clearly other denominations of Christianity support gay marriage, and it's also their choice as to whether or not they want to have a ceremony, so why shouldn't a same-sex couple get married in a traditional manner?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Marriage is not solely a Christian tenet. And sin has little barring if your not a believer.
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion. Marriage"s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man"s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man"s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: "I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring." Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. A lot has changed since then.
Posted by j4k3 2 years ago
j4k3
The thing for me is that marriage in and of itself is a Christian ceremony. This is the important distinction to make. The Bible is against gay marriage, it is as simple as that. As far as Christianity is concerned gay marriage is a sin. That is an indisputable fact.

Christianity is against gay marriage - marriage is a Christian ceremony. So surely if we are allowing gay marriage we are defying the rules of that ceremony as prescribed by god and the bible (that god deems gay marriage to be a sin, and that it is purely for a man and woman partnership)

I understand why gay couples want recognition of partnership and all of the merits that come with that, I totally understand - and I think that gay couples should have the merits of marriage - but I don't understand why we cannot introduce a new system that is not marriage and is not based upon CHRISTIAN tenets by still allows the couple to be recognized by the state as a couple and therefore permitted to the merits that a state partnership entails. But why does this HAVE to be based upon the Christian form of marriage where everything takes place in a church, vows are read out by a vicar and there is a bible somewhere to be seen. It's bizarre.

Allow gay couples to be recognized by the state as coupled but allow them to do this without having to marry in its traditional form and thus violate various Christian tenets.

I am not saying all this because I myself am a strong minded Christian or anything, in fact I am an atheist and couldn't REALLY give a f***. I just don't see why gay men need marriage per se and why we cannot come up with a new imitation which is not Christian in nature.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 2 years ago
Dookieman
Acarr130Hylian_3000Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that gay marriage should be illegal because it's against the bible. Pro quoted the first amendment showing how the government shall make no law respecting any particular religion, and that we shouldn't give Christianity special treatment by allowing it to determine our laws. All in all, Pro was more convincing.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
Acarr130Hylian_3000Tied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points go to Pro due to the forfeits and Con not following his own format (though it is impossible to make counterarguments in the second round if you nobody ever made an opening statement). That's just how it worked out. The clear winner was Pro since Con forfeited... twice.