The Instigator
JP123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
famousdebater
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should g's gay's get married

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...
famousdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 81713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)

 

JP123

Con

No they should not it is against Christianity should not be allowed.
famousdebater

Pro

Accepted. I am Pro gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
JP123

Con

JP123 forfeited this round.
famousdebater

Pro

Contention 1: Quality of life

Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement, but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalized gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live.


Contention 2: Marriage

Opponents of gay marriage argue that it would undermine the institution of marriage, but it's hard to see how more marriages would be bad for marriage. If anything harms marriage, it is bad marriages where people don't take marriage seriously - and that's already too common with heterosexuals. If gay couples in committed relationships are able to formalize their unions as marriages, that can only serve to improve marriage overall by providing more positive role models.

Contention 3: Civil Unions

Some opponents and supporters of gay marriage support civil unions as an alternative, but that's a mistake. For marriages to continue as a stabilizing force in society, they must be genuine marriages - not "marriage lite" that carries some benefits without all the responsibilities. Equality before the law means that creating civil unions for gays will lead to civil unions for everyone else and this "marriage lite" will be more of a threat to marriage than gay unions could possibly be.
Debate Round No. 2
JP123

Con

JP123 forfeited this round.
famousdebater

Pro

Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by selena16 1 year ago
selena16
All I said on my original, is that they can either be like king Charles 1, whose people beheaded him because he was killing them because they were not what he wanted. Or they can be like his son who didn't care if they were or weren't what he wanted, and was one of the best rulers of Europe. If you don't think gays should be allowed to get married then you might as well take the rights of everyone getting married because people have every right to be themselves, people are awesome if they are openly gay because they don't care what others think, they don't pretend to be something their not.
Posted by selena16 1 year ago
selena16
I am not arguing against it, I believe that gays have the right to love who they want
Posted by Irobchef10 1 year ago
Irobchef10
Gay people are humans. I believe in rights for all humans and since gays are human they should be able to get married no matter what religion says.
Posted by pyrope413 1 year ago
pyrope413
Christians do not own marriage. They are not the only religion that does marriage, and they havn't created it. There are many benefits that can actually come from gay marriage including adoption. Believe it or not studies show that gay parents are just as capable of raising a child as normal parents. Besides it doesn't hurt Christians they are just made to be mildly uncomfortable.
Posted by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Gay marriage is only a Christian issue among Christians, not with the government. This is not a Christian country as many tout it to be. In fact, our founding fathers had much to say on the topic. Tomas Jefferson: I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
John Adams: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." If I'd saw this debate during this challenge period, I'd be the whirling Dervish.
Posted by Wildlystrawberry 1 year ago
Wildlystrawberry
Hate the sin not the sinner
Posted by BTW 1 year ago
BTW
@selena16, sometimes the best revenge one can enact unto an enemy is that of kindness. That's why we are told to appreciate all aspects of humanity and not just focus on ourselves. Arguing against gay union is selfish, in my opinion.
Posted by ammebwalya 1 year ago
ammebwalya
Selena16 what's your point
Posted by selena16 1 year ago
selena16
But it also says to love thy enemies. And it also says everything happens for your good
Posted by BTW 1 year ago
BTW
JP123, I think the source of your resentment lies elsewhere, because "love thy neighbor" is the second greatest commandment of all. The only unpardonable sin (Matthew 12:32) would be one committed against the gift of spirit and reason. And as such, any attempt in trying to justify human separation based off of religious principle is in direct violation of that command...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
JP123famousdebaterTied
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: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
JP123famousdebaterTied
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: Forfeit by Con conduct to Pro. Now, normally I don't award S&G, but in this particular case, the ambiguous antecedent in Con's only sentence of the debate, "No they should not it is against Christianity should not be allowed" allows for one to assume that the sentence is saying "Christianity should not be allowed." This distorts Con's position, thus Con should be docked for spelling and grammar. Pro's S&G lead to coherency. Pro pointed studies that show marriage makes for better finances, emotional status, and health status. None of these are contended, so I must assume the studies are true because they sound reasonable, and Con shows no unreasonableness in them. Arguments to Pro. There were no sources.