The Instigator
ILoveSitarMusic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
David_Debates
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

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...
David_Debates
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 91793
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)

 

ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the Untided States. Pro means I agree with the title of this debate, and con means that my opponent disagrees. My opponent will make the first statement.
David_Debates

Con

500 characters is quite constricting, so my argument will have to wait until next round. Definitions:

-Untided States: a fictional country, solely existing in Pro's mind and Round 1 argument.
-United States: a real country composed of 50 states.
-Marriage: An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life.
-Same-sex marriage: same as above, except between two members of the same sex.
-Good: moraly right and acceptable.

Pro?
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

The ruling was good because gays have the right to get married. It is none of anyone's business what consenting adults do. Marriasge is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. Religious conservatives do not have the right to force their religious interpretation on other people.
David_Debates

Con

1) "The ruling was good..."
By whose moral guidelines?

2) "It is none of anyone's business what consenting adults do."
I'm sure the government would dissagree with you there. There are laws preventing abuse and other crimes from happening "in the bedroom."

3) Religious conservatives do not have the right to force their religious interpretation on other people.
Secular humanistic liberals do not have the right to force their political agenda on other people either.

See comments for rest of argument.


Debate Round No. 2
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

Bull phucking chit! Gays having equal rights does NOT equal your rights being violated. Not all liberals are secular. I am a liberal Christian. It is you conservatives who force your beliefs on people. I will say it again: Gays have the right to get married.
David_Debates

Con

1) Gays having equal rights does NOT equal your rights being violated.
No, it doesn't violate my rights. It violates my prinicples and worldview. Pro has BoP, and must prove that it is "good" that homosexuals are alowed to get married, and frankly, has only stated what she thinks on the issue.

2) I am a liberal Christian.
Good for you. So am I, but that doesn't mean I belive everything they say.

See comments for rest of argument.
Debate Round No. 3
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

You do not have the right to force your principles on other people. If gays want to get married, they have that right.
David_Debates

Con

1) You do not have the right to force your principles on other people.
Actually, I do. Let me explain:
Let's say a thief steals someone's wallet. By his morals, stealing isn't wrong. It's his source of income. But by my morals, stealing that wallet is wrong, because it's someone else's source of income. He is punished. Why? Because we as society forced our principles on him.

2) If gays want to get married, they have that right.
Circular reasoning. They have the right, therefore they have the right.
Debate Round No. 4
ILoveSitarMusic

Pro

No you don't. You don't have the right to force your beliefs on othe people. I love how alleged liberty loving conservatives think they have the right to dictate the liberty of other people. It is so hypocritical.
David_Debates

Con

1) No you don't.
Why not? You didn't bring any evidence in this debate, just your subjecive opinion. I've brought understandable logic, and I don't even have to prove anything. BoP lies with Pro.

2) I love how alleged liberty loving conservitaes think they have the right to dictate the liberty of other people.
We can't dictate other people. They can get married, I can't stop them. The debate is on whether or not it is moral acceptable to allow gay marriage, and you haven't met your burden.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Throwback 3 months ago
Throwback
When I was skimming through and saw your definition I wondered what you were trying to do. Man, that's priceless.
Posted by David_Debates 3 months ago
David_Debates
I know, right?
Posted by Throwback 3 months ago
Throwback
Untided States....LMAO!!!
Posted by SJM 4 months ago
SJM
First rounds

Ok so basically pro states that gay marriage is a right, and that no one should get into their businesses, and that religious conservatives shouldn"t push their religious views onto gay people. Con successfully negates by saying by whose moral guidelines which is criticizing Pro"s point about it being right by stating it"s subjectivity. Then Con gives an example of how the government currently does have to an extent the right to infringe on certain acts. Lastly, con points out the hypocrisy in saying that pro says one side can impose their rights on others, but not the other side.

Second rounds

"Not all liberals are secular. I am a liberal Christian" This is not the point con was making. He was speaking generally, as pro was when saying religious conservatives, because of course not all who oppose this are religious conservatives. Then pro asserts that gay have rights without anything to back it up.

Third rounds

Pro just asserts the same thing as last round without refuting con"s arguments.

Fourth round

Pro just asserts the same thing which is gays have rights, and that no one can infringe on other people"s rights.

Conduct

This goes to con since pro stated, "Bull phucking chit!"
Posted by David_Debates 5 months ago
David_Debates
Doesn't answer the question posed. I'll ask it again:
Is homosexual marriage morally correct? If so, offer specific evidence for your reasoning.
Posted by skipsaweirdo 5 months ago
skipsaweirdo
The reason why ScOTUS decision is good and correct is because in order to get married adults must obtain a marriage license. The government, state, local, and federal cannot refuse government sponsored contracts based on the sex of the licensees if the issue isn't sexually explicit to a certain sex. I.e. if the government made abortion legal it doesn't therefore mean it is legal for a man to get an abortion. Abortion is explicit to a female. Divorce laws govern relationships after dissolution therefore marriage contracts are equally the right of all adults regardl4sss of sex based on actual federal laws.
Posted by ILoveSitarMusic 5 months ago
ILoveSitarMusic
What questions?
Posted by David_Debates 5 months ago
David_Debates
You got me there, I can't force you to answer my questions.
Posted by ILoveSitarMusic 6 months ago
ILoveSitarMusic
I don't answer to you. I was busy.
Posted by David_Debates 6 months ago
David_Debates
No response I see.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SJM 4 months ago
SJM
ILoveSitarMusicDavid_DebatesTied
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: RFD in comments.