The Instigator
BenJamyn
Pro (for)
Winning
58 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Losing
50 Points

The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,657 times Debate No: 11080
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (20)

 

BenJamyn

Pro

I'll start by saying that I love to debate this topic. I'd also like to throw in that I want to debate this topic specifically using terms that are by no means derogatory. Be mature about the topic or I'll choose not to debate it. With that let the debate begin.
Itsallovernow

Con

Thanks for the debate, Pro! I hope that I can satisfactorily fufill the prerequisits that have been established (of maturity), in which I'm confident I will.

First, I will define the key terms with an impartial and unbiased source:

=DEFINITIONS=
1) Marriage- Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and legal union of individuals
2) Matrimony- A sacrament in which woman and man enter a life-long union., receiving the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows.
3) Homosexuals- Sexual desire within the same sex.
4) Legal- Established by or founded upon law or official or accepted rules
5) Should- Indicates a recommendation or that which is advised but not required

Now with the technical terminology of this debate understood, I will now open with observations:

=Observations=

The resolution does not specify a specific region, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume that it the USA will be discussing.

The resolution does not include the states in which homosexual marriage is legalized.

This is a policy debate in which the term "should" is implemented, as nessicary in the resolution to be. I would like to direct that the basis of 'should' is relative, and if I can prove that they should not be, then I have won this debate.

I will now formally open my argumentative forum with my contentions:

=Contention 1=

THE COMPLETE ACT OF MARRIAGE CANNOT BE FUFILLED, EVEN IF LEGALIZED.

As stated above, to be joined in matrimony, they must have the blessing of God, and since this country is, for the most part, Christain, I will use this religion to form my basis. (Ordinarily, I would not implement relgion with a legal debate, but religion is used in this matter. Also, I will not partake in the cliche debate of God's existance.) In the book of Leviticus 18:22, it states that the homosexual relation (defined as sexual desire for the same sex), is an abomination.

In this, my case is proven. If the act of marriage cannot successfully be completed, then the act itself is unfufilled and void. "Do or do not..." -Yoda.

VOTE CON (and Yoda)
Debate Round No. 1
BenJamyn

Pro

First, I would like to clarify a few terms: I'd like to define marriage for you as The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex. Thus meaning that God and religion really has nothing to do with this topic and is therefore an invalid point.

Next, I ask that you know that I assumed it was common knowledge that we were speaking of the USA but if not then I apologize. I would also like to state that there weren't any specific states given intentionally. This is because this debate is simply stating that we, as a country should have legal rights to wed whomever we choose anywhere and not just in certain states.

I will now move on to attack my opponents contention that the complete act of marriage cannot be fulfilled, even if legalized:

My opponent has given his definitions based on a heterosexual prospective. This resolution clearly states that the topic is marriage among the HOMOSEXUALS which blows those definitions out of the water. My opponent also claims that he will not debate the fact of God's existence, however, if he is going to bring up arguments such as God he must be prepared to defend the fact that not everyone believes the same way religiously. Also, I would like to say that if we are arguing the Bible then while it says that homosexuals are an abomination, it also clearly states throughout the Bible that God Loves Everyone.

I will now move onto my own argument:

THE GOVERNMENT AND RELIGON ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS

At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence. People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs. It is very possible that the government can legalize marriage among homosexuals without having the full support from all religious groups. We must keep in mind that it is impossible to please every religious group out there with the same laws and regulations.

For these reasons I strongly urge a PRO ballet.
Itsallovernow

Con

My opponent attempts to assert that 'God and religion have nothing to do with marraige.' According to my definitions, unless you can discredit them as biased, stand that the forming of marraige, in it's entirety, is held by these two definitions:

1) Marriage- Marriage is a social, religious, spiritual and legal union of individuals
2) Matrimony- A sacrament in which woman and man enter a life-long union., receiving the grace and blessing of God to help them fulfill their vows.

My opponent states that "I would also like to state that there weren't any specific states given intentionally. This is because this debate is simply stating that we, as a country should have legal rights to wed whomever we choose anywhere and not just in certain states."

However, if this were to happen, it would contradict our Constitution, thus having to reform it almost entirely anew. This is why...The bindings of matromony are held, rightly, by the states, empowered by the Consitution. To issue a federal mandate on homosexual marriage would not only boarder tyrannical, but it would defy our Constitution, which is what has been in existance for as long as America itself.

My opponent says: "My opponent has given his definitions based on a heterosexual prospective." This is not true. These definitons were retrieved from Google, and I did not alter it's definitions in any way. Also, he says: "This resolution clearly states that the topic is marriage among the HOMOSEXUALS which blows those definitions out of the water." We haven't always been the open minded country we are now. My previous site states that less than 21 percent of elderly people agree with gay marraige. If you go farther back, that will decline sharply. Until fairly recently, THERE WERE NO MARRIAGES OF HOMOSEXUALS!!!!

Since I am using Christian marriages, as general marriages are conducted, I will use Christain views. Allow me to direct you to this exerpt.

"Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God, one that should not be taken for granted. They variously regard it as a sacrament, a contract, a sacred institution, or a covenant.[66] From the very beginning of the Christian Church, marriage law and theology have been a major matter.[67] The foundation of the Western tradition of Christian marriages have been the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul.[37]

Christians often marry for religious reasons ranging from following the biblical injunction for a "man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one,"[Gen. 2:24] [68] to obeying Canon Law stating marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament.[69]

Divorce is not encouraged. Most Protestant churches allow people to marry again after a divorce.[70}" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Marriage has always held it's roots in spirituality, thus sustance of religion, and in today's case, Christianity. Therefore, marriage DOES include religion, and in that religion, it is "an abomination" to approve of homosexuality. Moreso, Christain views, from the source, have been that God bless the sanctity of marraige. God cannot and will not do so if that marriage is an abomination before His eyes.

My opponent states: "My opponent also claims that he will not debate the fact of God's existence, however, if he is going to bring up arguments such as God he must be prepared to defend the fact that not everyone believes the same way religiously. Also, I would like to say that if we are arguing the Bible then while it says that homosexuals are an abomination, it also clearly states throughout the Bible that God Loves Everyone"

In marriage, religion, as I've proven, is spiritually and religiously involved. Politics do not involve themselves with the conductings of marriage or personal belief of the God it includes, they just recognize the couple as conjoined. Also, it states that "God loves everyone", but God provides no haven for sinners unless they "repent" their sins, something that this act does not do; he doesn't approve the marraige.

=My opponents contentions=

THE GOVERNMENT AND RELIGON ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS (The result of antidisestablismentarionism)

"At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence." No, which I stated above that they do not have to agree, they just formally recognize the couple. If the act of marraige can't be fufilled, then the governmental view is a farce and void anyways.

"People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs."

If my opponent does not approve of the conviction of others beliefs, why does he convict me that when I belive legalizing gay marraige is wrong? That is hypocritical and self-contradicting.

"It is very possible that the government can legalize marriage among homosexuals without having the full support from all religious groups. We must keep in mind that it is impossible to please every religious group out there with the same laws and regulations."

Like you said, "At no time did I claim that the government and religious groups had to be in agreence." So the support of religious groups doesn't matter. Besides, our government doesn't interfear with religion. So, what is your point?
Debate Round No. 2
BenJamyn

Pro

While my opponent tries to argue that his definitions have to do with God and religion, mine do not. I am debating off of the definitions that I have given. Just to clear up any prior confusion I'd like to define marriage for you as The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex.

My partner's Constitution argument must be invalid as well because there are many cases in which we have national laws and things that are legal throughout the nation that the state's do NOT have control over such as tobacco for example. Also, legalizing gay marriage everywhere is not tyrannical. In fact its more tyrannical for the government to call it illegal because that's the government taking control of our personal lives.

My opponent says that "We haven't always been the open minded country we are now. My previous site states that less than 21 percent of elderly people agree with gay marriage. If you go farther back, that will decline sharply. Until fairly recently, THERE WERE NO MARRIAGES OF HOMOSEXUALS!!!!" and he is correct but at the same time you have to realize that times have changed and while the elderly feels that homosexuals are an abomination, people of this decade do not. Times have changed for a number of different things and frankly gay marriage is only the beginning.

He claims that "Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God" and while that may be true, I ask you this, who cares? What we have to realize here is that not everyone believes in God. If they do, that's great, that's another debate. So if my opponent truly wishes not to debate God's existence, let us shy away from the Christianity references. Thank you.

"In marriage, religion, as I've proven, is spiritually and religiously involved. Politics do not involve themselves with the conducting of marriage or personal belief of the God it includes, they just recognize the couple as conjoined. Also, it states that "God loves everyone", but God provides no haven for sinners unless they "repent" their sins, something that this act does not do; he doesn't approve the marriage" Well, as I have proven, marriage does not always have to do with God. If that were the case, what happens when an Atheist gets married? Politics and the law have everything to do with marriage, hints the fact that it is illegal while it should be legal. Once again, that's GREAT that God doesn't approve of gay marriage, there's a lot that "God" doesn't approve of, yet it's still legal.

"If my opponent does not approve of the conviction of others beliefs, why does he convict me that when I believe legalizing gay marriage is wrong? That is hypocritical and self-contradicting." I'm by no means convicting you for you're beliefs. I'm saying that while you may think it's 'wrong,' that does NOT give anyone the right to tell anyone, gay or not, that they cannot marry whomever they want.

My point was and is that God and religion does NOT matter in this debate. Therefore Con has failed to show why the marriage amongst homosexuals should not be legal in the USA. Thanks and vote Pro.
Itsallovernow

Con

Okaaay...my opponent continues to assert that my definitions are biased and unworthy, without proof. I have proven that marraige has it's roots in religion and he refuses to contend that point, so I can only assume that he accepts it. In a convential marraige, they are married by, often, a preacher. He reads from the Bible. He mentions God. How can my opponent assert that marraige has no roots in religion? He cannot. A document does not testify to the will of God. His Bible, however, does. The preacher reads from this and joins them in union.

My opponent says my Unconstitutionality argument is invalid. I state:

"The bindings of matromony are held, rightly, by the states, empowered by the Consitution." To have the marraige of homosexuals legalized without the empowerment of the states themselves and federally mandated by the government of the nation would conflict with our Constitution. Unless my opponent can disprove that, the point stands unnegated.

My opponent says:

"...things that are legal throughout the nation that the state's do NOT have control over such as tobacco for example."

Tobacco is a product of companies. In the constitution, we are given the right to own businesess without government interfearance.

"Also, legalizing gay marriage everywhere is not tyrannical. In fact its more tyrannical for the government to call it illegal because that's the government taking control of our personal lives."

Legalizing gay marraige IS boarder-line tyranny, if the states do not want to, which some do not. Therefore, that is tyrannical and unconstitutional. Also, the state government does not "take control over our personal lives", for if you are not currently married, then there is nothing to take control of. However, there is something to prevent. Legally, they can, and do, do this.

My opponent says (on the matter of my source) "...he is correct but at the same time you have to realize that times have changed and while the elderly feels that homosexuals are an abomination, people of this decade do not." Oh, but about half of the people of the decade disagree with it too. So, it isn't as 'trendy' as the picture is painted.

On this entire paragraph: "He claims that "Christians believe that marriage is a gift from God" and while that may be true, I ask you this, who cares? What we have to realize here is that not everyone believes in God. If they do, that's great, that's another debate. So if my opponent truly wishes not to debate God's existence, let us shy away from the Christianity references. Thank you."

The reason why I bring this up, as I've said before, is because marraige has it's hold in religion. The reason why I wouldn't debate the existance of god, is because that is opinion, but the fact that He is used in marraiges is, indeed, fact.

"Well, as I have proven, marriage does not always have to do with God."

Ahhhh!!! That is what I've been waiting to hear from you, and a very valid point! However, I have prepared for this. If you look at my first, brief arguement, I said : (As stated above, to be joined in matrimony, they must have the blessing of God, and since this country is, for the most part, Christain, I will use this religion to form my basis.) Since this country's marraiges are mostly in the Christain format, I would contend this. There are some, but to Christianity this is a minorty plea, cases where God is not invloved. Even without Christianity, it is stated in most other major religions, which most often a marraige is based upon, that homosexuality is a "sin", or whatever their religious term may be.

"Politics and the law have everything to do with marriage, hints the fact that it is illegal while it should be legal. Once again, that's GREAT that God doesn't approve of gay marriage, there's a lot that "God" doesn't approve of, yet it's still legal."

My opponent seems not to believe that Christain marraiges, which I still maintain, is the convential and popular method of marraige. In this, the act of marraige ITSELF cannot be completed if not blessed by God, and marraige must be unequivically fufilled to be vaild. Therefore, there is no complete marraige, there can be no law to legalize the marrige if the act cannot take place.

"I'm by no means convicting you for you're beliefs. I'm saying that while you may think it's 'wrong,' that does NOT give anyone the right to tell anyone, gay or not, that they cannot marry whomever they want."

HOWEVER, my dear friend, you stated, and I quote: ""People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs."

I must say, that I know several people that it makes them physically sick at the sight of two men (or women) kissing each other. Literally, I have seen my best friend throw up on the floor (funny though!). You said: "People believe differently and they need not suffer on what makes them happy by another man's beliefs." The homosexual belief is that it's alright. The heterosexual beleif is that it's not. By your arguements, you would force the puking of my best friend, thus making him suffer (I can't stop laughing!).

"My point was and is that God and religion does NOT matter in this debate." In marraige, as I've proven, it does. That's like saying wheat has nothing to do with a delicious ham sandwhich. If there is no wheat, there is no bread to tie the delcious ham and lettuce sandwhich together. You just have ham and lettuce.

(PS: 1 bread is God, 1 bread is is government legalization/approval, the ham is the man, the entire sandwhich is a successful marraige, and the lettuce is the woman. If you have only 1 slice of bread, it is not a delicious ham and lettuce sandwhich, and the sandwhich is not whole; it topples and falls since it is incomplete.)

Thank you for the debate

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 3
BenJamyn

Pro

I got all of my definitions off of dictionary.com for the record. Marriage does not have its roots in religion. What he still hasn't answered is my question that if marriage really does 'have its roots in religion' what happens when an atheist gets married, gay or not. No marriage is a legal union. To be considered married you have to get a marriage license, making it legal. My opponent states that a document cannot testify to the will of God and that's true until you consider the fact that not everyone that wants marriage believes in God and he fails to acknowledge that.

Our Constitution states that every citizen of America has the right to life, liberity and the PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Saying that a man cannot marry a man BY LAW is against the Constitution and is therefore contridicting the Constitution. States do NOT possess the right to take away any persons right to happiness. It's that simple. As another example to my Constitution argument above, the legal drinking age nationwide is 21. That's not a state thing; it's a national thing. Therefore the state cannot control it.

Like I said before, keeping gay marriage illegal is a bigger example of border like tyranny for the simple fact that it is the government reaching into our lives and telling us that no we can't marry who we want. Once again violating my right to hapiness. There should be nothing to prevent and I have more than given and explained my example of why and do not feel the need to do so again unless needed.

Yes, half of the people of this generation do NOT agree with gay marriage, but in the same since, there's another half that do. Now we can sit here forever and go back and forth about how it's a half and half decision but that's assinine and will never reach a stopping point so lets move on shall we?

As I have said before marriage does not always have a base in religion. Back to the example of the Atheist couple getting married, there is not religion involved there. It is simply a couple becoming a union in the eyes of the law which is all I'm saying for gay marriage. He claims that the reason he won't debate God is because it's an opinion. Well, this whole debate is opinion as is any other debate but ok. However, obviously the FACT that He is used in marriage is either a strong opinion or an invalid fact because I have proved it false.

You can consider homosexuallity a sin until your heart is content but like you said this is not a matter of religion as you and I have both stated. I have proven to you that marriage is in fact legal and to clarify things. A vast majority of the country that believes in RELIGION is Christain. That does NOT include the Atheists, keep in mind.

I don't really get the point trying to be made by the sandwitch thing but whatever.

Finally, God does NOT matter in this debate.

VOTE PRO BECAUSE ITS RIGHT
Itsallovernow

Con

i cant post i will explain later
Debate Round No. 4
BenJamyn

Pro

Uh. All right. Vote Pro.
Itsallovernow

Con

Alright now, I will first explain why I couldn't post, then move on to my conclusion.

At first, I was just going to comment I couldn't post. Upon further reflection, I realized that I would still forfiet a round unless I requested arguements extended. I broke my keyboard. Thus, I had to copy and paste my entire login and password, then copy and paste "i cant post i will explain later." This simple task was very time consuming and excrusiating. I hope you will all undestand, and now I move to my conclusion. *I won't post new arguments that my opponent can't defend, just rebuttals.

I have proven traditional marrages are Christian. However, my opponent wishes to assert the small example of homosexual atheists. On the scale between the two, this is virtually insignificant. The classic atheist belief is that nothing but the current world exists and it goes nothing beyond that. I have very, very rarely heard of straight atheist getting married, let alone homosexuals. If they get married, I would suppose that they seek a tax break or formal recognition. Since they do not believe in the next life as many marraiges do, they seek attention from this world for it and nothing more.

=Conclusion=

The entire debate is heavily dependent upon this question:

"Does marraige hold it's roots in religion?"

I have asserted and proven with a reliable source that, yes, it does. My opponent has only refuted with his personal opinion and no sources. In this, I believe the answer to the question is clear.

Thus, I strongly urge you to VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by it 3 years ago
it
man, luistpuig just told the straight truth there have been thousands of studies on homosexuality
every homosexual person i know fits all of these studies.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Of course I don't have a choice, Notarrogant. I do have preferances, though. It just doesn't include women.
Posted by Luistpuig 7 years ago
Luistpuig
There are plenty of DOCUMENTED studies which I go through in my book demonstrating the certain combinations of mistreatment of a child will lead to homosexuality, or what is know in psychiatry as Gender Identity Disorder, the Genesis of homosexuality.

Remember, a child at birth is a "clean slate" as it is now agreed by most scientist and child study findings, only wired with a very basic mental circuitry, (cry when hungry, poop, sleep), even a baby's vision and the eyes are still forming, the baby's life cycles are being established, etc.… the caregiver in this case have a HUGE responsibility, perhaps the biggest responsibility ANY person has on the planet, and that is to take care PROPERLY of that new born and to raise her/him properly and without abuse!

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! In addition to this, in the book I explain what I found regarding studies on how memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, which is linked to how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused. But overall, most people do not remember early childhood well, a critical time in their lives when the foundations of who they will be as adults are being laid.

Many people sadly fail miserably in this task, there are so many sad stories and different types of child caring dysfunctions, for example cases of neglect, violence against children, even sexual abuse of children as young as toddlers, etc. hence all the misadjusted adult individuals (in reality victims) in society today!

Like the saying goes: ...People need a license to drive, people need a license to fish... but any butthole can be a parent!

For ALL the facts I found I recommend you read my book.
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
Let's pretend that sexual preference isn't a choice for a moment.

This means one has no choice over whether he/she prefers blondes, brunettes, or redheads. No choice over blue eyes versus brown. No choice over drug users versus non-drug users. Overweight or muscular. Intelligent or humorous. No choice.

I don't buy it.

You may not feel that you have a choice in the matter but every single person on this earth has a choice of preference. Social conditioning certainly plays a large role in the matter and I don't mean to downplay it, but ultimately it is our own decision.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
If I could snap my fingers at a "straight" guy and make him go out with me (quite a few, really) I would. However, heterosexuality or homosexuality isn't a choice. I don't choose to be. I just am. Have I EVER dated a male? No, it's socially repulsive. Will I? I'm talking about it with one now.

I never forgot my childhood atrocities, nor will I let those who did do it forget. However, since I did not choose to be, it's always been that way, even before I could "choose", as you so eloquently put. If you deny this, wanna go out with me? =)

As for the mental disorder, that's a load of BS. Where's the proof? NONE! Just statistics. Many people have had some trauma or another in their childhood. That's nothing.
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
Luistpuig has taken a lot of time and effort to prove that homosexuality is not due to genetics but rather due to mistreatment as a child. If this were the case, would not the poor experience a higher percentage of gay offspring? What about those being raised in poor neighborhoods - which tend to be minorities?

Through all his effort he misses the most valid reason for homosexuality: choice. Just as you and I have the right to choose which sort of diet to consume and what type of lifestyle to enjoy, everyone has the innate right to determine sexual preference. Homosexuality is for our generation what drugs and rock and roll were to the "Greatest" generation.
Posted by Luistpuig 7 years ago
Luistpuig
Homosexuality is just one of the many dysfunctions humans can have, but still not "ok."

It is not genetic as proven by the large "Twin" studies in Sweden and Finland which show that Homosexuality is not due to genetics, since in the cases where one twin is gay only about 10% of the time the other twin is gay too, which shows it NOT genetic since twins SHARE 100% of the genes, and therefore they BOTH would have to be gay 100% of the time, but that is not the case!

Also, another wrong theory is that homosexuality is the result of something that happens in the womb, a chemical incident that perhaps happens in the womb, but if that is the case then what is the explination in the twins cases, as explained before where one is gay and the other one is not?

Mistreatments were done along the way during upbringing to homosexuals by their caretakers, something (various kinds of mistreatment) from about less than a year old to up to early childhood that their mind have chosen to forget and/or bury deep inside of them. And since the abuse is done so early in their lives most do not remember being anything else, hence the homosexuals always saying that they have being homosexuals "as long as I can remember…"

Simple facts, how many people remember in detail what a typical day was for them at one and a half year old, or what life was like for them for example at two or three years old? Not most people! Memories are retained, especially early childhood memories, depending on how a child is being treated. The studies found that children with good upbringing are more likely to have more memories of their childhood than children that were mistreated and/or abused. But overall, most people do not remember early childhood well, a critical time in their lives when the foundations of who they will be as adults are being laid.

Complete analysis can be found in my book "What Nature Intended, Six Factors Demonstrating Homosexuality to be a Dysfunction" Whatnatureintended.com
Posted by NotArrogantJustRight 7 years ago
NotArrogantJustRight
The way I see it, there are only two reasons to be against homosexual marriage: religion or economic.

It is very easy to see why numerous religions hold homosexual marriage in contempt, not the least of which is the physical inability to procreate. The economic reasons are less dramatic but no less important. The U.S. government encourages certain behaviors through taxation and other policy measures. By allowing homosexuals to be enjoined in marriage, an enormous number of regulations would need to be altered. Tax advantages, estate planning, next of kin rights, etc.

I say who cares whom (or what) a person marries? Remove all incentives and penalties referenced to households versus single citizens and the primary cause for discontent is removed. Most believe that marriage is a covenant between two people and their god. If this is the case, let them have their covenant and get out of their business. If someone wants to marry their cat or the favorite tree in the back yard, who am I to prevent them? Remove the economic and legal incentives and protections and it will return to being a contract between two loving individuals with only the best intentions.

The government has absolutely no business whatsoever in regulating marriage. As such, this debate subject is moot.
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
Indeed, it was well done. Good luck!
Posted by BenJamyn 7 years ago
BenJamyn
yeah, idk, i think it can really go either way. we both did pretty good. i just cannot spell at all
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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: Counter TheVoiceOfReason67
Vote Placed by TheVoiceOfReason67 3 years ago
TheVoiceOfReason67
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:50 
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins by referencing that America is secular and not governed by bigoted Bronze-age religious values.
Vote Placed by CarmenAnu 6 years ago
CarmenAnu
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 6 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ConsciousSpirit 6 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Vote Placed by jaja 7 years ago
jaja
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lafayette_Lion 7 years ago
Lafayette_Lion
BenJamynItsallovernowTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16