The Instigator
Abysato
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
danielawesome12
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

The people's hate on gay. why?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
danielawesome12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 654 times Debate No: 38505
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Abysato

Con

Ever since gay people started to make progress to be able to marry,all of a sudden people started to care about marriage and church and faith and belief, just because two people of the same sex want to share the same legal benefits as a "regular marriage'. Why? I be live in live and let live, if you disagree with my statement join to me in this debate.
danielawesome12

Pro

Acceptance
Well now that I've been dragged into this debate I guess it's to late to turn back now, so I'm happy I get to debate a challenging topic.

Culture
- in god we trust in printed on US currency
- "UNDER GOD" is in the pledge of allegiance
- con makes a false claim that the has no presence in U.S. Life, but the two simple facts shown above beg to differ.

Politics
- legal benefits associated with married are being heavily debated and are subject to change. (Whether the Gay community will get the benefits and the ability to marry or the benefits will be done away with seems to be the main topic of the discussion.)

In addition

The purpose of marriages:

- it guaranteed that a man would take care of a daughter (very important to father's, and many with pregnant daughter's forced shotgun marriages)
A. As nowadays women have a thing called child support, and women can easily find males online.
B. This doesn't apply to gay couples

- it guaranteed the male an "employ" as the females were often treated like property (in some countries females still are property)
A. As nowadays women are treated as equals
B. This doesn't apply to gay couples

- it gave a "holy way" for a male, a female, and god to connect.
A. This is the only purpose that marriage is still in use. (In the United States of America)
B. This doesn't apply to gay couples.

So as you can see the only reasons gays should want to be married is for benefits, which are currently subject to change.

Sources:
http://www.christianbiblereference.org...
http://purposeofmarriage.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Abysato

Con

I agree with the points you point out but you forgot to mention love. There could be a lot of couples now a days that are fighting for benefits but in my opinion, the grand majority of gay people are fighting for love and hopefully to be united by law with the same rights as a man and woman in the usual marriage. Who is anyone to tell them otherwise? And on other thing..... explain this to me in detail.

- it guaranteed that a man would take care of a daughter (very important to father's, and many with pregnant daughter's forced shotgun marriages) A. As nowadays women have a thing called child support, and women can easily find males online. B. This doesn't apply to gay couples

- it guaranteed the male an "employ" as the females were often treated like property (in some countries females still are property) A. As nowadays women are treated as equals B. This doesn't apply to gay couples

- it gave a "holy way" for a male, a female, and god to connect. A. This is the only purpose that marriage is still in use. (In the United States of America) B. This doesn't apply to gay couples.

And thank you for accepting the debate :-)
danielawesome12

Pro

Definition of love- a feeling of strong or constant affection for one person.[1]
As you read this definition you will notice that you don't have to be married to feel love for someone.

Clarification
1. Marriage guaranteed that a woman wouldn't have to pay for a family alone if she became pregnant.
A. Now when women have children the male has to pay child support, and even if the man leaves her or dies she can find a new male online. (Dating websites)
B. This doesn't require clarification unless you don't understand the concept of gay marriage.

2. Females were useful for handiwork and had little rights (couldn't vote, did dishes, did laundry, cooking ETC.)
A. Now women and men have equal rights and share equal work.
B. This doesn't require clarification unless you don't understand the concept of gay marriage.

3. Check my sources in my first argument for an explanation of three, it should make it rather simple.

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [1]
Debate Round No. 2
Abysato

Con

According to this definition you are right but Isn't marriage the pinnacle of love? Don't people for the most part want to be married at one moment and be able to share the rest of there lives with they're partners? And on top of that, if nothing gay people are doing at the present time affects you directly, why are you against gay marriage? Will allowing gay people to marry affect your present and/or future?
danielawesome12

Pro

You're attempting to glorify your message of marriages but it truth marriage is constant work and adaptation [1] [2] [3]
- a lot of people go into marriage expecting "total bliss" and "the pinnacle of love
- when confronted with divorce statistics and how others experienced marriage couples always say "mine will be different"
- the money and time put in the marriage to sustain the families is expensive and time consuming.
- it will kill your sex life and you may never experience sexual variety again.
- marriage is artificial and unnatural.
- it straps you of your freedom, and is essentially servitude to your spouse.

Con is now asking me why I have chosen this side, 3 rounds deep in debate.
- I simply don't see why the U.S. Culture should change because U.S. Politics are lacking.
- in addition you haven't made one reasonable claim of why the Gay community wants marriage other than "it's the pinnacle of love." Which is far from actuality.
- while you tried to mention earlier that the presence of the church had disappeared until gay marriage became an issue, however most Americans still have a belief in god. [4]

Sources:
http://brookemichelleclark.wordpress.com... [1]
https://www.byliner.com... [2]
http://www.mgtowforums.com... [3]
http://www.gallup.com... [4]
Debate Round No. 3
Abysato

Con

I'm not trying to glorify my message of marriage, I'm saying that that's the expected outcome. I agree with you with the reality of marriage, you point out things like, it will ruin your sex life,the money and time put in the marriage to sustain the family is expensive and time consuming, it straps you of your freedom and is essentially servitude to your spouse.....your looking at it the wrong way, there are alot of people looking forward to that type of lifestyle, people that want to be with only one person, of course things will get bad but if the love is there they work it out,that's what people look for, gay or straight. The U.S promotes equality, but evidently it has its doubts on gay marriage and I disagree with you saying....' I simply don't see why the U.S. Culture should change because U.S. Politics are lacking.' The U.S was created by oppression, by people wanting to live the way they want to live, and the only claim I need is...that marriage is the pinnacle of love. And yes I mentioned earlier ' people started to care about marriage and church and faith and belief.' The presence of church has always been there, just never respected by society until gay marriage came around. And marriage wasn't always unnatural and artificial, people that didn't fully love they're partner created that.
danielawesome12

Pro

Assessing con's viewpoint

Saying the church had no impact on life:
"Ever since gay people started to make progress to be able to marry,all of a sudden people started to care about marriage and church and faith and belief"

Being swayed by my side and agreeing however saying I'm still wrong because gays are fighting for love, meanwhile the purpose of marriage has little to nothing to do with gays:
"I agree with the points you point out but you forgot to mention love"

Furthering his argument, by saying it's the ultimate form of love, while in reality it's adds a lot of work and stress, especially since 2 families have to merge and share common bonds
"I agree with the points you point out but you forgot to mention love"
Definition of love- a feeling of strong or constant affection for one person. You can experience love without marriage, and marriage often decreases love and causes divorces.

Agreeing that I was right and essentially throwing in the towel, then making a heavily opinionated closing statement.
"I agree with you with the reality of marriage, you point out things like, it will ruin your sex life,the money and time put in the marriage to sustain the family is expensive and time consuming, it straps you of your freedom and is essentially servitude to your spouse"

Con has completely failed to give any unbiased information, he has no sources because he can't find a single website that agrees with his opinion dominated views. Meanwhile I have listed many sources, conducted my viewpoints with little bias, and given a larger and much more detailed argument, I understand that many people disagree with my stance in general, but their is now doubt that my argument dominated and belittled his, VOTE PRO.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Bill-Rabara 3 years ago
Bill-Rabara
Teddy,

That is a weak 'argument'. The government issues marriage licenses so how do you propose to limit governments role with marriage? Your idea of limiting marriage to relationships that provide the most benefit is strange, impractical, impossible to measure the 'benefit', and most likely born of a fear of gay people. You also mention a benefit to children when marriage has nothing to do with children. Notta. Why not only recognize homosexual relationships as being capable of marriage? That would save more money than only allowing heterosexuals to marry.
Posted by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
There are many good, non religious reasons to oppose gay marriage. My opposition is not religious based.

As a conservative I think Governments role in relationship contracts (marriage and/or civil unions) should be limited. I think the place to draw the line is with those relationships that have proved to benefit children and society the most (a man and a woman). Extending benefits and recognition to relationships beyond that just increase the size and scope of Government programs.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
leandro.sanchez
"Childreen would not be normal with to dads" I hearth this from a christian
Response: Jesus had two dads he turned up okay.
Posted by Bill-Rabara 3 years ago
Bill-Rabara
Marriage, in the United States, is a legal arrangement. There is no official state religion that the United States endorses or promotes. Excluding gay people from marriage is a value based upon either hatred, fear, or a value derived solely from religion. The United States is totally against hatred, fear, and malice. Therefore, there is no good argument against gays marrying. That the word 'God' appears on money or anywhere else is irrelevant to the argument,
Posted by Abysato 3 years ago
Abysato
Well then you can't live with gay marriage , you just wrote your OK with it as longs as its not called marriage and that's exactly what I'm debating.
Posted by danielawesome12 3 years ago
danielawesome12
I'm can live with with gay marriage, I just don't want it to be called marriage.
Man+Man or Women+Men is different then Women+Man. To be fair marriage isn't needed in modern society, and from what I can tell the only reason why the gay community cares is for the tax benefits.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
Abysatodanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Stronger, more developed arguments from Pro.
Vote Placed by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
Abysatodanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Only pro used sources.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
Abysatodanielawesome12Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more devolped arguements and had backed them with sources for credibility.