The Instigator
Free_Th1nker
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
joph
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

There is a legitimate, rational reason to ban same sex marriage in the United States

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 4 votes the winner is...
Free_Th1nker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 735 times Debate No: 58925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Free_Th1nker

Con

Although more than half the states in the United States prohibit homosexual marriage, I disagree that they have a legitimate, rational reason to do so. Pro will have to propose a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage. *DISCLAIMER* Leviticus 18:22 and all other passages from scripture may not be used as legitimate or rational argument. Tautological arguments will not be accepted as rational or legitimate. The purpose of this debate is to find legal or social arguments that show legalizing same sex marriage is irrational.

Remember, that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Debate is 4 rounds:
1. Acceptance and brief opening argument.
2. Short rebuttal to opponent's opening argument and an elaboration on your position.
3. Rebuttals to the elaborated argument, new information can be stated if you wish.
4. Closing statements, no new information.

------------

My opening argument:

There is no rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage in the United States. By prohibiting the rights of homosexuals to get married by the same standard as heterosexual couples, homosexuals are be denied the 1,138 statutory provisions, including benefits, rights, and privileges, that are attached to being married. The purpose of marriage in the United States is not procreative. In the United States, marriage is not an institution of love. The "nuclear family" is an outdated model of the typical American family. All forms of sexuality should be respected equally. Homosexuality is not an illness, disease, or disorder.
joph

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Debate Round No. 1
Free_Th1nker

Con

Sorry, your useless website that no one wants to visit does not provide anything to this debate.
joph

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Debate Round No. 2
Free_Th1nker

Con

What sort of boards do you sell?
joph

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Debate Round No. 3
Free_Th1nker

Con

I did not realize the idea of me performing oral sex on you turned you on so greatly. If you want to proceed with some sort of homosexual relationship, I'll need a solid commitment from you. If I can't count on you to be exclusive with me, I don't think it'll work out. I can only thrive in a relationship with someone who is fully committed to me as I am to them. But if you're willing to commit, I don't see why we can't meet up and see if things work out. If all fails, we can talk about your hard boards. Hard boards can be our "Breakfast at Tiffany's."

However, I am only interested in dating intelligent men. So in your response to Round Four, please tell me if your statement in Round 3 used a metaphor or a simile. If you answer correctly, I think we can have a bright future together. <3

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo
joph

Pro

[Content removed by moderator]
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Everyone here, please vote con and flag my opponent. Much appreciated! Happy debating.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Yeah, reported him about a half hour ago.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
http://www.debate.org...

Take a few minutes to get this guy kicked off.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Yeah this guy's been trolling around for the past half hour or so. Definitely will repost.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Well, that's depressing. Oh well, take the free win and remake. Might want to set it so that no one can accept without a comment first next time.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
That should help.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
Added legitimate to the resolution. You were right, I should have clarified it in both the resolution and the post as a whole. Hopefully this clears up any potential issue.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Look dude, we're just trying to help. Both of us feel that adding even one word to the resolution makes this a lot more reasonable of a debate for you to have. If you don't to do it, don't, but that's up to you.
Posted by Free_Th1nker 2 years ago
Free_Th1nker
@whiteflame: In post I use the word "legitimate" multiple times. I worded the question to fit the rational basis test which is used when creating laws for a quasi-suspect class like sexual orientation.

@ChosenWolff: See above. The word rational was chosen intentionally. I want one legitimate, rational reason. That is what the law requires. If you think it is so simple to put forward a legitimate, rational reason to prohibit same sex marriage then accept the challenge of the debate, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
The topic doesn't say "legitimate," but even if it did, one can be rational and present a rational argument that is weak, one can present a legitimate harm that isn't sufficient to keep the ban. Given the way you phrased it, all they have to do is present a weak reason with a logical backing and it's game over.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
Free_Th1nkerjophTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: eff eff
Vote Placed by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Free_Th1nkerjophTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Well content was removed so obviously arguments, sources, and conduct goto con but that means pro had no typos...
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Free_Th1nkerjophTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF (Troll).
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Free_Th1nkerjophTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, great to see another ridiculous troll, as always.