The Instigator
SegBeg
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Reigon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no such thing as gay "marriage!"

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2016 Category: People
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 434 times Debate No: 92076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

SegBeg

Pro

The first round is for you to introduce yourself. I will be arguing that gay "marriage" is not really marriage at all. It is impossible for two men or two women to be married. Marriage is only possible between one man and one woman.

Hope somebody accepts

ps. avoid forefeiting this debate as much as you can please.

Thank you!!!
Reigon

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
SegBeg

Pro

Great. Now first off. You are entitled to your own opinion and I accept that. And sorry for that little fiasco in my other debate. That other guy was just an intolerant bigot and I was just defending myself.

I will try not to bring religion into this as I read on your profile that you are an atheist so I imagine that you would declare my Christian beliefs invalid or null.

So anyway. Here's my opinion on gay marriage. It does not exist. I'll take it like this: you have a nut and a bolt. The woman is the nut and the man is the bolt. When put together, they fit perfectly. But with a homosexual marriage, there are two nuts and two bolts. Two nuts nor two bolts can fit together. They cancel each other out. This is what I feel about a homosexual couple. They cannot unite their bodies like a heterosexual couple can. It is impossible because their bodies don't fit together, nor their personalities. I know there is more to marriage than just sex so I will go further into this explaination in the third round.

Good luck!!!
Reigon

Con

Haha agreed, I didn't really read the comments just saw there was a bunch cluttering up the comment section!

You are free to bring religion into the topic, I am an Atheist but I believe in freedom of religion. Everyone should be free express whatever religious beliefs they believe in (as long as they don't negatively effect others.)

Everyone's definition of marriage is different. There are many forms of marriage and it has been subject to change in history.
The definition of marriage is funky and subject to change over time, for example:
The King of Israel Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. That may have been a marriage accepted for his time but in the 21st century it's frowned upon severely.

Anyway marriage in my view is just a legal binding uniting two individuals together for rain or sunshine. It's also to express love and devotion for each other. Marriage is deeply engraved in our culture, a bachelors in his 40s may be looked down upon for not being married by his peers and boss. That is why I support marriage for any two people regardless of sexual preference.
Debate Round No. 2
SegBeg

Pro

Thank you for letting me use religion in this debate.

First of all. With your claim on King Solomon who was a polygamist, this was never God's ideal for marriage. I mean, how can you love 1000 wives at once? God meant for marriage to be between one man and one woman for life:

"Do you not know that God made them male and female. For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and they shall become one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31)

As we can see here, God meant as has always meant for marriage to be a union between one man and one woman until they die. And I see marriage as much more than just a legal binding between to consenting adults. Yes a marriage should have love companionship, devotion to both spouses, but all marriages should have the possibility of bringing new life into the world. Homosexuals couples are incpapble of doing this. Infertile couples are different. Being infertile is usually not their fault. They are either born with it or they develop it later in life. Despite what everyone says, I don't believe you are "born" gay. If they were, God would not condemn it as "immoral" and "unnatural". Homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic mark.

Anyway. I thank you for this debate and that it was civilized. Good luck!!!
Reigon

Con

Oh boy this is the quickest debate I've ever had on this site!
Anyway I'll provide my source for Solomon's wives below, I don't agree with him but he did still did it.

The definition of marriage changes over time, I don't believe the bible is a good source for marriage.

Genesis 4:19: "Lamech married two women."
Samuel 1:2 "He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children."

The bible allows the practice of polygamy as shown above. If there is a God, he supports polygamy based off the bible. That is why I do not support the idea of God dictating marriage.

This is my definition of marriage
Marriage: the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.
I don't know too much about England but in the United States our constitution believes in the separation of church and state. So if a church opposes gay marriage I believe they are more than welcomed to forbid gay marriage in their own church. However two people regardless of gender should be free to legally engage in marriage in the eyes of the law.

In the law marriage is defined by the government who derives it's power to govern from the people. If the majority of people do not support gay marriage than gay marriage should not be legal. If the majority of people support gay marriage then gay marriage should be legal.

Anyway thanks for the quick, efficient and civilized debate!

Source:
https://www.biblegateway.com...
http://biblia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: H501// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Hahaha I almost peed myself when I saw this debate. Pro says there is no such thing as gay marriage. Since homosexuals can have a marriage certificate, she was wrong before she even started. Anyway, Pro made the more convincing argument (duh), and was the only one to use sources. (No, the Bible is not a reliable source.)

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter appears to insert their own preconceptions of the topic into the evaluation of the debate. Otherwise, the voter merely states that Con's argument was clearly better without explaining why. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter still has to establish the reliability of the given sources, and not just state that its presence establishes its reliability. Dismissing one side's sources has to come with decent reasoning, and accepting the realiability of the other side's sources also requires reasoning not provided here.
************************************************************************
Posted by Reigon 6 months ago
Reigon
Polygamy and gay marriage is not the same however the defense against gay marriage is the bible. I provided sources to shown the bible is not a trustworthy source as it promotes polygamy.
Polygamy may have been accepted in the past it is strongly frowned on and illegal in most first world countries in the 21st century.
My point of involving Polygamy was simply to denounce the bible as a source.

Would you like to debate about this in the future KZC? (I'm busy this week but I'll have more free time next week.)
Posted by KZC 6 months ago
KZC
First of all, polygamy and gay marriage are not the same. Gay marriage is the marriage of two people of the same sex. Polygamy involves marriage with more than on spouse. For example, it could be a man with 4 spouses. The spouses aren't married to each other so there is no gay marriage. Also, polygamy is not explicitly condemned in the bible. However, since Genesis 2:24 says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh," and Ephesians 5:31 says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" it is clear that God wanted a man and a woman to be together and become one. By becoming one means spiritually, physically, emotionally, and mentally. Above all, God wanted a union of one man and one woman so that the man would love his wife wholeheartedly after his love for God. The Old Testament should not be ignored. From the Old Testament, it can be seen that polygamy leads to trouble. The Old Testament is also the word of God, but the New Testament is the new path towards salvation. The New Testament only reinforces the Old Testament and condemns false laws and practices as seen in the Pharisees. God loves all people infinitely. You can be a Christian and be gay too, but you cannot practice homosexuality and be obedient to God at the same time. Hopefully, this has helped. I am terrible at explaining things by writing so you could always message me when you want to understand more.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Heirio// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments hinge on the God from the Bible existing and that there has only been one definition of marriage. God's existence has never been proven and Con points out how the definition of marriage has changed over time, and how people in the past had a vastly different view of marriage, and thus speaking of "traditional marriage" is useless. Pro doesn't provide a counter-argument to the idea of the definition of marriage being changed. Con also notes how God allowed polygamy, which destroys Pro's argument of God making marriage for a man and a woman. Con gets points for arguments. Con is also the only one who provided sources for his arguments (which were the biblical allowances of polygamy), and so he gets the points for sources.

[*Reason for removal*] While the voter sufficiently explains arguments, the voter is required to do more than merely state that one side provided arguments while the other didn't. Stating what those sources were does not establish their relevance to the debate, and thus the vote is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ferminator// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: As mentioned before, Pro used the Bible as justification for their argument and that hindered their performance. Con refuted the oppositions points even with allowing religion into the conversation.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter insufficiently explains arguments. Voters are required to directly assess specific points made by both sides, and not merely state that one side did a good job refuting the other or that a certain source hindered one side's points. It should be clear what argument(s) failed/were successful and why that was the case.
************************************************************************
Posted by Heirio 6 months ago
Heirio
Apparently one can ignore the laws of the old testament, is what I've been told.
Posted by Reigon 6 months ago
Reigon
You need to have participated in 3 rounds to vote I believe. It was a good vote though, I'm not an expert in Christianity so I don't know much about the old and new testaments.

I'm sorry but where did I go off topic?
Posted by KZC 6 months ago
KZC
I was hoping I could vote but I can't so I put my vote down in the comments even though it may not count.

1- Pro
2- Pro
3- Tied
4- Pro
5- Pro

Both people brought in the Bible and Christian faith. However, con was deducted some points due to the redundancy of support that was ultimately trumped by the passage used by pro. In addition, the interpretation of polygamy in the bible is wrong. The New Testament clearly states the union of a man and a woman. The bible also states that Jesus came down save us from sin. Polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament by the people, but not by God because one person can't fully love two or more people at once. Polygamy was the practice that led to Solomon's downfall. Con also loses points for going off topic towards the end. I am very impressed at how you guys debated. Great job!
Posted by Heirio 6 months ago
Heirio
Yeah, but arguments like this can be especially hectic when your opponent doesn't know that debating requires evidence.

I'm not just being nasty btw. She literally refused to give proof and told me to just have faith in her argument.
Posted by Reigon 6 months ago
Reigon
I didn't read the argument between you and her, I'd like to stay neutral in that.

If you both accept I suggest opening up another debate for this. Debating in the comments section is just as hectic as debating in the comment section of a youtube video, I've done that several times and it's quite hectic!
No votes have been placed for this debate.