The Instigator
why_why
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Jyohe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

gay marriage should be legal

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 1 vote the winner is...
why_why
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 488 times Debate No: 63784
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

why_why

Pro

I believe gay marriage should be legal everywhere. Most arguments against gay marriage are ridiculous. Yes, the Bible is against it, but what if your atheist and the bible has no part of your life? The dumbest one I've heard is that if gay marriage is legal more people will become gay and society will collapse. 10% of the world is gay and it's stayed that way for a LONG time. Gay marriage is actually a good example for your kids. It takes a lot of courage for two girls or boys to be proud they are dating. What this teaches young children is people are different, and differences should be celebrated and rejoiced. To takes away basic human rights from some people is of course racist, and extremely rude. Everyone should be free to live their own life, and what happened to the separation of church and state? And why do people Want to control things that aren't their buissness? What I'm saying is Christianity doesn't rule the world and marriage is none of the government's buissness.
Jyohe

Con

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.
This is false.
First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.
Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.
Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.
Debate Round No. 1
why_why

Pro

Oh really? Because scientists have found animals showing homosexual behaviors. And how is it impossible for then to marry. This makes no sense. Same sexton couples have married before. This isn't incest relationships we are debating on. Another reason it should be legal is that they are more likely to adopt children! Straight couples will wanna give birth to their child, but gay couples don't have that option. So, they will adopt children. And don't start saying the children won't wanna be adopted by a gay couple. They would. And it's better to have two parents then one. People claim that it's supposed to be man married to women, but that is no where beat the truth. It is just another way for anti gays to steal other's rights. What you are expressing is people shouldn't be allowed to be happy due to different preferences. Gays are committing suicide because of the harassing they get, and not being able to be with the one they love. If gay marriage is legal, society will have to accept.
Jyohe

Con

Allowing gay couples to wed will further weaken the institution of marriage. Traditional marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. As argued by Ryan T. Anderson, William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation, "In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults" desires than children"s needs... Redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is the culmination of this revisionism, and it would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds."
Debate Round No. 2
why_why

Pro

I still don't see how legalizing gay marriage will increase divorce rates. Straight couples have nothing to do with gay couples. Unless they try to squeeze in. I highly doubt a married couple will sit down and say, "gay marriage is legal let's get a divorce!" And if they do they are huge idiots. Legalizing gay marriage can actually decrease divorce. Gay people sometimes marry members of the opposite sex, and that will most likely end in a divorce. For example: Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates 1955-1958. How happy do you think they're ending was?
Jyohe

Con

Jyohe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
why_why

Pro

why_why forfeited this round.
Jyohe

Con

Jyohe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
why_why

Pro

Sorry about forfiting, I was having some login issues. Anyway, I'd like to say that gay marriage activists are right on the fact that the fight for gay marriage is a civil rights act. By not allowing two people to marry is taking away basic human rights, similar to the basic human rights blacks were being deprived of.
Jyohe

Con

Assuming that gay marriage is illegal by the instigators initial debate question, how can gay marriage be a human right if it is illegal? Thus, it is not a right except for the government having a right to choose legal status. Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
If marriage is none of the government's business, then civil marriage ceremonies shouldn't exist.
Posted by TheodoretheMan 2 years ago
TheodoretheMan
Fundamental! Sorry, not undamentals. (Broke dominant arm)
Posted by TheodoretheMan 2 years ago
TheodoretheMan
Marriage: (according to the dictionary) The legally or formally recognized union of a man and woman as partners in a relationship.

Two men or women getting 'married' is not really getting married.
It is in no way racist.

Racist: (according to the dictionary) A person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

You need to understand undamentals before you charge into a debate, pro.
Posted by lori17224 2 years ago
lori17224
Marriage is nothing more than a contract, dammit! If you actually loved each other, you would spend time together and show signs of affection to each other. You don't need marriage to love.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
why_whyJyoheTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Both cases need a lot of work, but Con's especially. I buy that gay marriage isn't equivalent to racial struggles, but that does nothing for your case. Pro never justifies gay marriage as a human right, so I buy that it's not, but that's just mitigation. Con never states how gay marriage opposes nature, so I don't buy that, nor do I get sufficient explanation to believe that gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage as a whole. Pro at least gives me something - separation of church and state, equal rights, and more adoption. I don't get a clear idea of why these things are good, but at least they're clear benefits to his case that don't exist in Con's. Hence, I vote Pro. Also giving him conduct because Con forfeited one more time.