gay marriage should be leggalized in every country
Debate Rounds (5)
I ask that in the next round (Round 2), you present your cases and evidence for your side of why gay marriage should be legalized in every country. Then, I will counter those points and make some of my own, and so on. The first argument of Round 2 is all yours, Pro.
Now I let my opponent make his counter argument.
My opponent's argument clearly states that he believes everyone should have equality in marriage rights, and he leaves this to be my counter of his argument. However, Pro does not provide any facts, sources, or reasoning as to why he has come to this case for a debate. I will start with my first reason on why gay marriage should not be legalized.
1. Church and State
Many people know that in certain religions, gay marriage is said to not be a good thing. In the Bible, a book that many people follow, for example, says that gays should be punished and that their marriage is not to be allowed. I'm not saying that just because of religious reasons gay marriage should be illegal, I'm just saying that a religious conflict would cross with poliical conflict and ultimately cause a very large conflict if gay marriage is made legal.
You see, you've got the conservatives and republicans that are against gay marriage, Then you have the liberals and democrats that are for gay marriage. If gay marriage is to be legalized, then it is safe to assume that the democrats take full power over that matter. Then the republicans feel left out, and they try to take it back through their ways of politics. Since more creationists and religious people are republicans and more atheists or evolutionists are democrats, we have a religious uproar over gay marriage. This is clearly not a good thing because it has the potential to cause more problems within the US Government, and other countries around the world depending on their political parties, being liberal and conservative, as most are.
More next round.
First my opponent states that we should not legalize gay marriage in every country because it goes against some religions .but there are religions where gay marriage is okay so if that is the only argument than countries ho use that as an argument to ban gay marriage are respecting some religious beliefs and banning others. What makes this not a solid argument.
Religions that condone gay marriage:
-Christian groups :
Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state. Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.
Native American religion
But the real argument is the one you put as if gay marriage would be legalized a big conflict would emerge between church and state what is true .But a state should not base their laws on religious beliefs .
And big conflicts also happened when people defended other basic human rights(American civil war).
In most countries where gay marriage has been legalize it has not been a major conflict.
With major I mean a war scenario.
Then my opponent says that if gay marriage gets legalize in every country than the Democrates are going to take over the U.S.
First this is an argument for your case only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats.
Why didn"t I make a point to my case? Because laws are written are made to prevent bad things from happening murder, stealing"
But laws are not written to ban things ho do not hurt any one and that do no bad to society .
So it is your job to prove that gay marriage is wrong and my job is to prove their isn"t any thing wrong with it and if all your counter arguments fail than you have failed to prove Gay marriage is wrong .
And if there isn"t any thing wrong with it why should it be banned in some countries?
Note: This debate is about gay marriage in general not in the U.S.
"First my opponent states that we should not legalize gay marriage in every country because it goes against some religions."
Pro fails to realize that this was not the entirety of my argument. My argument was saying that since most religious people are conservative/republicans and most atheists are on the liberal side, we can expect a political conflict between the two if one is to get their success. It is best to keep things normal (not legalizing gay marriage) so both sides can remain peaceful, as there are some democrats who are against gay marriage.
Pro then states a bunch of Christian groups, but again fails to realize what I just said in the paragraph above. And sir, I feel like you copied that off of Wikipedia, as I can see things like "". Wikipedia is covered with those things. In a debate, you're supposed to use your own words and copy-pasting is frowned upon. Plus, Wikipedia isn't a very valid source in the first place.
"In most countries where gay marriage has been legalize it has not been a major conflict. With major I mean a war scenario."
In my arguments, never once did I reference or even think about legalizing gay marriage as becoming a war-causing conflict. By conflict, I meant things like rallies, protests, and vicious arguments and debates between citizens and politicians. And have you heard of Putin's launched "War on Homosexuals"? That's causing a pretty bad conflict.
"Then my opponent says that if gay marriage gets legalize in every country than the Democrates are going to take over the U.S.
First this is an argument for your case only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats."
I do not mean that the Democrats would literally take over the U.S. I am meaning that they would become the central and main party.
"...only if the voters are republican and it is one for my case only if the voters are democrats."
You do realize that I am talking about government and politics as a whole, not just elections, right?
And finally you go on about laws. I know exactly what a law is, no need to tell me. Gay marriage is illegal because of the conflicting parties and the knowledge that there are many religious people in the world/U.S. who are against gay marriage for that reason.
And now, I make my own arguments.
The numbers added up for homosexuals in the U.S alone reach over 300 million. And that is just one country. Imagine adding all the other countries' numbers to that, and that is a staggering amount. If every country were to allow every single one of their homosexual citizens to get married, then the population would eventually lower. Since there is no woman in that marriage, the couple cannot reproduce. Also, like I said earlier about conflicts. If every country is to legalize gay marriage, then we can expect a worldwide conflict (again, I don't necessarily mean a WAR). And that obviously isn't good.
Putin's "War on Homosexuals" is one of the big player in the mention above, and since Putin started that, he is definitely not one to allow gay marriage in his country.
I leave the first argument in the next round to you, Pro.
I do not need to make any arguments I should just prove that there isn"t any thing wrong with gay marriage .
My opponents respond to my arguments :
My opponent tries to make my argument that banning gay marriage oppresses religious freedom of these Christians groups just by citing the source as wikipedia and saying that it isn"t a valid source. But does not make any effort to counter the fact that those religious beliefs are being pressed so I will consider for the time being that he doesn"t consider this to be a wrong and that he consents to it.
Now my opponent says that It would make not a war scenario conflict but rallies etc..
But that doesn"t really matter there were lots of time were gaining rights for minorities has maked for conflict (Like segregation in the U.S.).
And even with all of these conflict we consider it to be right to give right to blacks even if some groups are very opposed to the idea .Why not the same for the gays?
Now my opponent argues that the world population is going to descend if we allow gay marriage .
But this is an wrong argument the gays would not have children even if there were not allow to marry so these argument is wrong. And even if this is true should we also forbid marriage with partners ho do not want children or that are impotent or infertile ?
No of course not marriage is more than a baby producing machine.
That argument is really hearth lose .
Well God luck to my opponent.
1. Sir, did you realize that my counter to your argument about the different Christian groups was me stating that legalized gay marriage would cause conflicts among said groups and other people, not to mention politicians?
2. Pro argues and seems to compare the gay rights movement to the african-american civil rights movement. It is all together way less important to give gays rights then it was to give blacks rights. Were gay men ever slaves? Were gay people ever attacked by dogs and blasted with firehoses just for being gay? The answer to these is obviously no.
3. Exactly my point. Since there is such a large number of homosexuals that keeps growing, if marriage is allowed for them, they obviously cannot produce children. Thus, the population is halted, and even lowered as more and more people die. I know that marriage is not only about child producing, but is about love. I understand that gays feel the same love that heteros do, but I think that gay marriage should not be legalized.
"That argument is really hearth lose."
I have NO idea what you were trying to say there.
I don't know about any of the ideas of other people, but I don't think anyone is going to watch that video all the way through. That video is practically an hour long (57:31), and I don't think anybody wants to spend an hour reading a debate.
Plus, Pro did not counter any of my arguments or make any arguments of his own...so
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leojm 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not counter any of Cons arguments. Pro also failed to convince me in his argument, Pros argument was also not as organized. It was written in an essay form and it was not as interesting to read. Pro some good advice I was given, do your arguments in points and counter you opponents arguments. This will make it easier for voters to read and understand what your trying to say.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.