The Instigator
soccergirl04
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
MonetaryOffset
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

gay marriage

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 7 votes the winner is...
MonetaryOffset
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 512 times Debate No: 61599
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

soccergirl04

Con

you are wrong if you want gay marriage.

[Content edited by moderator]
MonetaryOffset

Pro

I accept, with only 5 minutes and 3,000 characters. This should be interesting.

My goal, of course, is to defend gay marriage, whereas my adversary must oppose it. However, his opening statement is not only poorly structured grammatically, but nothing more than a personal attack. Moreover, "faggot" is a derogatory slang used to disparage gay people. This, of course, is not an argument from Con. He cannot merely say that, without any evidence of course, that anyone who supports X policy is Y. I, for instance, am not gay, yet I support gay marriage. Moreover, even if this were true, it hardly provides a case against gay marriage.

I only have a minute left, so I'm going to cut my arguments short for one and expand on my points in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
soccergirl04

Con

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

How is that Grammar buddy?
MonetaryOffset

Pro

First, everything Con just wrote was plagiarized from this link (http://www.scribd.com...) save for his last remark about grammar, which frankly doesn't make any sense. He never cited this page nor quoted from it, so this should merit a loss. Nevertheless, I will respond to it.

Con claims that marriage is rooted in human nature and governed by natural law. He provides no evidence for this claim. In fact, marriage was rooted in property and the maintenance of power, and even biblical marriage was polygamous. He goes on to say, essentially, that gay marriage is morally wrong and people know this. However, he fails to establish an objective basis for wrong. Moreover, if morality is subjective and private, and Con has given us no reason to think that it isn't, marriage is a private relationship between consenting adults, meaning that the government should have no say in prohibiting gay marriage.

It would Contention 1: Utilitarianism

If we were to legalize gay marriage, as many states have already done, it would not negatively bear on anyone's life. Rather, it would merely improve the lives of a large group of people. Thus the utilitarian solution, i.e., the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering, is to legalize gay marriage.

Contention 2: Religious objections are irrelevant

Virtually every argument against gay marriage that I've seen is an extension of biblical doctrine. Looking beside the fact that Jesus never commented on homosexuality, we have legal precedent already in place which strictly forbids the intermingling of religion and politics.
Debate Round No. 2
soccergirl04

Con

soccergirl04 forfeited this round.
MonetaryOffset

Pro

Let's recap. Con only provided two contentions. The first was that, if you support gay marriage, you're a "faggot." I rebutted this, and she didn't counter-rebut. Then she plagiarized from a piece on natural law, but failed to account for an objective basis for marriage such that it can only exist between a man and a woman, and I pointed out that marriage has meant different thinks throughout history. Moreover, Con forfeited the last round, so my contentions on utilitarianism and the separation of church and state, coupled with my earlier remarks about subjective, private morality between consenting adults, went unrebuted.

There is only one option: Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Homos will never quit till they get what they want. Once gay marriage is legal,now what?Will that really make your life better. Or will your next agenda be to force by government us to accept you.I am not talking about equal pay. But socially. I for one, would never let an openly gay man around any of my children or grandchildren.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
gay behavior alone promotes sexual immorality. Indicating rape and abduction are opinion matters. Neglectful relationships are routine now becasue adultery is glorified. Children are corrupted at the youngest ages recorded simply because homosexual advocate public ally. Indicating any sexual immorality to a child is criminal. Indicating oral sex is okay, introduces the thought o woman at a young age, when they are clearly to oblivious to regard that testosterone causes menopause. Political injustice is fueled by a immorality induced by adulterous manerisms.

Homosexuality should always be kept it the closest. to say the least. Left to hang. Promoting adultery is always a stupid thing.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
Con didn't quite sell me, but I'll be honest in that his opening argument was quite compelling.
Posted by Shield 2 years ago
Shield
*reported*
Posted by LogicalLunatic 2 years ago
LogicalLunatic
Somebody please ban con.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
But, if you're against gay marriage, I'd love to debate you on it.
Posted by MonetaryOffset 2 years ago
MonetaryOffset
I had five minutes. I think my arguments were fine for a five-minute interval. That hardly makes me a "fool," Shadow-Dragon. That's a tad rash.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Stupid debate. Idiotic rules and fools debating.

Don't set it at five minutes.

I don't support gay marriage, but neither pro nor con is making good arguments.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Alduin 2 years ago
Alduin
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument is illogical
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
FaustianJustice
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Burden or Proof not met, plagiarized, uncivil, premise not defined, however voting occurred post moderation, so I am unsure of Con's premise.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was being rude. Pro was more conniving.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy points, Con had zero argument, and brought up whatever these "anti-gay" people believe to be "Nature's Law."
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
soccergirl04MonetaryOffsetTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: not even close.