The Instigator
ilma
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
potat0
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

should LGBT relationships be legal or illegal?

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...
potat0
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 42374
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

ilma

Pro

yes LGBT relationships be made legal as they are self defined and consensual . they are according to nature. there is no harm in loving a person of a same gender. making it illegal would be like taking away the legal rights of personal liberty and freedom of such people.
potat0

Con

Marriage is a privilege and not a right. There are rules for it as well as there are rules for the personal liberty and freedom of such people. Like most commonly known laws such as not to drink while driving, these come before personal liberty and freedom as if you drink and drive, your freedom will be taken away from you and you will go to jail.

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. In the Oct. 15, 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis." Allowing gay couples to wed will further weaken the institution of marriage.

Also, gay marriage being made legal will lead to bestiality and other non traditional relationships such as incestuous relationships be made legal too. Now, I ask you. Do you believe these two should be made legal too?

Sources: procon.org
Debate Round No. 1
ilma

Pro

the question is not that whether its written down in the constitution or not...the question is if not then should it be legal?
moreover dont you think that these relationships will help the country to reduce the population by adopting a child rather than producing one.
its a human emotion. nobody can stop that. thats nature. and if being a gay or a lesbian is not accepted as a nature and is banned then the pregnancy control pills etc. should also be banned..
7-13% of the country's population consists of such people.illegalising them would even lead to loss in votes.
according to me they must be welcomed as a society and should be allowed to exercise their relationship.
potat0

Con

My opponent did not respond to my question about other "nature" related relationships that are illegal such as bestiality and incest. I will ask you the question again, do you think that those should be made legal too?

The question is if it should be made legal and the answer is no because in the constitution, it clearly states what I have said before.

Paula Ettelbrick, JD, Professor of Law and Women's Studies, wrote in 1989, "Marriage runs contrary to two of the primary goals of the lesbian and gay movement: the affirmation of gay identity and culture and the validation of many forms of relationships." [15] The leaders of the Gay Liberation Front in New York said in July 1969, "We expose the institution of marriage as one of the most insidious and basic sustainers of the system. The family is the microcosm of oppression." [16]

Marriage is a religious rite between one man and one woman. According to a July 31, 2003 statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman""

Yes, I agree it would help reduce the world's population by adopting children instead of producing but it will affect the children who are the future of the world.

Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. [52] Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. [53] In the 1997 book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development, Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, observed that 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship, compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers. [13]

What this may lead to: Not enough people in the world. Where would the children that they could adopt be?
Some places in the world, such as Canada, is already experiencing an extremely high demand for one job, in this case, doctors and nurses. Doctors and nurses is a very important job.

Also, two of your arguments contradict. You feel as if you want to reduce the world's population but you would like to ban pregnancy pills? If we banned pregnancy pills, wouldn't more pregnancies occur and will raise the world's population?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ilma

Pro

dear contender,
do read twice what i have written about those pills. i said that homosexual relationships are a part of nature and if the government is banning it then they should also think that the pills also constitute as a part of living and it should be also banned...

moreover if two person have a will, and that too a an honest will for god,then who are we to decide that it should be banned.

and plz this site requires your own views rather, than copying it from internet.

and as you said that from where would we bring children to get adopted to the homosexuals... the answers is that i had already mentioned that a minority percentage of people are in a homosexual relationship..
potat0

Con

Most debates require people to be objective rather than subjective as hard facts prove more than opinions. In voting for a debate, there is a section that allows points based on the sources and that it what am I doing. I am not drawing to conclusions unless I have proof.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ilma 3 years ago
ilma
there is only a minority people who r into such relationship...taking away their right to marry would b lyk taking away their right to live n personal liberty ....which can never b taken even in d cases if emergencies..
if two person have will...n dat too n honest will fr ....then who r we to bani it ....
Posted by UserNameThatIsBeingTyped 3 years ago
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
"gay marriage being made legal will lead to bestiality and other non traditional relationships such as incestuous relationships be made legal too. Now, I ask you. Do you believe these two should be made legal too?"

Slippery slope fallacy of the most obvious sort.
Posted by ilma 3 years ago
ilma
thank you people for your votes and suggestion.... will try my best next time...
and even best of luck to the contender for his future debates....i m sorry if i have been rude somewhere.. :):)
Posted by ilma 3 years ago
ilma
oh my god!!!
seriously?
Posted by potat0 3 years ago
potat0
Just to let you know, I was on the pro side of this debate but I wanted a challenge
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Silentsvc 3 years ago
Silentsvc
ilmapotat0Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I cant really state what side of this argument I am on because the premise is a question in itself. Conduct was good throughout, slight edge to Con on grammar. The argument made was convincing because of the sources for Con. Pro, there is much information out there fro you to use to add meat to your opinions. Please take a look at them and redo this debate. I think you could make a strong case with the right sources
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
ilmapotat0Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Strange, I thought this debate was questioning the legality of a LGBT relationship. Then apparently the Con side made the debate relate to the legality of marriage. Pro did not provide any facts for their statements. Con provided facts backed by valid sources. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by ChristianPunk 3 years ago
ChristianPunk
ilmapotat0Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was using her brain and had stated the obvious that human nature in LGBT people are told to have these relationships and urges just like a hetero. Con made the mistake of statistics. He mentioned 25% committed homoerotic activity, but the majority, the 75% weren't. So it's a minority that could have several effects. And if he relied on polls, he used something that was not reliable. Polls and statistics involving asking people or seeing others in a family like that will change each year. Con also said marriage is a religious rite when it was only adopted to be one like Santa in Christmas when Santa was originally a Paegan tradition. Here is the definition of marriage. (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Vote Placed by williamfoote 3 years ago
williamfoote
ilmapotat0Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sloppy grammar and spelling. Pro used one fact but did not have a source for that fact. Pro used mostly opinions to argue this topic rather than facts and while this debate does not really need many facts but rather opinions, Pro's opinions were not delivered very strongly.