The Instigator
Angel125
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarlak
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

should gay marriage 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 2 votes the winner is...
Zarlak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 54870
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Angel125

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal. why shouldn't it? love is love it doesn't matter if its the same sex. Your taking away their constitutional rights! PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once. YES I believe that gay marriage should be legal through out the U.S.
Zarlak

Con

Whilst I hate to argue against gay marriage I've chosen to accept this debate due to your paragraph seeming incorrect in some sense. I'm not homophobic and I generally have no opinion on the matter but I think I can fight against the legalization of gay marriage. (and to be completely honest I got bored of waiting for an interesting topic, first debate for me :) )

You made the implication that all Gay couples will only get married once with your statement, "PEOPLE that are straight get married and divorced all the time gays just want to get married once". How could you be so sure? You said that love is love and while I agree, people are people and there is an equal chance that gay people will divorce just as much. You have absolutely no evidence that straight couples would get divorce more then gay couples.

The definition of the word 'marriage' is "the formal union of a MAN and a WOMAN, typically recognized by law". Notice how the definition clearly states that marriage is the legal combination of two persons of opposite genders. So even if "marriage" was legalized for gay couples, they would not be getting married that would simply be legally bound.

The act of a woman and woman or a man and a woman being bound by "marriage" will most definitely have a negative effect on a child if the couple chose to have one. It will negatively affect the child due to it being denied either a father or a mother, his is a very generalized statement due to some children growing up without one parent and turning out just fine but nevertheless it is not as healthy as having a good relationship with both a mother and a father. Having said that it has been proved that children should grow up under the influence of their natural mother and father due to the evident difficulties that "parents" are faced with when raising an orphan, a relative or a foster child.

Good Luck!! :)
Debate Round No. 1
Angel125

Pro

This is my first debate as well. I'm terrible at it, have to get better some day. I'm not homophobic either but I just couldn't believe what they were doing. Also apologies for the miscommunication.

That's not what I was implying. What I meant was that straight couples get married and divorced all the time, gay couples just want their right to get married. Dictionary.com states that,"(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities". In my opinion marriage is a promise, so yes they will be married. Like I've stated before not allowing gays to get married is taking away their constitutional rights. If they were to have a child it is not scientifically proven that it would a negative on the child's life or that it is not healthy to have same sex parents. Straight parents abuse and neglect their children all the time , just because the couple is the same sex doesn't mean that it would a negative effect on a child. Children have been through the worst if their an orphan or foster child getting adopted by a straight or gay couple would be a dream come true. Since same sex couples can't have a baby by themselves I doubt if they would do anything to harm that child. As I repeat myself your taking away their rights, that is illegal.

Good luck to you too :)
Zarlak

Con

You're correct in some sense, there is no significant proof that a child would experience difficulties with two parents of the same gender but it is a known fact that males and females have different physical and perhaps mental abilities, neither gender is better then the other but when it comes to what they are 'good' at, they are different. Which means two parents of the same gender attempt to parent a child there are certain things this said child will be missing out on, in most cases. For example males are generally more capable to maintain physical exertion to a higher level and longer than females due to their larger muscle mass and greater lung capacities, therefore while the child is being raised if it has no father, it may struggle to be raised psychically healthy, its not a certainty but the chances of an unfit child with two mothers is greater then not. Males strive for dominance and therefore struggle to maintain the ability to cooperate, if a child is raised by two fathers there is a fairly large chance that the child will grow up struggle to cooperate appropriately. Nevertheless there is no significant proof due to the lack of same sex parents around the world.

Marriage can also be considered to be more then a revokable privilege then a "constitutional right", you mentioned that marriage, in your opinion, is simply a promise. In that case you can act out a marriages, making your promises without the legal documents, in the end what does it prove? Just because two people of the same sex can not be bound my marriage it doesn't mean that they love each other any less then two heterosexuals, therefore what does marriage prove and why is it a necessity in a relationship? ~ I haven't proved that it isn't invading constitutional right (yet), but I have questioned why it is important for homosexuals to be bound legally by marriage? Answer me this :)
Debate Round No. 2
Angel125

Pro

Angel125 forfeited this round.
Zarlak

Con

Due to you forfeiting you're turn im going to chose not elaborate any further on the topic in the pure hope that you'll come back for further discussion on the matter
Debate Round No. 3
Angel125

Pro

Angel125 forfeited this round.
Zarlak

Con

I rest my case
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
baus
Angel125ZarlakTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Angel125ZarlakTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: There were a ton of unsupported assertions in this debate. The arguments were decent enough, they simply required some evidence to support themselves. I think Con's final paragraph was the deciding point in this debate, especially since it went unanswered. Why is it important for gays to marry? Pro barely asserted that it is a constitutional right, but went more into 'why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married?', rather than giving reasons for gays being allowed to get married. Also, Con's argument that 'marriage is defined between a man and a woman' was ridiculously poor. The resolution pertain what should be the case, not what is. It's also a silly semantics game, so try not to play it in the future, please. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Arguments to Con due to Pro failing to uphold BoP.