The Instigator
Justin_King
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

there is nothing wrong with gay marriage

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 3 votes the winner is...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: People
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 387 times Debate No: 90356
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Justin_King

Pro

the bible says nothing against gay marriage or partnership
harrytruman

Con

Yes it does.
Debate Round No. 1
Justin_King

Pro

the bible only says homosexual intercourse is a sin not homosexual partnership
harrytruman

Con

So if someone marries their dog of their sister but never have sex it's OK?
Debate Round No. 2
Justin_King

Pro

This has nothing to do with incest or beastiality
harrytruman

Con

No, but the sa!me principle applies, the Tanakh bans homosexuality as well as incest and beastiaslity, if it is OK to marry someone of the same gender because the Tanakh only bans homosexual sex, doesn't the same logic apply and marrying a relative or pet OK because you aren't having sex?
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Justin_King 10 months ago
Justin_King
Not really.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
I don't watch your house or know anything about you so I don't know if that's true, either statement, all I can attest to is that, biologically, it is impossible.
Posted by Justin_King 10 months ago
Justin_King
I love a man and he loves me. Therefore it is not impossible.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
It doesn't matter? That's like saying it doesn't matter if its between a man and a dog, or a man and a kid, or a man and a tree, because "love is love right?" It is impossible for a man to love a tree, just as it is impossible for a man to love a man.
Posted by Love101 10 months ago
Love101
I Am a christian of LDS Church but and yes , it does say "a true bond of a man and a woman can only ave true love" Buuut it doesn't matter if its girl and girl or boy with boy yeah it might say it in the bible and the Book of mormon buuutt i feel everyone should be allowed to date and marry who they want they dont need alot of things but as long as they are truly in love i think they should go for it. Now i wasnt raised in the church i got baptised last year but theres nothing wrong with gay couples and everyone should be treated with respect regardless of there color , religion or style of dating.
Posted by harrytruman 10 months ago
harrytruman
He's right, flat out, if a man wanted to marry a tree, you wouldn't consider that love to be *real* love, because it isn't, same thing, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to love a man realisticaly speaking.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
CITATIONS PLEASE. I know that it says so in Genesis on the episode of Sodom and Gomorrah. But c'mon. CITATIONS. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DONALD TRUMP?
Posted by DiEgO123100 10 months ago
DiEgO123100
true love can only be made between a man and a woman. adam and eve, not adam and steve
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SegBeg 7 months ago
SegBeg
Justin_KingharrytrumanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did slightly better in spelling and grammar as Pro did not use capital letters at the start of their sentences nor full stops. took more time to explain their argument whilst Pro just gives straight out claims without trying to explain them. By default my vote goes t Con.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 10 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Justin_KingharrytrumanTied
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: Right, so I need to explain why Con gets 7 points. Conduct was better with Con who did a debate, Pro just stated random stuff. Con had better grammar of the two of you. Pro do you know what a period is? Obviously not. Also three rounds to debate this is not doing the topic justice. Just pointing that out. As for arguments, Con made a rational argument, and Pro never responded to it correctly. The correct response is that the example doesn't apply because gay marriage has a different social standard compared to bestiality. Don't just dismiss the example sheesh. Oh and Con was right about the Bible saying stuff against it. Pro, you obviously read the Bible blindfolded. So yeah, love it gents, and Con should so win this.
Vote Placed by SkepticalAtheist 10 months ago
SkepticalAtheist
Justin_KingharrytrumanTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro was on the side of truth, yet their arguments were poorly reasoned. I still ultimately had to vote for the pro side due to conduct and the lack of ability for the Con to sway me.