The Instigator
billy61791
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,175 times Debate No: 6481
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

billy61791

Pro

same sex marriage is fine there is nothing wrong with it people make such a big deal about it for no reason. people say that same sex marriage is wrong because there children will grow up wit problems. this is not true studies show many people wit the same sex partner do have children and the children do no better or no worse they live normal lives also the saying that same sex marriage will not reproduce is not a good argument on the fact that if this is the case then people who are sterile or elderly should not marry as well? another issue is that it is unnatural for same sex. studies show that animals in the wild have same sex partners and raising offspring it is also said that in the bible homosexuality is a sin it also talks about understanding and acceptance
LightC

Con

I negate: there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage

Observation: Since the resolution says NOTHING wrong, my opponent must affirm unconditionally. However, to negate I must prove that there is only 1 thing wrong, and tat is sufficient because it will prove that there is something wrong, as opposed to absolutely nothing.

Contention I: Legal Implications

A. Changing the definition of marriage will create a slippery slope.

If the legal system says that marriage can be between the same sex, what will stop it from claiming that any type of relationship is allowed and protected under marriage. Two specific examples:

1. Polygamy. Having more then one spouse.
2. Incest. Love of a family member.

If the definition changes, and there is no set definition then there would be a legal slippery slope to allow all types marriages.

*In-case turn: Some would argue that the definition is simply between 2 people. If someones argues this, then they are doing the same thing that the attack conservatives and Christians for, PREJUDICE. Thus, if there is nod definition, then there will be any legal implications.

-So, therefore, the definition must be kept at its traditional definition: between 1 man and 1 woman.

Neg. counter Plan

-Civil Unions

Marriage has always been a religious institution. Therefore, the states have a right to have civil unions between gay people. They can do this, I have no objection, however they cannot use the term marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
billy61791

Pro

as my opponent says about a slippery slope in the legal system and no one knows where it will stop it might not only stop at same sex marriage it might go on to other things like polygamy or incest but that's a persons choice marriage is a bond between who you love and want to be with who they like why should a man and a women have the right to be bonded in marriage and the other people of society not be able to as well the legal system banning same sex marriage and polygamy and all those things is just their way of not dealing with the situation acting like its not part of the world. the definition should not only refer to only 1 man and 1 women it should be the bond that two partners or even more than one partner in love who want to bond in holy matrimony.
LightC

Con

Summary of opponents paragraph (plus my response underneath):

1. Everything should be included in marriage

Ok.....then I can marry my dog, because I love him. Obviously my opponents logic makes no sense. Marriage is not based just on love, if that were so then anyone could marry anything. Thus, what is the point of marriage if it has no value, and it is simply an attraction between anything, no matter what it is, or how many there are. This argument is ridiculous, and clearly illogical.

*He never responds to my proposed counter-plan of civil unions, thus you can extend it.*
Debate Round No. 2
billy61791

Pro

let me ask this in response why is it that marriage is acceptable to 1 man and 1 women why do have more right than anyone else my logic makes perfect sense normally people who marry do it out of love no matter what it is what if they banned marriage with one man and one women people would think its wrong and they would get mad now I'm not saying I think its right if someone marries there dog or what ever what I'm saying is why take that right away from that person shouldn't we all have equal right. civil unions is not the same as marriage it still has complications and different circumstances as which marriage does not. I know all about religion and homosexuals but the bible does talk about understanding and acceptance. all I'm saying is why take away a right from one American no matter the cost so what about a slippery slop and stuff all people deserve equality why should we take that away from him or her why should we push them aside and act like there not there. there are people who are in love with a lot of things other people think are strange but should that person be locked up for loving those people or other things its not wrong its just different and that's why people think badly of it
LightC

Con

Summary of opponents last speech + my responses:

1. Man and woman have more rights

--> Marriage has nothing to do with rights; it is an institution. For example, is it wrong for an all woman's gym to reject males from working out there? Clearly no, because institutions have a right to pick requirements. Same with marriage; the traditional definition and institution is between 1 man and 1 woman.

2. Religion/Bible

--> Has nothing to do with my proposed arguments.

[My Case]

1. Slippery Slope

--> He never truly refutes this. Basically my argument is that changing the definition of marriage will create a legal slippery slope. Once you change the definition everyone else will jump on that band-wagon and try to get w/e they think is marriage to be legal as well. E.g. polygamy and incest.

2. Civil Unions

--> He never refutes this either. Instead of gay marriage, we can establish a nation wide civil union program.
Debate Round No. 3
billy61791

Pro

a women's only gym has nothing to do with it yes they can do that but there are other gyms that men can go to and religion and the bible has everything to do with marriage just like the saying holy matrimony. taking away a persons right to marry rights are what makes this country if you change one thing people hate it it has always been one man and one women marrying way can't it be different and include everyone why should it only be them
LightC

Con

1. Bible

--> again, has nothing to do with my argument.

2. rights

--> already responded to that.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Many people believe that the bible teaches 'no sex before marriage' but it actually teaches something infinitely more profound.. that sex IS marriage.
The vows/ceremony etc came after the act. ( something we honour even now in that a marriage is not complete without being 'consummated' ) .
The word 'marriage' refers to many different things, for example the 'coupling' mechanism on train carriages.. a nut and bolt are created to 'marry'.
People of the same sex cannot physically 'marry' in this sense.. our body's do not allow it, externally or internally.
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
Oh jjmd280! Let's marry eachother despite the fact that we're both (well, I am anyway) extremely, super, ultra gay! Let's have children not out of love, but to please God and government! And then let's get straight-divorced like 50% of all hetersosexual married people!

What a miracle it will be for us to fit in.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
SeekandDestroy, have you ever taken a science class? STDs do not COME FROM any type of sex. They are simply transmitted by sex.

For your information, the transmission of STDs has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the carriers. A virus doesn't discrimate between gay and straight. Anal-receptive sex (where the "top" is infected), whether between a man and woman or two men (I don't count lesbians using artificial equipment for obvious reasons), carries the highest risk for STD transmission because of the fact that the anus and rectum are far more likely to sustain minute injuries during penetration than are the vaginal opening and the vagina (due to structural differences), giving viruses easier access to the bloodstream. Also relevant is the fact that condoms are more likely to tear during anal sex due to lack of lubrication. Anal-insertive sex (where the "bottom" is infected) is next in line for risk of STD transmission, though it is about 10 times less risky. Again, this remains true for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. This is because the "top" is more likely to come into contact with infected blood.

I hope you all enjoyed my little primer on anal sex.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Shame on us for wanting the same rights you have - how could we even assume that who we love is none of your concern, and wanting to spend the rest of our lives with a person who loves us for who we are! How dare we!

We won't redefine marriage - Britney Spears and Elizabeth Taylor already did that.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Heres one Yoni the majortiy of stds come from gay sex of men.

OK - S and D - don't have sex with gay men, then.

Sexual disease comes from promiscuity, not monogamy, dunderhead.
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
Okay, well doesn't the fact that lesbians as a group are the least likely to acquire an STD/STI from sexual relations even it out? Nevermind the fact that if you're going to argue that because gay men are at highest risk of acquiring the aforementioned, you also have to mention that hetersosexual individuals would lie right in the middle Logically, then, only lesbians should be allowed to marry? I'll go with that!

What about married men that like to dabble in some homo love from time to time? Threesomes anybody?

And what makes you think that by banning gay marriage, anyone who is attracted to individuals of the same sex would just magically straighten up and fly right, bang who their supposed to, marry and live the American dream of having a white picket fence, a golden retriever and 2.3 kids?
Posted by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
Heres one Yoni the majortiy of stds come from gay sex of men.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Posted by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
I'm not interested in anyone's moral outrage, frankly. What I'm looking for, like you mentioned, are logical arguments. I've yet to hear one that isn't based in ignorance or religious beliefs.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
In answer to your question, Yoni, it is because polygamy is similarly condemned from pure moral outrage and not for any logical reason (aside from the whole problem of confering tax and inheritance privileges.)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
billy61791LightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by philosphical 8 years ago
philosphical
billy61791LightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Debatenewbie14 8 years ago
Debatenewbie14
billy61791LightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
billy61791LightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
billy61791LightCTied
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 
Vote Placed by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
billy61791LightCTied
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