The Instigator
OhioForHillary
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
goldspurs
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

SSM should be Legalized

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  
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: 12/13/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 13 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,291 times Debate No: 350
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (50)
Votes (18)

 

OhioForHillary

Pro

Arguments are made that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) people should not be aloud to raise children. First of all, this argument is null and void. Statistics have shown that children raised in GLBT families are just as well off and possibly better off then those raised in straight families. And no, children raised by GLBT parents aren't always GLBT. All respectable medical, psychological, and children based organizations have come out stating that children are all of the above (APA, AMA, ect).

Secondly arguments are made that this opens the door for marrying your livestock or even multiple partners. The people who say anything about marrying livestock have certain issues, Two people marrying. And sadly, yes marriage has been redefined before. It now includes interracial couples. I can't even fight the argument that SSM would open the door for Polygamy because there is no basis, any first year law student could tell you that, it's illogical.

Civil rights are unalienable to all people. A government cannot deny rights to any citizen. There are over a thousand benefits offered to Opposite Sex couples that are denied to Same Sex couples.
goldspurs

Con

I would first like to establish common ground by saying that I do not disagree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household. Obviously there are many households that are minus one of these figures even in straight couples. If you are going to quote statistics please provide a link. Same-sex parents are not really focused on the needs of children, but upon the needs of a small number of adults. No society would purposely deny a child a mother or father, yet that is what same-sex households do. The nature of the beast dictates that all same-sex households ALWAYS be without one of these important parental figures.

My argument against gay marriage focuses mostly around the benefits that marriage provides, and why only traditional families should be entitled to said benefits.

The first question I ask is why does the goverment bestow so many rights upon two people in the first place? What could the goverment possibly receive in return for promoting marriage. I argue that the goverment gives these benefits to traditional families based upon the fact that these families help to ensure the continued natural existence of the nation. This is somthing same-sex couples obvioosly cannot provide due to obvious reasons.

The goverment is not in place to provide happiness. It does ensure that you have the "pursuit of happiness", but does NOT provide. Are you saying that same-sex couple cannot be happy without the benefits of the goverment? And please esatblish why the goverment should provide those benefits to a relationship that provides no real benefit for the goverment.

Another problem that same-sex marriage has is support of the country. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and think it should be left up to the states to decide. In the 2004 vote some states voted on whether SSM should be allowed or not. Even in Oregon, where the Gay and Lesbian lobby focused its efforts, it failed miseribly. Shouldn't what the majority wants matter in something so controversial?

http://www.abcnews.go.com...

I thank you for providing this debate and I'm sure we can complete it in a civil manner. This debate can bring the worst out of people from both sides of the spectrum and I wish to avoid that.
Debate Round No. 1
OhioForHillary

Pro

OhioForHillary forfeited this round.
goldspurs

Con

Seeing as my opponent was a little tardy I will an argument this round to let him catch up. Merry Christmas!
Debate Round No. 2
OhioForHillary

Pro

OhioForHillary forfeited this round.
goldspurs

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to post again. I would like to point out that I have refuted his points and provided my own reasons for banning SSM.

Yes the goverment can deny rights to citizens. You do not see the goverment providing benefits to same sex couples who are not married. I would like for someone to tell me when the goverment got into the business of endorsing love? Can same-sex couples only be happy if they receive marital benefits?

I am not a "gay-basher" or anything like that. My personal and religious opinions have been left out of the debate. I do not think homosexuals are bad people, but I don not see the proof on the PRO side for providing them with benefits.
Debate Round No. 3
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
Sorry I got really busy....
Posted by goldspurs 13 years ago
goldspurs
hmmm....wonder what happened to him.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
well we finally agree on one thing, i certinaly dont want to see rosie naked.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
And just because it's unnatural, against nature, doesn't make it wrong. Clothes are unnatural but I'm sure we don't want to see Rosie O'Donnell naked.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
I was trying to be funny with the asexual thing, I guess no-one got it.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
My argument has been that it is unnatural because we were meant to procreate, so if you dont believe otherwise then why are you debating this with me? And the argument that we could become asexual through evolution is in my opinion the farthest fetched thing said so far. Ya know I appreciate you arguing this with me though, how boring would this website be if we all saw eye to eye. I disagree with your views but i want you to know I do respect your views and have enjoyed this discusion.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
Just because you say it's logical doesn't make it so. Wow. Your statement has no logic. Allowing gays to marry will not stop procreation. Also, I never said people were not meant to procreate.

However through a evolutionary process we could all become asexual a reproduce ourselves. Our bodies work the way they do because that's the product of evolution.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
I am not arguing here that homosexuality is wrong, if this were a religeous discussion, I would take that stance, however it is not. I made one statement where I used the word wrong, however, I am arguing that it is unnatural, not equating unnatural with wrong. Throwing in a bunch of Latin words and trying to show how educated or scholarly you might be does not make more sense of your argument or less sense of mine by the way.
Posted by OhioForHillary 13 years ago
OhioForHillary
ArtC is right your logic has the Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are using an Argumentum ad ignorantiam, which is a logical flaw. Argumentum ad antiquitatem is another one you guys are using which is a flaw in logic.

Also I found this on a Fallacies website.

The Logical Flaw: Nature, appeal to.
This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
Posted by mikelwallace 13 years ago
mikelwallace
Homosexuals can not procreate, without procreation, we would be extinct. That is not only a simple but a logical statement. Saying it is not logical does not mean it isnt, the classic liberal tactic of just calling your opponent dumb or uneducated has never worked. im sorry, your argument is that people were not meant to procreate, that does not explain anything about how we are created, why our bodies do what they do, or the miracle of birth, that simply has no foundation. call me illogical, insinuate i am uneducated, or even throw my religeon- all of this does not make 1+1=3
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 5 years ago
U.n
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 13 years ago
bigbass3000
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 13 years ago
solo
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 13 years ago
griffinisright
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 13 years ago
Tatarize
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 13 years ago
blond_guy
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bitz 13 years ago
Bitz
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 13 years ago
Richard89
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Kals 13 years ago
Kals
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by magpie 13 years ago
magpie
OhioForHillarygoldspursTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.