Should gay marriages be allowed?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 1/18/2019 | Category: | People | ||
Updated: | 3 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 448 times | Debate No: | 119955 |
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)
No, There shouldn't be gay marriages. How were you born, From a male and female. Not male and male. Not female and female. Think of that for a second.
A marriage is a broad and complex entity. It has various aspects to it, The most vital of which is love. This constitution should not, And cannot, Be narrowed down to a single requirement of producing offspring. It is detestable how the society puts the argument of 'reproduction' forward to dismiss homosexual relationships as invalid. You need not worry, The human race will not go extinct anytime soon. There is a pretty good number of people who are heterosexual and actively making babies. |
![]() |
brysonb forfeited this round.
Shibani forfeited this round. |
![]() |
brysonb forfeited this round.
Shibani forfeited this round. |
![]() |
No votes have been placed for this debate.
Gay marriage is not a legal union made of state. It places legal I. D. As a sexual innuendo on all witnesses as a united state that knowingly does not have an outcome on the posterity of a nation directly. The witness is placed in a position to tell a lie on an official document as the witness of two people. A legal union of same gender public interaction of this kind, By precedent of state is either already a private corporation, By registration, With a title of company incorporation identification number which is not a plagiarism of marriage, This choice with a much higher cost due to possibly overregulation, And double taxation in some regard by governing states.
A united more perfect union of basic truth, And of whole truth which can be repeated publicly like BiniVir, Or in the description of woman, UnosMulier. Is a type of witness account that can even be used to identify woman and men of science who themselves by independence assume burden of a nation"s posterity by practicing fertilization with donated human property that are not their own. You should keep in mind a Church of impartial religion can identify with this type of witnessing with clear moral ethics, And without dangers of being directed into criminal perjury. Even though the religious organization is not capable itself to quickly identifying, Proving, Or translate the complex crime of perjury into basic principle to others with its own constitutional trial.
The idea is a witness can perjure themselves in a court of law while under oath tells why that lie of separation should not be left to lean heavily on the society to set this perjury up as a common defense is self-evident.