David Nichols (PRO)Marriage began 4000 years ago so that parents and their offspring would have a stable, healthful homelife. Therefore, same-sex marriage is impossible.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-20 12:08:54
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)The definition of marriage, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, is "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Marriage is just a relationship between two people of opposite or same sex. Therefore, there is no sole aim of marriage. Two people of the same sex can be married without having to worry about producing offspring because reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. When marriage first came into origin people did not realize that two people of the same sex can be attracted to each other and show affection to one another. However, nowadays we must acknowledge that two people of any sexes should have the right to marriage as marriage has no prerequisites in terms of mandatory reproduction. So as long as two people love each other very much and are both above the age of consent they should be free to engage in a marital relationship.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 03:23:05
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)1.About ten years ago, dictionaries started to change the definition of marriage, the act of which is academically invalid. 2.There are many purposes of marriage. It is not just a "relationship". If any of those purposes cannot be fulfilled, such as facilitating the care of offspring, a marriage is not valid. 3.Yes, reproduction is not required, but the possibility of it is. Even sterile men and women can marry each other because they may be healed and because their sterility is not public knowledge, thus their union doesn't appear absurd. 3.Homosexuality is not new. The malady has existed for ages, but that is irrelevant to this debate. 4.People do not have the right to do whatever they want. 5.No one cares what homosexuals love, just don't call it "marriage".
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 04:58:59
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)I will continue to argue that same-sex marriage is a valid relationship that should be seen as identical to what Pro calls a "regular" marriage.
1. Prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from getting married restricts people from getting married just because of this false notion that "a marriage shouldn't be called a marriage if there is no creation of an offspring". The only evidence to back up this claim may be based in religion but the entire existence of God is an assumption.
2. Homosexual humans are still humans that have human rights. Thus restricting them from expressing their sexual desires to another human, let alone marry, inhibits their rights that they attained from birth.
In the end, Pro cares more about how the public will react to a gay or lesbian couple getting married rather than its inherent benefits to the people tying the knot.
Lastly, Pro, if a heterosexual couple were to get married and decided not to have kids would you still call their relationship a "marriage"?
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 05:30:31
| Speak RoundDavid Nichols (PRO)1.Failing to fulfill the purposes of marriage is not a false notion that precludes marriage. 2.Again, procreation is not necessary. The POTENTIAL for procreation is. 3.Again, people do not have the right to do whatever they want. 4.Yes, the informed public sees homosexual marriage as meaningless.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-21 05:46:21
| Speak RoundRishiD123 (CON)Pro has based his argument on the false premise that marriage has purpose. But he wasn't able to back up his claim with any evidence. He hasn't stated who has established the "purposes" of marriage. Furthermore Pro has stated that people don't have the right to do whatever they want which is exactly against the principles of a democracy. People have power to do as they wish. So, marriage should not be restricted to certain individuals because all humans have rights and those rights go before any unfounded traditional beliefs. Lastly Pro cares a lot about how the public views homosexual marriage, which should not play a factor at all in determining whether or not homosexual marriage is valid. This is because the same thing is said about slavery. The public in the 1700s and 1800s viewed slavery as a societal norm. However now we've come to realize that it violated the human rights of certain groups based on skin color which is similar to what's advocated here based on people's sexuality.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-12-22 03:16:38
| Speak Round
deng--You need to learn how to read. I gave no opinions, only facts. I also said that people with medical problems can conceivably be healed.Posted 2020-12-24 04:55:15
Winning this debate doesn't matter because It doesn't matter what I say,. Fools and the deranged will think homosexuals can be married and will not change their minds.Posted 2020-12-24 04:39:42
Debatemas--Are you on something? You think he gave evidence and facts?? That's a laugh! Posted 2020-12-23 16:24:58
Debatemas--Whatever, mental project.Posted 2020-12-23 16:21:16
David Nichols, it is rude to assume things because you clearly didn't as you say " DESTROY " the other dude.Posted 2020-12-23 16:13:20
I DESTROYED this guy.Posted 2020-12-22 08:36:40