The Instigator
Speechee111807
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
MasterDebaterts
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

A Resolution to Legalize Same Sex Marriage in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,096 times Debate No: 8016
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

Speechee111807

Pro

A Resolution to Legalize Same Sex Marriage in the United States
Just to start...I would like to start of with a quote. "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr.Seuss
Because I strongly agree with Dr. Seuss I stand in the strong affirmation of the resolution for the following three main reasons...
(1) Society (2) Marriage and (3) Relationships/Love
MasterDebaterts

Con

I now pronounce you husband and wife." These seven words have come to mean alot to couples in the world. No bond between two people is more powerful then marriage. However I think it is very important to observe two words in much detail. HUSBAND and WIFE, not husband and husband or wife and wife. Marriage came about through the Jewish and Christian religions, which see homosexuality as a sin. Genisis states, "And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man."

For these four reasons I see no other way then to negate the resolution...

1.) Homosexuality is a sin according to the various religions responsible for the founding of marriage
2.) Legally allows children to be deprived of a mother or father
3.) Sets bad example for future generations and can encourage public displays of homosexual behavior
Debate Round No. 1
Speechee111807

Pro

The opponent clearly stated " No bond between two people is more powerful than marriage" That is exactly why this resolution should pass!

I will start by giving my 3 contentions and then in the third round I will refute the opponents' case.

FIRST CONTENTION - Society: Unfortunatly, many do not accept the idea of a woman and a woman or a man and a man getting together, start a new life with eachother, and get married! Denying them this bond is a violation of freedom. There is also a difference between civil and religious marriage and why not let them wed? Many may agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, but this is not so that other's control their lives and say "you cannot be wed because I said so" Think about the impacts this has on society and what we need to do to help those who are in love have the right to be wed. Wether it's man and man or woman and woman.....we all deserve the right to get married with who we want. This is not something that is going to affect others in a negative way. Let's say there is a gay couple...they're on their date at the park and as the date ends, my boyfriend and I saw them kiss goodbye. Those who saw and think about this may think that is very gross! Others can even be offended, but they never say anything when we do something. Why are we attacking them because of the different prefrence in partners?!? Everyone has different ideas... so who are we to judge others and say what is right and wrong?......

SECOND CONTENTION - Marriage: As I've stated before, denying this bond is a form of minor discrimination in the way that "rules" such as this being illegal effects many who choose to be like this in a personal way. There should not be any rules to avoid this because marriage is giving couples the happiness of being married. In many States, same sex marriage is already legal and the Constitution clearly states that if one state makes a law, the other state must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows same sex marriage and a gay couple moves to a different state, that state must recognize that marriage. In San Fransisco they have preformed marriage ceremonies in defience of the law. We all deserve the right to choose who we wed and have this legalized. Marriage means a lot to people. People have feelings and those who have choosen to be with someone of same sex want that same right because marriage means a lot to them too.

THIRD CONTENTION - Relationships/Love: Many say that we cannot let this behavior continue, but if we do let this resolution pass, those same sex partners can marry and commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior that we want? To have more married, happy couples than to have people have multiple partners? In other word, what we can do is stop these peoples from doing, is having multiple partners and simply give them the joys of having a wedding. When the time is right......I want to have a family of my own........and I'm not the only one. People who have choosen to be with someone of same sex will also want a family of their own. Because they cannot have kids of their own (naturally) legalizing same sex marriage will allow an increase in adoption. There are so many kids in need of a family, in need of being loved and be adopted. Allowing this will even help those kids who want to be adopted and be with a family.

Change is good and difference is even better.......
Everyone says being different makes you unique, thus to day I urge a strong vote on the affirmation of this resolution.
MasterDebaterts

Con

My opponent did a good job last round and I would like to thank her for the opportunity to debate her. During this round I will explain my case in further detail and will break down my opponent's case in the final round. First off I would like to restate my three contentions.

1.) Homosexuality is a sin according to the various religions responsible for the founding of marriage
2.) Legally allows children to be deprived of a mother or father
3.) Sets bad example for future generations and can encourage public displays of homosexual behavior

Contention 1: While partnership between and male and female has been around since the beckoning of time, making a relationship official legally is a semi-new concept. It was developed by the Jews and Christians thousands of years ago and has become a very popular ceremony today. So the question we must answer when it comes to homosexuality is "Can a homosexual and another homosexual be married?" The very apparent answer is no. To understand this answer we must first look to the scripture of the religion which founded the ceremony. 1 Cor. 6:9-10, states, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." This behavior is a sin in the eyes of the very religion that founded marriage. Marriage is a Christian and Jewish ceremony so why should someone be able to use this ceremony to sin? It is a violation of the religion to be homosexual, so clearly they should not use the ceremony to publicly display their homosexuality. Lets look at this from another perspective. Fasting is another such ceremony used by various religions to honor a God. If an atheist person were to fast, it would be very insulting to the people of that faith using this fast as a way to honor their beliefs, due to the fact that the atheist was a sinner. The argument then comes up that there are legal benefits to marriage. While this is true, it is very easily explained. Homosexuals can become domestic partners to receive legal benefits of marriage. This makes no insult to any faith or religion and allows for homosexuals to be in a beneficial relationship. Why would homosexuals want to use a religious ceremony to sin when there are other options available?
Contention 2: When two homosexuals become married we are allowing a few things. The most important of which can be observed in the children. A study done by Dr. Dean Byrd from the NARTH Institute reported these very disturbing facts:
"Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents. On the contrary, however, studies of children reared in lesbian homes indicate that girls become more masculine and boys become more feminized in their behaviors. (Stacy and Biblarz, 2001)" He goes on to explain how both boys and girls in homosexual households were more likely to experiment with homosexuality than those reared in heterosexual homes. Dr. Byrd also detailed the significant physical and emotional health risks of those who identify as homosexuals, including a reduced lifespan, and increase in suicidal behavior, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and domestic violence.
Clearly a homosexual home is no place for a child to grow up. To let two homosexuals be publicly married would not be in the best interest of the children, which leads me to my third and final contention.
Contention 3: I think we can all now agree that homosexuals set a bad example for their own children. Lets look into why homosexuals would want to become married. If legal benefits can be obtained through other options, it is clear the only incentive for a marriage would be a public display of their relationship. This display would be one of detrimental consequences. If homosexual behavior is bad for children, why expose all the children of society to this. My opponent shared with us a disturbing story of two homosexuals kissing in a park. imagine with this scenario, a young child watching the two. This kid is now exposed to the same behavior a child of the homosexual would be exposed to, which as I have proved has very bad effects. Are those list of effects what we as a society would like to see as the norm? I assume you answered the same way I did, NO. To keep society at the level it is now in terms of behavior and morals, we can not let homosexuals display their relationships openly for all to see, most importantly the youth.

To vote pro on this debate would be to support the insult of particular religions, as well as the terrible effects homosexual behavior has on children and other observers. Like stated before, if they want legal benefits, take them, but please do not poison the minds of the youth and insult religions in the process.
Debate Round No. 2
Speechee111807

Pro

Speechee111807 forfeited this round.
MasterDebaterts

Con

MasterDebaterts forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by MasterDebaterts 7 years ago
MasterDebaterts
I proved that it affects everyone. Marriage is a public display of your relationship, and it is unnecessary.
Posted by DebateFever 7 years ago
DebateFever
I think that as long as it doesn't effect you personally, then it shouldn't matter.
Posted by MasterDebaterts 7 years ago
MasterDebaterts
Ignore that last comment lol, i was wrong lol
Posted by MasterDebaterts 7 years ago
MasterDebaterts
I was going to break down your case this round, what should i do now?
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
When a sacred ceremony such as marriage is made, by Jesus might i add, who can change that? Does man change the definition of words? Can they not change the definition of words? If they can where do we draw the line? If not how can this be allowed? If i started saying the word "hope" meant fish instead, where would it change? if i got a couple friends to want it to change would it? Pro must prove where the transition of the word takes place and how it can be allowed.

Is Marriage a human concept? If so then it cannot mean what pro wished it to mean. If it is not a human concept then what is the source of the definition that pro seeks?

When civil unions are available to do exactly as gays wish then i do not see why we must have this war of legality of marriage.

Well done so far con
Posted by MasterDebaterMK 7 years ago
MasterDebaterMK
well said trentypoo.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Speechee111807 7 years ago
Speechee111807
Speechee111807MasterDebatertsTied
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 Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Speechee111807MasterDebatertsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07