The Instigator
Hiphopgirlforever18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Allowing Gay Marraige.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 35271
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (8)

 

Hiphopgirlforever18

Pro

I know that there are some people out there that don't agree with allowing gay marraige to happen, but I think that in my opinion that it should be a right because everyone wants to feel equal and everyone wants to say "my husband" or "my wife", even when it is the same gender. Being with the same gender should not matter, only that you love the person very much and that you both can connect with each other. Accepting people who are gay has been improving, but I find that there is still some discrimination on gay people because people are not allowing gay marraige to happen. Now, I know some of you may think that this should be in the politics category, but I don't want to put a political view on this issue as too many people do so.I want to put a spiritual and social view on this issue beause there is no need for a political fight about this as political fights are brutal in my opinion. So,without further ado, let's start debating!
xXCryptoXx

Con

I Accept.


The whole concept of marriage is a social value so that arguing marriage will really only involve a social discussion and how the definition of marriage can be defined in certain ways to impact the society; whether it is a positive impact or a negative one depends on the government’s role in marriage and how marriage is defined.


First off, not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means. In order to say what discrimination is and what isn’t we must first analyze how marriage is defined and why.

Marriage is government regulated because the government recognizes that marriage has external benefits to it rather than marriage simply being about the relationship of a couple. The government also recognizes that these benefits marriage can bring when marriage is defined in a certain way can also be inherently good for the society.

The government has absolutely no interest in the personal lives of people, the only interest they have in marriage is the direct benefits marriage brings. Allowing gay marriage degrades the government’s interest in marriage only to the personal relationships of two people, but as explained earlier the government could care less about what people do with their private lives.

The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. The government wants to promote these good family environments because these family units are good for the survival of a society.

After all, it’s a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive and the government wants to promote this.

The government promotes these relationships by dispensing benefits to married couples; this is not only a “thank you” for the couples who did get married, but it is also a way to get other heterosexual couples to get married.

Now that we’ve analyzed the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no discrimination against those who cannot fulfill the role in marriage that the government calls for.

In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation.

To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against.

Now that we understand the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married.

I will await any contentions you have to these arguments.


Recap:

For as long as the government recognizes marriage the government has a role in defining marriage in a way that best benefits the society. Gay marriage does not fit this definition because it degrades marriage into being purely about the private relationship between two people and does not promote a family unit.


Conclusion

If gay marriage was to ever be legalized it should (private opinion) be only if the government takes itself out of marriage completely. However, this is not the current case so my opponent’s duty is to argue that gay marriage should be legalized under government recognition.

I await my opponent’s response.

Good luck. ^^

Debate Round No. 1
Hiphopgirlforever18

Pro

I can understand where you are comming from in this arguement, but; if the government doesn't care about the private lives of the couples, then shouldn't they legalize gay marraige? Isn't the benifit's all their after? You're implying that they don't care about the private lives of couples, and that all they want is benifits, so how come they don't want to legalize it? Obviously they do care about what they do privately or else they would let gay marraige happen and only focus on getting their benifits. Obviously it's more then just about the benifits, it's also about what gay couples do in private. They feel afraid that society is going to change if gay marraige is allowed, because if they didn't, they would let gay marraige happen, so this is NOT only about the benifits, it's also about personal emotions as well. But, I am not just talking on a governemnt level either. Let's say the government DID allow it, the catholic curch would have to allow it as well, which means that the catholic church is also involved in this, not just the government. In the bible, it is to be believed that you cannot marry the same sex because you cannot make a baby out of it, but, God also allows people to be gay, but they can't do sexual things. So, in that case, you cannot marry if you're Gay. Because if you marry when you're Gay, it means that you can do sexual things which goes against God's rules. But, in my arguement to that, society has changed soo much in the past 20 years or so that people don't even put religion into prespective when comes to being gay anymore. Our pope has decided not to change the rule to allow gay marraige to happen because he wants to keep old traditions, but that's the thing in my case, the tradition is SO OLD, why not just let it slide. There are people out there who are on their knees begging to say either husband or wife to the same gender because they love them, they just want to feel equal. And the catholic church is saying no because of old traditions? I believe that gay marraige should be allowed because people are begging for the rights to be accepted. Think about it, if we're not allowing gay marraige, then how are we accepting gay people? We may be accepting them on SOME sort of social level, but not allowing them to marry is not accepting them on a social level fully. We should accept them on EVERY SINGLE LEVER their is out there, and now allowing gay marriage is not accepting them fully. People are not going by old traditions from the bible anymore, and people don't care about gay marriage on a government level, cause all they want is gay people to be accepted, and we will accept them fully if we allow gay marriage. Shouldn't we be giving people what they want? I mean, I understand that they're still some people out there who are homophobics, but erase the homophobics for a moment and look at the people that want to be gays to be accepted, then you have a very good ammount of people and reason as to why you should allow gay marriage to happen: because everybody wants gays to be accepted in this world! If God accepts gays on a certain level (in my opinon), then shouldn't we be accepting them on ALL levels?
xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for your response.

I’ll simply quote you and respond since there will be enough character space.


“if the government doesn't care about the private lives of the couples, then shouldn't they legalize gay marraige? Isn't the benifit's all their after? You're implying that they don't care about the private lives of couples, and that all they want is benifits, so how come they don't want to legalize it?”

Well you see, the government recognizes that heterosexual couples naturally have children and promote a family unit. Homosexual couples do not have this because they cannot naturally procreate with each other through their relationship. The government recognizes heterosexual couples because they are consistent and provide exactly what the government wants to promote. Although homosexual couples might be able to still benefit the society through adoption, they still don’t have that special link to a family unit. The government regulates marriage only for the benefits couples bring, specifically the benefits of heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples only have a link to a private relationship with each other, but the government isn’t interested in the private relationship of people because they are only interested in the benefits that relationship may bring.

A heterosexual couple has a public relationship, and a private relationship. The public relationship is the benefits heterosexual couples naturally bring, and the private relationship is how they privately interact with each other.

Homosexual couples only have a private relationship because they do not naturally give benefits to the society through their relationship.


“They feel afraid that society is going to change if gay marraige is allowed, because if they didn't, they would let gay marraige happen, so this is NOT only about the benifits, it's also about personal emotions as well.”’

That would be correct, for if we saw no possible negative affects to the legalization of gay marriage we would not be having this debate in all, in fact gay marriage would most likely already be legalized.

However, this does not mean the conclusion you came to on how personal emotions matter as well.

Again, the government is strictly only interested in the benefits marriage can bring. Anyways, there is no logical reason why the government would be interested in the private relationships of people at all.

If the government did care about personal emotions and not about the benefits marriage can bring, the government would stop regulating marriage all together and leave it up to the people to decide who can get married and who cannot.


“ But, in my arguement to that, society has changed soo much in the past 20 years or so that people don't even put religion into prespective when comes to being gay anymore. Our pope has decided not to change the rule to allow gay marraige to happen because he wants to keep old traditions, but that's the thing in my case, the tradition is SO OLD, why not just let it slide.”

I’m also Catholic so I’d be happy to discuss this with you, but for a future reference, you should always keep religion out of debates. People will slap you upside the head for it and the arguments really hold no water until you can actually prove your religion is true (which is basically impossible).

However, we both believe in the Catholic Church so that shouldn’t be a problem.

First off, the Chruch’s teachings come directly from God through the Bible.

God’s teachings ever grow old, never become outdated, are never just old tradition.

You see God knows everything, meaning once he has set up a law, he knows it will be beneficial to humanity and to his plan to spread good across the world.

God’s laws are unchangeable, set in stone. They can never grow old.

The Catholic Church is also set in stone, meaning the Church will always support and the teachings of God and never go against him (through teaching of course, there have been corrupt times in the Church).

In other words, this law is simply not old tradition. It is a law set in stone by God to never be changed, and it never should be changed.


“There are people out there who are on their knees begging to say either husband or wife to the same gender because they love them, they just want to feel equal.”

There is no discrimination against homosexuals because regardless of sexual orientation we all have the right to get married.


“And the catholic church is saying no because of old traditions?”

It’s not tradition, its law, and it’s a law given by God himself. After all, God knows what’s best for us so who are we to question him?


“Think about it, if we're not allowing gay marraige, then how are we accepting gay people? We may be accepting them on SOME sort of social level, but not allowing them to marry is not accepting them on a social level fully.”

I actually almost agree with you. However, I think it’s just a misconception set up to make it look like gays are the victims. In fact, I believe homosexuals are trying to make themselves look like the victims here because they want to get married.

It’s just not in the best interest of the society for as long as the government regulates marriage though.

Every person in the United States has the right to be married. That is equality. It does not matter what sexual orientation you are, we all still have the right to get married.


“ People are not going by old traditions from the bible anymore, and people don't care about gay marriage on a government level, cause all they want is gay people to be accepted”

Yes, and I believe those who do not follow the morality of the Bible, and instead follow their own broken sense of morality will eventually fall.

Remember, the law set out by God far exceeds anything some human believes, for God knows everything, all opinions, all possibilities, and God set out a law that will be best for humanity, and best for fulfilling God’s plan.

If this is really the case then marriage should simply be privatized and left up to the people.

Your duty however, is to argue that under government regulation, gay marriage should be legalized.


“Shouldn't we be giving people what they want?”

Not if there isn’t a proper reason to give them what they want.

I have shown that there is absolutely no good reason to legalize gay marriage for as long as the government regulates it.


“I mean, I understand that they're still some people out there who are homophobics, but erase the homophobics for a moment and look at the people that want to be gays to be accepted, then you have a very good ammount of people and reason as to why you should allow gay marriage to happen”

All homophobes should be ignored, for they don’t see homosexuals for what they are, human beings.

I want gay people to be accepted into society as much as others do. However, it is still not in the best interest of the survival of our society to allow gay marriage for as long as the government regulates it.


“If God accepts gays on a certain level (in my opinon), then shouldn't we be accepting them on ALL levels?”

God accepts homosexuals and loves them as much as every other human. However, homosexuals to recognize God’s law and obey it.

God also wants us to love gays and accept them as he does; homophobes are bigots.

However, God also wants us to recognize his law, and obey it.

God has strictly set up marriage to be between man and woman, to allow any other relationship into marriage would be directly going against his law, and would be disgracing him.


Thank you for providing new insight on this topic, I await your response.

Debate Round No. 2
Hiphopgirlforever18

Pro

Hiphopgirlforever18 forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Hiphopgirlforever18

Pro

Hiphopgirlforever18 forfeited this round.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Hiphopgirlforever18

Pro

Hiphopgirlforever18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brooke313 2 years ago
brooke313
Honestly, isn't there more important things in the world to worry about, rather than where people can and cannot get married. If two people love each other they should be allowed to express it and to get married! Because ask yourself this question! How does two gay or lesbian people getting married affect you? Reality is it dosent, and it shoudnt!
The Catholic Faith argues: marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. But think about when this definition was created? What role is society have at the time, in shaping this definition!?
The First Epistle of Peter: love one another from the heart!
Thank You!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Just wondering.
Posted by Hiphopgirlforever18 3 years ago
Hiphopgirlforever18
Yes, y?
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Hiphopgirl are you Catholic?
Posted by Hiphopgirlforever18 3 years ago
Hiphopgirlforever18
Well, I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I know that gay marriage is allowed in Ontario, Canada, because I live there! I just want gay marriage to be accepted everywhere, because everyone has the right to the life that they want, and if that's getting married, then so be it! :)
Posted by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
I don't like gay marriage...
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Oh please, I don't noob snipe all that much and I need to get my win ratio up. XD

Anyways, we don't know this person's capabilities.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
@xXCryptoXx

STOP NOOB SNIPING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL JK JK
Posted by Hiphopgirlforever18 3 years ago
Hiphopgirlforever18
Well, I am new on this website, so I really don't know how this works. I guess you can say the first round is to see whether you agree with allowing it or not.
Posted by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
Is the first round for acceptance?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments wore obviously stronger. No votes to Pro because of weak arguments and FFs.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 3 years ago
MisterDeku
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Im pro gay marriage but pro argued this horribly. He was also not able to counter anything Con used as a point. Con wins due to FF.
Vote Placed by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and Arguments: FF. S&G: PRO's spelling was awful.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were; logically incoherent, full of straw men, & questions rather than arguments. In addition Con F.F. S&G: "We should accept them on EVERY SINGLE LEVER their is out there"
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF is a drag
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
Hiphopgirlforever18xXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff