The Instigator
jeremy1234
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
natertig
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Civil Unions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
natertig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 568 times Debate No: 36305
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

jeremy1234

Con

I am challenging my opponent to a debate on gay rights. I see he is a Conservative, gay, and for Civil Unions. He seems to be against Gay Marriage, but he still supports Civil Unions. This is very hypocritical in my opinion.
natertig

Pro

As my opponent pointed out, yes I am a Gay Conservative. I do not have any problem however with Homosexuals (such as myself) receiving some government benefits. Civil Unions are exactly what the Homosexuals need. I do not agree with Gay Marriage because I personally believe Marriage is a sacred ceremony for One Man and One Woman. I do not understand my challengers accusation that I am somehow hypocritical because I believe Gay Couples deserve some recognition. My opponent seems to forget that Homosexuals are people too and they deserve some rights. Let me be clear, I do not believe states should ever be forced to allow Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, or Marriage. I just want every state to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. I am okay with a state not allowing Civil Unions because that is their choice as an individual state, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with Civil Unions for Homosexual Couples. They do deserve the same basic benefits offered to Heterosexual couples, because they still contribute to society and pay taxes just as straight people/couples do. I personally believe that Civil Unions are good enough, but what can my opponent offer for Homosexual couples? Under the laws, they deserve to be treated equally and fairly as Heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits. The government didn't used to be involved in these kind of Unions, but now that they have injected themselves as much as they have, they must treat it equally. Now, Marriage is one thing. That is a historically religious institution that should be run by the church and not the government, but we are talking about Civil Unions here. ANY couple can enter a Civil Union. It is not just a "gay" Union and was never meant to be a "gay" Union. Since Civil Unions have no historical ties to religion, not allowing Homosexual couples to benefit from them is a direct violation of our 14th Amendment rights.

I rest my case and await my opponents rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
jeremy1234

Con

So a Gay Conservative for Civil Unions, but against Gay Marriage? You seem very hypocritical in your ways. I am assuming you're religious since you are a Conservative and therefore also gay. It seems as though you are supporting something that goes directly against your religion, ideology, and political parties views. You Homosexuals always say you don't want states to be forced to allow your sodomy, but in the long run, all you want to do is destroy the foundation of marriage and the family. I have not forgotten that homosexuals are people, I just believe they need help. It is not natural or normal to pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex and therefore, a couple who chooses to do this deserves no recognition under the law.
natertig

Pro

It is in no way hypocritical to be for Civil Unions and against Gay Marriage. You are making assumptions and accusations that are quite moronic. I am a Conservative because I believe in Economic Freedom and Social Justice. I have no idea why you tied religion into this so randomly. I am a Gay Christian, but supporting recognition for Homosexual couples doesn't mean I am going against my religion. You are approaching this debate as if Gay Rights is the main issue in every party or ideology, but that just isn't true. There are many many Conservatives who support Civil Unions like I do and there are even some who are for Gay Marriage. Stereotyping me as, "you homosexuals" is also quite alarming. You are only debating one Homosexual here and as far as I am concerned, you're getting beat by a homosexual. I have no such intentions of destroying the family or "forcing" any state to accept sodomy of any kind. States can do as they wish and I am quite sure I made that clear in my opening argument. I believe in the Traditional family and I believe it is a great environment to raise children and enhance a society or a community. Just because I want some sort of recognition for my own lifestyle and relationship does not mean I want to tear down everyone else's. Would you use that same argument in terms of slavery? Because African-Americans wanted the same rights as White people, do you also believe that their goal in the end was to destroy the rights of Whites? Your argument is quite absurd and your assumptions show that you have no case here. You cannot simply assume someone is a religion or belongs to a political party and then proceed to attack them based only on your vague assumptions. This is a debate on Civil Unions. It has nothing to do with if you think same sex couples are normal/natural or not. Not too long ago, interracial couples were deemed "unnatural" and quite frankly sir, the only one who needs help here is you.

I rest my case and look forward to the voting period. Thank you for this debate. Next time, try to cut down on the personal attacks, especially when you have no knowledge of the individual you choose to attack.
Debate Round No. 2
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
I am against civil unions (I prefer gay marriage), but I think Con's arguments were very Ad Hominem, and they refused to actually argue the points given by Pro.
Posted by nonamenoslogan 3 years ago
nonamenoslogan
Regarding the debate, I see jeremy is very stereotypical in what natertig "should" believe in. I hope jeremy can see that when someone says they are conservative, it doesn't mean they are all the negative things the media and pop culture drive into people's heads. Talk about prejudice. Sheesh! Not all conservative social views are based off religion. It seems many people assume conservatives base all their views off the bible; I think they get a big surprise when they actually engage a few in meaningful dialogue. It's probably a shock when they have to argue against a line of reason outside of, "because the bible told me so," which is obviously all they expect.
Posted by natertig 3 years ago
natertig
https://www.youtube.com...

This is totally unrelated, but it's a good video haha
Posted by nonamenoslogan 3 years ago
nonamenoslogan
Wow, Gizers, you're the first person I've seen who shares my view that marriage should be abolished as a state sponsored institution, and left to whatever spiritual path you adhere to. Everyone seems to forget that the government got into marriage for the sole purpose of getting people to create children. That isn't an issue in the US anymore. It still is in Russian and Japan and other countries where the older population is ballooning and there are few younger people to support them (and those countries offer huge tax benefits for married couples to have children). The state should only be in the business of civil unions for tax benefits and contractual reasons between two (or more?) people for purely legal reasons. In that regard, I think the state should be lax in who engages in them, be they lovers, siblings, or parent and child. Marriage is spiritual, and if your church, temple, coven, whatever, will marry you, good for you.
Posted by Gizers 3 years ago
Gizers
Quite honestly, I fully support the separation of the Church and the State. Most issues today concerning Gay Marriage had everything to do with the homosexual's feeling as though they were denied basic rights, but the religious side feeling that their ritual of matrimony was being (pardon my french) shat upon. The ideal solution in my eyes is for Civil Unions becoming the new "marriage" with equal rights for both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and the term "marriage" to be eliminated from law, and kept only to churches. There was no hypocrisy in what the pro was standing for. One can easily be a Conservative Religious Homosexual. A Conservative does not side with a party, it simply means they are right of center on the political scale. He may or may not be SOCIALLY Conservative, but he is fully capable of being POLITICALLY Conservative. This seemed less like a debate and more of the con side trying to be smart and try to poke non-existent holes in the educated pro side.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
jeremy1234natertigTied
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: "I do not have any problem however with Homosexuals (such as myself) receiving some government benefits. Civil Unions are exactly what the Homosexuals need." To me, this statement is disgusting. People have actually have convinced themselves that they deserve my taxpayer money because they love somebody? Anyway, Con bails on the argument in the last round and starts spewing bigoted nonsense, so arguments and conduct go to Pro.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
jeremy1234natertigTied
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: Con had no interest in debating civil unions, he just wanted to rant hate speech about how the existence of gay's is destroying america... (I know that's a straw man, but it's better than what he actually said). Pro on the other hand presented a case for the existence of civil unions, and did not argue for more (such as marriage, which would be outside the scope of this debate)
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
jeremy1234natertigTied
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: Agree with bench.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
jeremy1234natertigTied
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: Con seemed more focused on claiming pro is being a hypocrite rather then debate the resolution, and in the process he dropped many of pros arguments.