The Instigator
DTiger
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Kegan
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Gay Marrage

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,603 times Debate No: 15176
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

DTiger

Pro

Gay Marrage is a must because if a man and woman can do it so should the same sex. Im going to let my oppent go first
Kegan

Con

I will start by refuting my opponents point and then stating my own. I'm also doing this from in class on an iPod touch, so please forgive any spelling errors that may or may not occur.

-My opponent states that it is a MUST, in an absolute sense of the word, for gays to marry simply because they should be able to if a man and a woman can, and therefore establishes my side to simply be have to prove that gay marriage is not a "must".

Gay marriage is not a must, nor is it a necessity for today's society, for 3 simple reasons.

1)it serves no purpose since procreation cannot occur.

2)It is not a religious must.

3)Marriage, either gay or straight, is not a necessity, nor is it a human right.

Before I elaborate I would like to define a few words.

Must: a necessary or essential thing; "seat belts are an absolute must"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/../webwn - Definition and context.

Legal definition of marriage: A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage.

1) Marriage serves not only as a social contract in which two beings are acknowledged as being together, but a harbor to birth and raise a child. My opponent states that gay marriage is a must. Now, gay marriage is neither a must nor is it a necessity because it cannot result in offspring. If every marriage in the world was a gay marriage, since it is a "must" or a necessity that applies to all people, the world population would eventually die off. Procreation, and raising offspring is a MUST, but the necessity of gay marriage goes directly against a far greater must.

2)The foundations for many marriages are based on religious implications.
-Religious implications. Marriage, is many times based upon what religion you consider yourself a part of. Now, no religions imply that you HAVE to get married, or else you willing to he'll, move down in the caste, etc... In fact, many religions even negate gay marriage specifically. Especially Christianity, the worlds most widely used religion. Religions do not demand that you be married, and sometimes demand that IF married it be to a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, there is no religious foundation nor religious necessity in gay marriage.

3)Marriage is not a necessity to either the gay or straight community.
Marriage is not a necessity. People who are never married do
Not die because of it. My burden is to simply prove that gay marriage is not a must, which I can simply do by stating that marriage is not necessary to survive, procreate, or flourish as a human being

When looking at these points you must realize that gay marriage is not a necessity.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
DTiger

Pro

Although my opponent is right that it is not a must nor a neccesity it should still be allowed in my opinion, because men and women can be married because of love right? So why can't the same sex love eachother and be married the way men and women can? I know that not everybody is into the same sex, and I understand that my opponent is against "Gay Marriage". I also undertand that not everybody is for it too, but I have to ask a question to everyone who veiws this, how would you feel if you were into the same sex and you had a partner whom you loved and respected enough to exchange vows with and the government refused to let you? Even imagine if you couldn't get married to the man or woman you loved because of your sexual intrest? I find it absurd that the law would be for this. It may be my opinion and my opinion may not be that important, but I'm willing to speak for the people who are being treated like objects because of their sexual interests. I'ts not fair, then again life isn't fair.
Kegan

Con

Sice my opponent has not addressed my account in any way whatsoever, I will just attack his case and state the reasons why my case holds strong.

1) My opponent agreed that gay marriage is not a MUST, which is what this entire debate is framed off of.

2)Men and women, by definition in LAW, do not marry because of love. Marriage is a legal and religous operation, and although love plays a part in marriage it is not the entire basis of marriage.

3)Marriage is not necessary to be in love. My opponent says that the reason gays should be able to marry is because of love, however he also states that these people were in love BEFORE they have gotten married. " you had a partner whom you loved and respected enough to exchange vows with " This THEORETICAL couple is in love before they are married, and do not need marriage to acheive love.

Now for the reasons my arguments hold true:

1)The established burden of proof is that gay marriage is a must. Throughout my case I have established this, and furthermore, my opponent agreed that it is not necessary.

2)My opponent only adressed love, and did not mention that the religous, and legal, implications marriage embodies ARE NOT A MUST.

3)He did not address the fact that no offspring is produced.
Debate Round No. 2
DTiger

Pro

First there doesnt need to be a offspring in marrage they can adopt one if they want one and if a man and women can get married then so should a man and man or vise versa. Also if you look at the role moddels of the past they say that it is fine EX:
"Freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish." Former Vice-President Dick Cheney
An unjust law is (one that a) majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. ... "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up there privileges voluntarily." Martin Luther King, Jr. in a letter from a Birmingham jail.

"Marriage between one man and one woman is critical to maintaining social stability. Society as a whole pays a high price when marriage is devalued. You see divorce; you see single-parenting; you see a rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies." Shari Rendall, director of legislation and policy for Concerned Women for America

Most of these people that i just said have said that they are fine with Gays getting married.
Kegan

Con

In this conclusion, I will just go over the main reasons why I should win today's round.

1)My opponent has not addressed all of my points, therefore leaving them all true. All of my points refer back to the criteria he established of gay marriage being a "must". In his second round he even agreed that gay marriage is not a must.

2)Freedom is a basic human right, however, freedom is restricted by law. According to the very definition of not only straight, but same sex marriages, it is an act of the LAW, and can restrict SOME form of freedom. The freedom it does restrict, however, is not a guaranteed human right.

3) Divorce is a non-unique argument since it can happen in same sex marriages as well.

4) Vote con because he doesn't respond to my case and only makes the argument of Human equality, which i have refuted multiple times.

SOURCES
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by unidentified.corpse 5 years ago
unidentified.corpse
Response to your debate points, CON:

1) Infertile couples are permitted to marry. Argument invalid.

2) As a part of religious freedom, a specific religion cannot dictate law.

3) Basic human rights dictate that everyone is equal under the eye of the law, therefore, discrimination against gender in regards to marriage goes against human rights.
Posted by DebateGirl 5 years ago
DebateGirl
Why is "The Contender" acting like LOVE has no part in marriage? I would rather two men that actually LOVE each other get married than a man and a woman get married who don't love each other at all! Hello, there is a reason we don't arrange marriage anymore because marriage is about LOVE! If you don't love, respect, and care about the person (male or female) you are marrying your marriage is simply pointless and mediocre!
Last thought, no one besides God should EVER say "or else you will go to hell" This really makes me angry! Who do you think you are telling people whether they will go to hell or not. This is none of your business and you simply have no idea what you are talking about because you are NOT GOD! So please no more of this bull crap "gay people go to hell" because unless God says it himself I (nor do ever other REAL CHRISTIAN) will not believe it.
Thanks.
Posted by Kegan 5 years ago
Kegan
In my second contention the iPod auto-correct made a mistake. It should read "or else you will go to hell", not "or else you willing to he'll'.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
DTigerKeganTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not recognize BOP this looses him conduct for me. He has no sources while con contains sources, and does not answer any arguments made by con
Vote Placed by mandmandmbaby 5 years ago
mandmandmbaby
DTigerKeganTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the best at this arguement, therefore clear win to pro.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
DTigerKeganTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs to actually make arguments.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
DTigerKeganTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had best arguments as well as a few other things.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 5 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
DTigerKeganTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con made much better arguments, they articulated their points in such a way as to stay in tempo with the Pro's arguments. Whereas Pro, did not. Pro provided little clash, and offered mostly their own opinion. While in a debate personal opinions are important they must be backed by either empirical evidence, or sound logic. The pro gave neither. also the spelling point goes to neither, Kegan admitted they would have gramatical mistakes at the beginning so I won't vote them down for it.