The Instigator
Cindela
Pro (for)
Winning
71 Points
The Contender
righty10294
Con (against)
Losing
40 Points

Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all USA states.

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  
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: 1/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,059 times Debate No: 1472
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (33)

 

Cindela

Pro

Before I begin my argument, I would like to ask everyone who is voting in this debate to vote not based upon your own opinion. Please do not vote for one of us just because your opinions support one of us. Vote for the person who advanced their arguements better and rebutted their opponent's arguments better. Thank you.

Now to the actual debate.

My first argument is that gay people are still people. Just because one part of them is different, and they prefer people of the same gender, does not mean that we can shun them from society. We don't shun people from marrying people of different religions, or of different races. Then why should we shun people from marrying people of the same gender?
righty10294

Con

Cindela

Thank you for the challenge and sorry for taking so long. And, 2nd your first paragraph.

From dictionary.com the definition of marriage is-
" the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

Hmmm, man and woman.

When you have a marriage, the person(s) should be able to reproduce. I'm not saying they have to, nor gays aren't humans, but if you marry, you should be able to reproduce. It is apart of the whole life cycle, birth-reproduce-pay taxes(lol jk)-and death. With a man and a man or vice versa that can't happen.

I can only speak for Christianity here, but in the bible it says that gay marriage should not be allowed. So if you are Christian, and you have homosexual intercourse and/or marriage, it is against your religion.

Still, people of different races religion etc can still reproduce with each other. Gays can not.
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Pro

No problem. Take your time.
I see you have quoted dictionary.com. You have not, however, given us the full definition.
mar�riage /ˈm�rɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mar-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
As you can see, there are just as many definitions that say that marriage is between a man and a woman as there are definitions that do not. Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman. That is only one definition of marriage. Another definition of marriage is that it is between 2 people, whether it be male and male or female and female or male and female.
>>When you have a marriage, the person(s) should be able to reproduce. I'm not saying they have to, nor gays aren't humans, but if you marry, you should be able to reproduce. It is apart of the whole life cycle, birth-reproduce-pay taxes(lol jk)-and death. With a man and a man or vice versa that can't happen.
Who says that this has to be what all marriages contain? You? Me? Who? You did not say anything about this.
>>I can only speak for Christianity here, but in the bible it says that gay marriage should not be allowed. So if you are Christian, and you have homosexual intercourse and/or marriage, it is against your religion.
Who says you have to be Christian? Not every single person is Christian. Also, there are many different forms of Christianity. There is not one Christian faith. There are many different branches of the Christian faith, some who are accepting to gay marriage. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.
>>Still, people of different races religion etc can still reproduce with each other. Gays can not.
So you are saying that because gay people cannot reproduce, we should shun them from society?

Now to my point.
I would like to elaborate on some of my points. Gay people deserve the same rights as other people. They are still people, and the only reason they are denied the right to marry is because they are gay. We don't discriminate against people based upon race, gender, or religion, then why should we discriminate based upon sexual orientation?
righty10294

Con

Cindela

With the full definination you gave,there are only 2 relevent tto this debate, 1 and 4. If you read them, they sound the same, but there is a big diffrence. Number 1 is a legal marraige between a man and woman. Number 4 is a an illeagal marriage between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. That could only help my argument.

IN the Christan Faith, there is only 1 Bible. In the bible, it says that a marraige should only be between a man and a woman. "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. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
There is only 1 Bible, so if forms a christitantrity accept gay marraige, it isn't real christtantity. Click here for more info www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html

All of your other arguments are reptititive. PLease elaborate on what you meen rather than saying why should we shun them from soceity. I leave you now with these questions-

Can a man and a woman have a natural baby?
Can a homosexual couple have a natural baby?
Why should we ban the from society, give facts
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Pro

>>With the full definination you gave,there are only 2 relevent tto this debate, 1 and 4. If you read them, they sound the same, but there is a big diffrence. Number 1 is a legal marraige between a man and woman. Number 4 is a an illeagal marriage between a man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman. That could only help my argument.
The reason that it is not legal is because society does not want there to be gay marriages.

>>IN the Christan Faith, there is only 1 Bible. In the bible, it says that a marraige should only be between a man and a woman. "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. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
First, this says nothing about marriage. Secondly, I thought that we lived in a country with freedom of religion. Why does the Bible have to tell us all what to do, Christians and non- Christians alike? I also was under the impression that there is a separation of Church and state in this coutry. There is no national religion, nor can our government create one. We should not be quoting the Bible in a debate about whether or not something should be legal.

>>PLease elaborate on what you meen rather than saying why should we shun them from soceity.
Ok, if you want to hear what my arguments mean, take a close look. I am arguing that we should give gay people the same rights as everyone elso who is not gay. We should not be distcriminating based upon sexual orientaion. The only reason that we discriminate is because it goes against some people's religion. However, if the gay person is not of that religion, then he/she should not have to follow its doctrine. If the gay person is not Christian, why should he/she follow the bible and do what the bible says?
I thought I gave a very simple argument, that can be easliy followed. Sorry if you couldn't.

>>Can a man and a woman have a natural baby?
Can a homosexual couple have a natural baby?
Why should we ban the from society, give facts
How does the ability to have a natural baby mean anything? In todays world, you don't have to have a natural baby to be married. We don't ban gays from society. I did not say that. I said that gays are not given the same rights as other people, and this is correct. A gay person cannot marry someone of the same gender. Other people can. This is an example of how we do not give them some rights.
righty10294

Con

Cindela

First, thank you and this has been an entertaining debate.

"The reason that it is not legal is because society does not want there to be gay marriages."-CIndela

So you are saying it isn't legal. If society is a majority (which it is) they have a most important call, so that is saying it should be illegal.

"Why does the Bible have to tell us all what to do"-Cindela

If you read your previous argument, you say that some forms of Christianity accept gay marriage. There is 1 bible for all forms of Christianity. That quote came directly from the bible saying that if your Christan, you can't be gay.

The ability of having a natural baby is very important. That's something that an average person living from paycheck to paycheck can do for society. IT's the life cycle, Birth, reproduce, and die. Can a homosexual couple have a baby? No. They could adopt a baby, but so couldn't a regular couple and that baby came from a regular couple.

"A gay person cannot marry someone of the same gender. Other people can."-CIndela

Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

You have just made theories. I have used facts. This proves your argument is flawed. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
righty: you have not "used facts" in any form. Using the Bible is NOT using facts. Religion is NOT fact. It is faith. Faith and fact are NOWHERE near the same thing. In addition, your basic argument is that BECAUSE Christians say it is morally reprehensible for gays to marry, it SHOULD NOT be allowed for ANYONE. This is NOT the manner in which our government intended things to be run. We have this lovely document known as the Constitution. It contains phrases about the inability of government to create laws regarding religion (and other things). Simply because YOU believe something (from an interpreted book of a faith) is no reason to disallow other individuals to practice what they wish or marry whom they wish or say what they think, etc.

3DCrew: You made the same argument about Christianity. The bible does NOT define the way we run our society. It is NOT the 'be all, end all' of definitive knowledge. It is an ancient book of stories (many interpreted differently by different factions). If you read the simple definition of what a marriage is (I don't mean the one concerning a legal document you sign when you decree that you wish to spend the rest of your life with someone). I mean the simplest of definition of the word "marriage": it is simply a combining of things - you can have a marriage of crime and law (i.e. the criminal justice system), a marriage of liquids (i.e. carbonated water and flavored syrup), etc. The idea works the same for the joining of two people. When you say that if gays marry there should be new terminology required. This is so shallow a thought. They can marry, but we can't call it marriage because we don't want to "soil the sanctity of the true biblical marriage?" So we are to assume, from this statement, that Christians are the best and most knowledgeable, and therefore, we should make EVERYONE follow their ideas? This sounds a bit too much like the ideas of an Aryan nation under Adolf Hitler. He said the same things you have.
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
Sure Lefty. Fire one up and challenge me if you'd like. I'll probably lose in this liberal "morality is relative" population but what the heck.
Posted by mathnerd 9 years ago
mathnerd
Who, me? I would love to.
Apparently I need to add more content to my comment.
Hello!
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
Care to open a proper debate on this topic?
Posted by mathnerd 9 years ago
mathnerd
Does righty also believe that barren couples or couples that don't plan to have children should be banned from marrying? Or that single parents are unfit to care for their children? And one more point before I go: just because the general population believes something doesn't make it right, to refer to righty's comment "If society is a majority... they have the most important call, so that is saying it should be illegal."
Posted by mathnerd 9 years ago
mathnerd
It also says in the Bible that if a man rapes a women, he has to pay a certain amount of money and marry the women, and that women shouldn't be allowed to speak or expose their hair in church. Do all Christians believe this as well?
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
We shouldn't expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex partnerships. The bible defined what a marriage is and no one has a right to redefine it. When we say "marriage", there should be no doubt that there is one man and one woman involved. If gays want to be united in a legal way then they need to come up with a new name and not soil the sanctity of the true biblical marriage. It is clear that it is going to occur and it is clear that same-sex unions cannot be a "marriage" because this is a biblical definition that gay couples do not meet the requirements. It's as simple as that.
Posted by NonZeroBubble 9 years ago
NonZeroBubble
i think it should be perfectly legal and allowed. it may be fd up and pretty nasty but there isnt a reason why it should be against the law
Posted by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Gee frank, that was really thoughtful. Don't you think you comment is against debate.org's rude behavior rules?
Posted by frank_gore_is_da_best 9 years ago
frank_gore_is_da_best
We should have rehab for gays. When people have injured legs they have rehab. We should give gays free tickets to tittie bars and strip clubs. LOL.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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 sagarous 8 years ago
sagarous
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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 indicolts 9 years ago
indicolts
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Gao 9 years ago
Gao
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Padfoot36 9 years ago
Padfoot36
Cindelarighty10294Tied
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