The Instigator
Cindela
Pro (for)
Losing
65 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points

Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

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: 3,018 times Debate No: 1477
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (39)

 

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?

Thank you
littlelacroix

Con

I do agree with you that gay people are still people. It's just the fact that I don't think gay marriage is morally correct.

I know that this nation allows for separation of church and state, but it's obvious that everyone's religious views affect their political views. Since this nation is approximately 80% Christian, the Bible should be considered one of the main references in this debate. Now, as marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, the term "gay marriage" can never exist.

Being Catholic, I don't think that being gay is exactly right, but I am a very accepting person and that everyone has a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. Since a marriage is public, however, it is affecting others as the most sacred of all unions is defiled.

I do feel that a middle ground can be reached. Civil unions do not shun gays from society and allow them to be together. This doesn't defile the union of marriage and creates a compromise that should be acceptable to both parties.
Debate Round No. 1
Cindela

Pro

>>for separation of church and state, but it's obvious that everyone's religious views affect their political views.
So you are saying that we don't have separation of church and state, no matter what we say. And I do agree that one's religious views will affect one's political views. But we can't let it take over our lives, right? I personaly am not a religous person, but I respect other people's religions. Why can't religious people respect the choices that other people make about themselves?

>>Since this nation is approximately 80% Christian, the Bible should be considered one of the main references in this debate.
I disagree with using the Bible as one of the main references in this debate. Like you said yourself 80 % of the USA is Christian. However, are we supposed to forget about the other 20% because they are the minority? Why should the majority's opinion matter over someone else's life?? If you are a homosexual person, would you want people looking into your life and shunning you just because you are gay??

>>Now, as marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, the term "gay marriage" can never exist.
However, if there is truly to be a separation between church and state, this should not matter. Just because the Bible says that marraige is between a man and a woman, it does not mean that it has to be so. The USA does not have a national religion, and therefore you can't pull a religous argument into a debate talking about the USA. You can't say that because most people are religious, all of the USA has to be religious and follow all of the same beliefs presented by certain religions.

>>Being Catholic, I don't think that being gay is exactly right, but I am a very accepting person and that everyone has a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.
No arguement there.

>>Since a marriage is public, however, it is affecting others as the most sacred of all unions is defiled.

I do feel that a middle ground can be reached. Civil unions do not shun gays from society and allow them to be together. This doesn't defile the union of marriage and creates a compromise that should be acceptable to both parties.
Definition of civil union from Merriam Webster: the legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples. In other words, civil unions is just another name for gay marriage. Also, how do gay marriages shun gays from society?? Also, marriages do not have to be public. You can have a small ceremony and small reception, and have it not be public. And civil unions are also public, if you ask someone who is gay, and they say that they have a civil union with another person, it would affect you in the same way, because civil unions and marriages are pretty much the same thing.

The crux of my arguement is that gay people are still people, and they deserve the same rights as all of us, and they should be able to marry someone of the same gender. Imagine a world with more gay people than hetrosexual people. Imagine that in this world, gay marriages are the norm, and hetrosexual marriages are shunned. How would you feel if you lived in this world, and if you are married to someone of the other gender, you would be shunned from society?

Thank you
littlelacroix

Con

I'm just going to run down the list of the Pro's arguments:

1. By agreeing with me, you just lost the separation of church and state argument. Since religious views affect our political views, then where else to turn to for political decisions? Religious views are how we determine our morals in just about every aspect of life, including politics, and, since gay marriage is considered morally wrong to about 80% of Americans, those 80% should agree with me. And religious people, for the most part, do accept others views otherwise homosexuality would have been completely shunned from society and there would be no homosexuals. Society accepts gays, just not the defilement of a sacred union such as marriage.

2. The thing about majority rule runs in my favor. If you say that we would be forgetting about 20% of the people and need to focus on those people, I can retort by saying, what about the other 80%? Are we just going to ignore them? No, we need to look at the population as a whole, if 80% find gay marriage morally incorrect, then society finds it morally incorrect. It's not to say, however, that we are going to forget the rest of the population, which I will mention later in my arguments.

3. Your third argument is a little jumpy, so I broke this one down into three sub points:
a. You already agreed with me that there was no separation of church and state so this argument is pointless.
b. This leads back to my second argument. Although there is no national religion, 80% of America follows the Bible and thus would agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
c. Because we have established that 80% of Americans are Christian, we can infer that American society is Christian and religion plays a key role in this debate.

4. We agree that no matter the religion of a person, what a person does in the privacy of their own home is their own business, so we can skip this.

5. If you agree that a civil union is basically a marriage, then what is the problem with it. On the other side, if a civil union is called a gay marriage, then the entire principles presented in the Bible would be meaningless and the sacred union of marriage would be defiled. 80% of people's religion would be affected for only 20% of the people, when, as you said it, a civil union would be just as fine and nothing concerning religion would be affected. Furthermore, gays still shouldn't be shunned from society. Once again, as you said it, they will still have the same rights, just under a different name. As a heterosexual, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union if gays outnumbered heterosexual people.

"The crux of my argument is that gay people are still people, and they deserve the same rights as all of us." You have made my entire argument. Civil unions give gays the same rights as "gay marriages" would and, thus, civil unions are the solution to the problem. Gays aren't shunned from society through gay marriages, they, if at all, are shunned from society due to ignorant people that aren't accepting of the gay lifestyle.
Debate Round No. 2
Cindela

Pro

>>Society accepts gays, just not the defilement of a sacred union such as marriage.
I believe that this is the core of your first paragraph. Why is it that we can marry someone else of a different gender but not someone of the same gender? You seem to be going back to the Bible constantly. What I am asking here is: why should 80% of people be allowed to tell gay people who they can and can not marry? What gives them the right to do so? You still have not answered this argument.
My rebuttal to your second argument:
Again, why should the majority be allowed to tell the minority what to do? What gave them the power to do so? Why is that just because 80% of people believe something, everyone has to follow what they believe?
>>b. This leads back to my second argument. Although there is no national religion, 80% of America follows the Bible and thus would agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
c. Because we have established that 80% of Americans are Christian, we can infer that American society is Christian and religion plays a key role in this debate.
First of all, I only have one argument, and you still have not answered it. Just clarifying, my first argument is easiest put into a quetions: Why shouldn't gay people, who are just the same as you and me, be allowed to marry another person of the same gender? Isn't the only reason because they are gay and people don't like it? Why should other people tell a gay person who they can marry?
Now to my rebuttal. You keep reffering to the Bible. However, jsut because 80% of society is Christian, that does not mean that that 80% can tell the other 20% what to do. Since when was the majorities opinion given the power to tell other people what to do? There are 300 million people in the USA. That means that there are 240 million Christians. At the same time, there are 60 million people who are not Christian. You are suggesting that because the 240 million Christians want to ban gay marriages, the 60 million non-Christians' opinion does not matter. 60 million people. That is the population of California twice over. Also, you cannot infer that all of society is Christian. There are 60 million people out in the USA who may not believe in the same ideals as Christians. And no, religion should not have a key role in this debate. Chances are, most gay people are not Christian, seeing how much Christianity goes against gay mariage. The 240 million Christians in the USA should not have a say in gay people's life.
>>5. If you agree that a civil union is basically a marriage, then what is the problem with it. On the other side, if a civil union is called a gay marriage, then the entire principles presented in the Bible would be meaningless and the sacred union of marriage would be defiled. 80% of people's religion would be affected for only 20% of the people, when, as you said it, a civil union would be just as fine and nothing concerning religion would be affected. Furthermore, gays still shouldn't be shunned from society. Once again, as you said it, they will still have the same rights, just under a different name. As a heterosexual, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union if gays outnumbered heterosexual people.
Again, you are saying that because people are gay, they should not be able to marry, but they are allowed to do something that is more or less the same thing: civil unions. You said that the principles in the Bible would be defiled. Is it not possible for people to respect each other's decisions or lifestyles?? We don't shun people who are Jewish because they are Jewish and the minority, right? We don't shun people who are Asians because they are the minority, right? Why should we shun gays, just because they are gay? Why should we not allow them to marry? Aside from the religious reasons, which I have proven differently, my opponent has not grought forth a single argument aside from "Most people don't want it, so we shouldn't have it." He has not said anything about why gay people should not deserve the right to marry. He has said, however, that he agrees with me when I say that civil unions and marriages are conceptually the same thing. Therefore, why can't we give gay people the right to marry? So far, the only argument my opponent has said is that they are gay, and Christianity says that they cannot marry. What if the gay person is not Christian? What if they do not follow a religion? Shouldn't respect that and let them marry who they want to marry? My opponent has even gone so far to agree with me that "what a person does in the privacy of their own home is their own business." The only thing gay people have in difference with us is what they do in the privacy in their own home.

Because I have successfully refuted all of my opponents arguments and have shown that there is no reason not to give the gay people the right to marry, I win this debate. Thank you
littlelacroix

Con

I'm just going to make this final argument short and sweet and base it on two main points: 1. the 80% of Americans are Christian argument and 2. civil unions vs. gay marriage. As everything said throughout the entire debate focuses on these two main points, I'm just going to focus on these.

1. Ok, since we can't both decide on the Bible as a common ground, I'll give you that, but you have to give me that religion is the basis of everyone's cultural values. By the government allowing everyone to use a religious term, such as "marriage," you would be taking away a part of a person's culture. That's the same if the government said that everyone in America must speak English. Hispanic immigrants would lose part of their culture. Since homosexuals aren't Christian, or most likely aren't, as you said in your last speech, they shouldn't have the ability to inflict upon someone else's culture. I do, however, believe that religious couples should receive the term marriage, when non-religious couples, homo or heterosexual, should receive civil unions. That way, no matter which way one may swing it, it is fair to gays and Christians alike.

2. The previous argument should have been enough of a compromise for you to agree with, as it doesn't shun gays from society by any means, but, as I've said before, if Civil Unions have the same rights as gay marriages, then what is wrong with it? You have yet to really prove that there is anything wrong with Civil Unions, and, now that even heterosexual couples will get Civil Unions, there will be equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples and no hurt is done to anyone's cultural values.

As the Con side has provided a workable compromise that still goes against the original argument, I hope you now see that gay marriages are wrong, but the uniting of gay couples can still be workable. As said before, I too hope that you vote for the person that has presented the best argument and I thank you for your time.

And thank you for this debate Cindela. It has been really interesting.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Lets just say that the Pro convinced me that same sex marriage should be legal. Nothing in the Pro argument provided a strong case for the second part of the debate of why gay marriage should be accepted. Just because something is legal doesn't mean I have to accept it.
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
Oh, I'm sorry if it was. I just wanted to present an alternative to the regular argument against homosexuality.
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
I think that's cheating, U.S Patriot. You should've done that after the debate, but that's just how my sense of honor works. To each his own.
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
http://www.debate.org...

Perhaps con can retire the Christian element of the argument, as no one will take it as a serious argument, and take my path.
39 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 8 years ago
Excessum
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 burningpuppies101 9 years ago
burningpuppies101
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 littlelacroix 9 years ago
littlelacroix
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 DemosthenesC 9 years ago
DemosthenesC
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 huntertracker6 9 years ago
huntertracker6
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 dfhahadfh 9 years ago
dfhahadfh
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 Insene 9 years ago
Insene
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 ahole 9 years ago
ahole
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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 kykrebs 9 years ago
kykrebs
CindelalittlelacroixTied
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