The Instigator
littlelacroix
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Grand_Moff
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage (Please read before accepting)

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: 11/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,129 times Debate No: 5891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

littlelacroix

Pro

I have debated this topic several times and I think that I've come to a happy medium on this argument.

Most proponents against gay marriage say that they don't want the term "marriage" to be defiled as it states a union between a man and a woman. Those in favor of gay marriage just want the same rights as a heterosexual couple and to be treated the same.

My argument is that in the eyes of the US government, any couple (hetero or homosexual) will be called a union with the same rights as a marriage. Then the different churches can determine if homosexuals are allowed to marry or not. This way the government is kept out of religion (separation of church and state) and homosexuals are treated the same as heterosexual couples.
Grand_Moff

Con

I am assuming you are taking the argument for "Gay Marriage." It was difficult deciphering what stance you are taking on this argument after reading.

Opponents of gay marriage do not want to defile the definition of "marriage." Marriage is not governed by the state. It is a Holy Sacrament. The Church does not give extra rights or privileges to followers who get married; the government does. When someone gets married, there are tax benefits and whatnot. That is the government's workings and not the Church's.

Marriage is the union of a MAN and WOMAN as defined by the Church. So by the Church's definition, a gay couple cannot constitute as a married couple. That does not, however, mean that two men or two women cannot be in love and initiate a "bonding" or union in order to qualify for certain tax rebates. In the eyes of the Church, though, a gay union is not the same as a heterosexual union because it is not a marriage but a union.

Separation of Church and State goes both ways- The Church does not tell the State what to do, and the State does not tell the Church what to do. If the Church feels that a gay union is not a marriage, then it is not a marriage. The government can get involved in someway to give the union the same benefits and tax breaks as given to a heterosexual married couple. A married heterosexual couple already is a union, but it furthers the definition of a union by becoming, what the Church calls, a marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
littlelacroix

Pro

I'm sorry if you didn't understand the debate, but just so you know, on the topic of gay marriage, I presented the plan mentioned above which I will try to restate so you can understand.

According to the government, both hetero and homosexual couples can be united under the law through the term "union." That way the government doesn't interfere in religious views such as the definition of "marriage." Thus only the churches can decide if gay marriage should be allowed or not. And for the record, there are churches that do accept gay marriage.

This way homosexual couples are able to receive the same rights as heterosexual couples and are treated the same. This also makes it so the term "marriage" cannot be defiled. Therefore everyone is happy.

I was hoping to avoid this confusion by putting (Please read before accepting) so that I could see if this plan was acceptable to both sides of the debate.
Grand_Moff

Con

Correct. The government does not and should not interfere in religious views such as marriage. If the church outlaws homosexual "marriages", then two men or two women CANNOT be married. That does not mean they cannot be a union; it just means that they are not a married couple. Churches that do accept gay marriages are not orthodox ones that follow the Bible or other religious texts. Marriage is a SACRED union. The power to grant marriages solely rests with the Church.
Debate Round No. 2
littlelacroix

Pro

So, I'm assuming that you are just agreeing with the plan that I presented. And since there is really no argumentation by my opponent, I have nothing more to say.
Grand_Moff

Con

Grand_Moff forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Many people believe that the bible teaches 'no sex before marriage' but it actually teaches something infinitely more profound.. that sex IS marriage.
The vows/ceremony etc came after the act. ( something we honour even now in that a marriage is not complete without 'consecration' )
The word 'marriage' refers to many different things, for example the 'coupling' mechanism on train carriages.. a nut and bolt are created to 'marry'.
People of the same sex cannot physically 'marry' in this sense.. our body's do not allow it, externally or internally.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
RESPECT GODSANDS AUTHORITAH!

lolz
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
I know I late on this topic, but I am surprised to see you say, "Then the different churches can determine if homosexuals are allowed to marry or not." I forbid any homosexual marriage.
Posted by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
Well, I started this debate to see if I could come to a conclusion that was acceptable for both sides and I would've taken the fact that no one accepted this debate, as an acceptable conclusion. If someone accepted, then I was wanting to find out what was wrong with it.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Its un-arguable as you've come to a medium and only a fascist nut-job or Liberal zealot would accept this.
Posted by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
Well, whether it should or shouldn't be a right, is irrelevant. Since it's an argument, I wanted to find a suitable conclusion
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
We shouldn't be discussing whether or not gays have the right to marriage.
It ought to be a given.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Quite an commendable idea!

*From the eyes of a moderate*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
littlelacroixGrand_MoffTied
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 8 years ago
littlelacroix
littlelacroixGrand_MoffTied
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