The Instigator
breanadawnx3
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Neonix
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
breanadawnx3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,599 times Debate No: 20481
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

breanadawnx3

Pro

In my belief, everyone is equal and therefore they should be treated equally no matter what their are and what they stand for. I believe in Same Sex Marriages and the right for Equality for the whole LGBT community. When two people get married, it signifies their unconditional love and commitment to each other. A member of the LGBT community, primarily a homosexual human being, is still a human being regardless of which gender they prefer to be with. The support for gay marriage is so very little, it is sickening. The battle for same-sex marriages has been very heated since 1993 (1). Many people, especially heterosexuals, do not understand the need and want of this battle. Not only have homosexuals fought for equality, but mankind as a whole has fought for equality and rights. Therefore, the first amendment was created allowing freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The law banning Same-Sex Marriage goes against the "Freedom Of Expression" by limiting human beings to who they can and can not marry. Many people try to use the fight of Religion and God against Same-Sex Marriages, although I am no expert when it comes to the Bible, but in the book of Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 it says; "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, King James). No where in the Bible does it specifically say Homosexuality is wrong and/or against God and Religion. However, this does go against the belief that we, as human beings, should not judge other human beings. The meaning of "democracy" is a type of government which is heavily ruled by the people in efforts to create equality for everyone. This "equality for everyone" should include Homosexual Human Beings. Even though, Democracy is supposed to the type of government ran in American, same-sex marriage is still a reoccurring "issue". To get married is simply a choice. Therefore, this choice should even be available to two men, two women, or a man and a women. Claire Snyder states that marriage is "the personal bond, the community-recognized relationship, the religious right, and the civil contract" (2). These words "marriage", "husband", and "wife" are thought of as "titles" so therefore, why is it that Homosexuals can not choose to obtain these titles for themselves and the one they love? Out of fifty "free" states in America, only six allow Same-Sex Marriage. The six allowing states are New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Some other Same-Sex Couples flee to Canada where is it legal to get married regardless of the genders. I believe solely in equality, regardless of anything such as a person's age, gender, race, political party, social status, and most importantly- sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated equally. At the end of the day, what does a Homosexual couple's relationship, or any couple's relationship in that matter, have anything to do with anyone else?

1- A Brief History of: Gay Marriage. (2008). Time, 171(22), 16.
2- Snyder, C. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
Neonix

Con

In this debate I will defend the view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

1.> Marriage is a designed by God and henceforth is subject to God's guidelines.
a.> Marriage is designed to reflect Christ and his Church.
b.> Marriage is between a man and a woman.

2.> The U.S. Government shall make no law governing religion
a.> Marriage is a holy union. The issuance of licenses to perform religious rites violates the constitution.
b.> Marriage should not be governed by any authority except God and the church.
c.> If non-believers wish to live together and receive the fiscal benefits of marriage, it SHALL NOT be
sanctioned by the church and should thusly not be called marriage. (Civil union is fine, it's not ordaned by the
Church)

Marriage is religious in Nature. Civil union is the jurisdiction of the Government. The two are seperate and should not be confused.

Members of the gay community that wish to live together and reap the benefits offered to married couples can do so under civil union, yet make no mistake about it. It shall not be blessed by the Church. Keep gay marriage out of the Christian Church.

To add, if a temple of Islam, Hindu, Buddihst, etc wishes to ordane gay marriage, I have no basis to argue for or against that.
Debate Round No. 1
breanadawnx3

Pro

Although my opponent stated his stand, I feel I have much more valid and reasonable reasoning why Gay Marriage should be legal.

1- Although marriage is "designed" by God, no where in the Bible states that Homosexuality is wrong, it only speaks of sexual intercourse being wrong, and it says about a woman and a man having sexual intercourse is wrong.
a. Why should marriage "reflect" Christ and his Church? Marriage is a decision between two PEOPLE to symbolize their love, affection, devotion, and commitment towards each other.
b. Currently, and unfortunately, marriage in 44 states is between a man and a woman. People fail to realize the true meaning of love, other than Religious views. Marriage is between two people who LOVE each other. So why shouldn't a homosexual couple who's been together for years and is in love not be able to obtain the title of "Married"?

2- By passing the law allowing Gay Marriage, the United States Government would no be governing religion, but instead governing equality and justice.
a- Marriage is a UNION, a union between two people who have unconditional love for each other.
b- You state the same thing over and over.
c- There are plenty of different religions other than Christianity and "Non-Believers". If marriage has so much to do with religion and the United States Government should not "govern religion" then everyone should have "Civil Unions" and not have the chance and choice to get "married" because discriminating against Homosexuals due to who they love and therefore not allowing them to get married is simply wrong and unjust.

Con repeatedly states the same claim over and over without acknowledging that not everyone is Christian. Some churches, including Christian churches, allow Gay Marriage in their church. The only argument against Gay Marriage that Con has is simply "God" and religion, but only ONE religion. Con fails to acknowledge that being so religious, you are not supposed to JUDGE anyone. "Only God Can Judge Me". If Gay Marriage is so wrong due to God and the Christianity Religion, why not wait and deal with that after death? You only live once so why should a Homosexual not be able to spend that ONE LIFE with the person they love as their "Husband" or "Wife". It is unfair and unconstitutional that only a man and a woman can get married. As human beings, we have freedoms and rights. Therefore, why shouldn't a homosexual be given those same rights? Other than religion and ignorance, my opponent has no valid reasons. Actually, other than Con repeating themselves and only speaking of the Christian Religion and not touching any other valid points I discussed, there is no other argument Con presented. By banning homosexuals to get married, it signals them out. There are states that allow people to marry their own relatives, such as a cousin, which is in fact incest, but yet Gay Marriage is wrong. In my opinion, love is love and no one can help who they love, whether it is a female or a male. I await your "argument".
Neonix

Con

The Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman:
Genesis 2:24:Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Proverbs 5:18-19 May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer-- may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.
Proverbs 18:22 He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD
Deuteronomy 24:5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

And of course: Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The instigator claims: The Bible does not say homosexuality is wrong.
1.> It does, but I'll save that for last.
2.> The Bible does say that adultery is wrong and if two people are not married, but living together in a romantic
relationship, they are adulterers. In that sense, homosexuality is NOT unique. It's not a sin by itself. It's not even
bigger than any other sin. It is however a sin, simply by being an adulterous relationship.

Now, the proof that homosexuality is mentioned specifically in the Bible:

1.>Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
2.> Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
3.>Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

In addition:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators [Gk: paramours], nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [Gk: catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: sodomites] nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

-----------------
The next point:
Marriage is NOT a union between two people who love each other. Marriage is the outward symbol for the Christian, of what Christ is to the Church.
The Government created a legal union between two people on the basis of love and called it marriage. That's not marriage. That's a re-defining of the word. That...is civil union. Marriage is rite of faith. The same way Baptism is a rite of faith, the same way communion is a rite of faith. If the goverment started passing out crackers and grape juice, it would have zero religious value and is hence NOT associated with the church.

I don't care if people get joined under other faiths...well, that's not true. I do care, but that's not the point. The point is, if a Muslim cleric joins two men in marriage, THE CHURCH OF CHRIST WILL NOT RECOGNIZE IT. It is just as broken and false to the eyes of God, as gay marriage under state law.

-------------------
Pro is arguing that not everyone is Christian. That is true.
Does Pro realize that a Baptist Church will not marry a Muslim couple? Nor will a Muslim cleric marry two atheists. The problem is, the Government will join anyone and call it marriage. In fact, the option to swear on the Bible exists, if you desire to include it in your union by the justice of the peace. What does the Bible have to do with a Governement who is honorbound to seperate God from it's law? Nothing!

The argument is NOT about two people loving each other. I don't argue that two men and two women cannot be in love. That would be rediculous. My argument is, a union between two men and two women does not meet the criteria for marriage.
If the gay community wants the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, then they can have that through civil union. They get a tax break, they claim their partner as a dependant, property rights get extended to btoh parties etc. No problem at all. In fact, I believe, if you're taking care of someone else, you ought to be able to claim them as a dependant. (Doesn't matter if it's your lover or terminally ill grandfather). Civil union will grant ANYONE, (not just gays) access to that right. However, the Christian Church is the defining authority on marriage. Hence, gays should not be allowed to get married, the same way that atheists should not have a wedding in a Muslim temple.
Debate Round No. 2
breanadawnx3

Pro

I appreciate your reply Con, but I still see basically only one argument against my belief. The only strong argument that Con represents it "Religion" and "God". But obviously Con fails to realize that the Bible is a book about GOD not about a person's sexuality.

Regarding Con's second point about Homosexuality being a Sin, currently Con is assuming all homosexuals are in an adulterous relationship and therefore that is the only reason Con claims the Homosexual lifestyle is a sin.

If Con believes so highly in Religion, then Con must realize that regardless- Homosexuals are still God's children and we are how He made us.
->Genesis 1:27 God created the human being in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

On a website made by Lesbian Christian Woman, she said, and I quote:

"For example, many Christians don't know that:

-Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.
-The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
-Only six or seven of the Bible's one million verses refer to same-sex behavior in any way -- and none of these verses refer to homosexual orientation as it's understood today. " (1)

Con speaks continuously that Marriage is a Symbol for the Christian, but until I stand corrected- other NON-CHRISTIAN People do get married, so therefore how is marriage "For the Christian, of what Christ is to the Church"?

Con also probably does not realize that some Christian Churches do acknowledge Gay Marriage and do perform Gay Marriages at their alter in their Christian Church.

Con brings up the point about different Religions not being able to be married in a Church that houses a religion different than the Groom-To-Be and Wife-To-Be. But if I recall correctly, the Muslim religion does NOT believe in God, in fact they believe in "Allah" which goes against God.
->Exodus 20:3 You shall have no other gods before me.
So according to Con, Homosexuality is wrong according to God and the Christian Beliefs, but so is having another God. So therefore, why should a "married" couple who follows a religion that believes in a different God, or no God, be acknowledged as "married" and "wife and husband" but a Homosexual Couple can not be recognized as "married" or "husband and husband" or "wife and wife"?

Bottom line is the fight against Gay Marriage is much more than Religion, and it is unfair, unequal, and unjust. A homosexual marriage would not affect anyone in a negative way. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of Mankind and obviously, Homosexuality is not ending.

Does Con realize the only argument they still present is only ONE point that I touched upon? How about we step away from simply the "Religious" argument against this and speak of other points I thorougly presented in Round One. I am still anticipating a different argument from Con because currently, Con repeats themselves with the same "Argument" against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage. Pro-Gay Marriage. Love is Love.

1- http://www.soulforce.org...
Neonix

Con

Pro is correct in the statement:"the Bible is a book about GOD not about a person's sexuality." God reveals himself to humanity through scripture. Pro is arguing that I only have this one argument. Of course I do. No other rational argument exists. If God doesn't exist, then there is no rationality behind my claim. Did Pro perhaps expect me to argue from a point of sheer bigotry?
The issue is not about sexuality. The issue is:
1.> What is marriage?
2.> What is marriage not?

Pro believes that I'm marking all homosexuals as sinners. It would be much more accurate to say:"The Bible regards everyone as a sinner. The homosexuals are not special."
In regards to drawing reference from the gay and Lesbian websites, I would like to point out that they are referencing from an altered text. The King James, The New King James and The ESV (all considered to be highly accurate) did not get altered to manipulate a political stance. The NIV and NESV have. That's cheating and lying. I invite the website to draw the same reference from the greek translation.
Pro claims Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality as a sin. Jesus also doesn't mention stealing a car as a sin. He does however mention theft and he does mention adultery. Would you argue that you can steal a car because Jesus didn't mention it by name? Adultery is treated as a axiom. If you engage in sex or lust outside of marriage you are guilty. Since the Bible defines marriage as a union between opposite sexes, every homosexual relationship is and always will be defined as adultery.
Pro makes a rediculous list that claims the Bible only talks about homosexuality in six or seven verses. The Bible only talks about murder in similar quantity. How is your point relevant?

Pro said that non-christian heterosexuals get married also. Yes, the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Wonderful point.

Pro said Muslims believe in Allah, not God. That's correct. While Allah means God, they do not follow the God of the Bible. What's your point? Are you assuming that God won't recognise a muslim marriage? They are heterosexual, right? Are they glorifying Christ? No, by any means no. The way to God is through Christ. They are still married. The base criteria is male and female. What they are missing is the purpose.

Pro wants me to address other points made in round one.
Pro said: "A member of the LGBT community, primarily a homosexual human being, is still a human being regardless of which gender they prefer to be with."

Answer: Agreed. Has nothing to do with a religious ceremony.

Pro said: "The battle for same-sex marriages has been very heated since 1993 (1)."

Answer: Agreed. What is the point?

Pro said:"Not only have homosexuals fought for equality, but mankind as a whole has fought for equality and rights."

Answer: Agreed. I believe every human has the right to life, sustinance, labor, education and housing. Marriage is not a civil liberty. It's a religious ceremony. If a gay couple wants to be recognized as joined, change your status on facebook.
Stay out of the Church.

Pro said:"The law banning Same-Sex Marriage goes against the "Freedom Of Expression" by limiting human beings to who they can and can not marry."

Answer: Marriage is not an art form. Unless you mean to express you devotion to God, don't do it. If you insist on doing anyway, don't do it in a Church.

Pro said:"Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 it says; "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, King James). No where in the Bible does it specifically say Homosexuality is wrong and/or against God and Religion."

Answer:.........................seriously?

Pro said: "This "equality for everyone" should include Homosexual Human Beings."

Answer: Again, gay people are free. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period.

Pro said: "To get married is simply a choice."

Answer: No. It is a calling.

Pro said:Claire Snyder states that marriage is "the personal bond, the community-recognized relationship, the religious right, and the civil contract" (2). "

Answer: Contradiction. Is it a civil contract or a religious right? Church and state are seperate. You cannot license a religious ceremony. (Even though the government, criminally, does.)

Pro said:" At the end of the day, what does a Homosexual couple's relationship, or any couple's relationship in that matter, have anything to do with anyone else?"

Answer: If the God of the Universe, despite having every reason to snuff you out, shows mercy on you by making a way for you to be reconciled to him.....would it not be wise to accept? Gay marriage is not offensive to liberal America, it's a declaration of war on God. It's like looking at the bloody cross and screaming:"That's not enough!"...or even worse, just plain ignoring that God did anything.

Think of it like this. If God is real and his mercy is available, I would be a sick, sick, human being for not telling you. So, either I'm right and I'm doing you a huge favor...or...I'm wrong and you do what you want. Gays are already getting married. Let's not act like my side is winning the legal battle.
Debate Round No. 3
breanadawnx3

Pro

The LGBT community is not fighting to change the beliefs of any religion nor make a "declaration of war on God". Just as racial equality was fought for and is still minimally fought for; Homosexuals are simply fighting for equality, to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals in regards to marriage. The inequality in homosexual and heterosexual marriage, portray heterosexual marriage to be right and homosexual marriage to be wrong. No marriage is wrong. There are many people from all religions who support gay marriage and do not label two members of the same sex getting married as a means of going against God or being unjust.

->Con implies that The Bible basically says that everyone is a sinner, somehow or someway.
->I say if everyone is basically a sinner, then why is homosexuality so highly argued against? If eventually everyone is going to sin and become a "sinner" according to Con, why can't everyone be left alone and live their life how they want, even if they wish to be with someone of the same gender.

->Con states: "If God is real and his mercy is available" which implies that God and his mercy MAY be real.
-> I say how is Con going to fight against Homosexuals being married with only Religion as his argument and then state "If God is real and his mercy is available"? Con seems unsure when he/she wrote this sentence, but I know that of course God's mercy is available. On numerous accounts The Bible addresses the mercy of God. As Con said everyone is a sinner according to the Bible therefore God is clearly merciful, labeling and accepting everyone as a sinner. With that being the case, then homosexuals are no more or less sinners than everyone else, including those in a same sex marriage, is implied to be.

->Con says: "If a gay couple wants to be recognized as joined, change your status on Facebook.
Stay out of the Church."
->I ask; what does Facebook have to do with this argument and the equality of human beings? This argument is about legally and rightfully being equal and married to the person they love. Also, it is recognizing the Homosexual population as human beings and married instead of a "union".

->Con says: "Marriage is not an art form. Unless you mean to express you devotion to God, don't do it. If you insist on doing anyway, don't do it in a Church."
->I say; When I speak of "Freedom of Expression", I recognize "expression" as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage.

->Con stated: "Again, gay people are free. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period."
->I say: EQUALITY has NOTHING to do with being free. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equality is "the quality or state of being equal". Therefore, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equal means "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another". Therefore, the argument and fight for Equality for Same Sex Marriages, has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom.

I await your reply.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Neonix

Con

You said:".... if everyone is basically a sinner, then why is homosexuality so highly argued against?"

Answer:".....Because the rest of the sinners aren't marching in the streets in protest."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:"how is Con going to fight against Homosexuals being married with only Religion as his argument and then state "If God is real and his mercy is available"? "

Answer:" I understand how that may be confusing. Let me be clear.
I am NOT placing myself above a gay man or woman. I am not elevating a heterosexual over a homosexual. I am defending the act of marriage, which I believe is religious in nature. A pastor, or trained clergy must officiate the ceremony and the wedding is done FROM scripture. Clearly, homosexual couples cannot engage in religious union, unless they where ignorant of the Bible or just plain stubborn.

You keep attacking me for ONLY using God as an argument, but I would counter-attack with:" You can only make your argument by ignoring God."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You said:"..... what does Facebook have to do with this argument and the equality of human beings? This argument is about legally and rightfully being equal and married to the person they love. Also, it is recognizing the Homosexual population as human beings and married instead of a "union"."

Answer: It has nothing to do with equality. There will always be a victim group. Consider the arguments posted in the comment section:

A trans-gendered man wanted the court to recognize him as a woman. He believes he should have been born female, he dressed the part, acted the part and defended his identity as a woman.
...Now, the court granted him the rights he wanted. So, you might think equal rights had a victory.

Until the case went BACK to court, because the parents of a 7 year old girl where horrified to discover, that a grown, trans-gendered man had been using the same women's bathroom as their little girl, at a gas station rest stop.

Who has more rights? The man and his identity or the dignity and security of the little girl?

No such thing as equal rights. In the gay marriage debate, the church should have supreme authority over religious ceremony. If Gay folks want the same "BENEFITS" as married folk....then legalize civil union....but do NOT call it marriage. Marriage is a covenant under God. Civil union is a tax cut for people who live together.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said:" When I speak of "Freedom of Expression", I recognize "expression" as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage."

Answer: That's not marriage. That's a romantic relationship. Marriage is difficult, painful, sacrificing and it glorifies God.
So few people recognize marriage for what it is, Christians included. That can be attributed to our generational culture. It was not always so. Marriage carried alot of weight for the past few thousand years. The divorces we are seeing are a phenomenon of the 20th/21st century.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:"EQUALITY has NOTHING to do with being free. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equality is "the quality or state of being equal". "

Answer: That is impossible. It only works on paper. No such thing as equal. There is no constitutional right to marriage. There is, however, a constitutional right for the church to govern itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the above section, I gave a court case example of the Trans-gendered man and the 7 year old girl. Without using your personal morality, instead using equality as the baseline, solve that problem. Make things equal. The answer cannot leave a victim group.
Debate Round No. 4
breanadawnx3

Pro

Con says-> "Because the rest of the sinners aren't marching in the streets in protest."
I say-> I beg to differ. People, not even just Homosexuals protest in the streets for countless amount of reasons. Ex- Civil Rights Movement, Occupy Wall Street, Job Strikes, etc. So what country do you live in?

Con says-> "You keep attacking me for ONLY using God as an argument, but I would counter-attack with:" You can only make your argument by ignoring God."
I say-> From Round One I never ignored God and noted that religion was a big factor people use against Homosexuality and Gay Marriage. But I also did mention that there are multiple reasons against this fight other than God alone, which Con has ONLY spoke about.

Con says-> "Who has more rights? The man and his identity or the dignity and security of the little girl?"
I say-> Both have the SAME amount of rights. Last time I checked- a Transgender is still a Human- still has a heartbeat, still has feelings, still has the same vital necessities as you, the voters reading this, and me. "The security of the little girl"? When was she in harm's way? Living life in general is dangerous. But when did that innocent Transgender threaten her? Seeing that transgender in the bathroom is a realization that it is the 21st century and that now Transgenders are more proud and open than years ago. That bathroom trip opened her up to the Real World, to things she is going to encounter in her later years. But "security" of her? Really? That transgender has the same rights as that little girl and from what Con wrote- I do not see how her "security" was in danger.

Con says-> "That's not marriage. That's a romantic relationship. Marriage is difficult, painful, sacrificing and it glorifies God. So few people recognize marriage for what it is, Christians included. That can be attributed to our generational culture. It was not always so. Marriage carried a lot of weight for the past few thousand years. The divorces we are seeing are a phenomenon of the 20th/21st century."
I say-> I never said MARRIAGE was EXPRESSION. I said "I recognize 'expression' as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage." Keyword- POSSIBLY EVEN THROUGH. If marriage is such a bad thing, a Homosexual couple should be able to be as miserable as a heterosexual couple who is married and experience that "difficult" and "painful" experience that sometimes ends up in divorce according to Con.

The argument here is simple- there are many unfair advantages against Homosexuals and Gay Marriage. I say- let them be; if they're happy, who is Con to say something about it? Everyone has different beliefs and I respect those of Con, but this fight is about Equality. It's about Homosexuals having that same equality, including marriage, has Heterosexuals. When it comes down to it- we're all human despite of our gender, race, sexual orientation, political parties, religion, and social class. I say EVERYONE, including Homosexuals, Heterosexuals, that little girl, and that Transgender, is equal and therefore should all have the SAME rights.

Vote Pro*
Neonix

Con

In my closing arguments, I will remake my point that marriage is a religious practice and has nothing to do with equality. To solidify my point, here is what the law states:

"Marriage statutes -- Sixteen states debated and five of those adopted -- statutory legislation this year that either prohibit same-sex marriage, strengthen pre-existing gay marriage bans and/or prohibit granting marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples in lieu of marriage such as those provided under Vermont's civil unions law. Those that toughened their marriage laws were New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia."

"Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA. "

ALABAMA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
ALASKA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
ARIZONA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
ARKANSAS •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
CALIFORNIA •Current law: State law, passed by public referendum, bans same-sex marriage
COLORADO •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
CONNECTICUT •Current law: State adoption statute refers to marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
DELAWARE •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
FLORIDA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
GEORGIA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
HAWAII •Current law: Constitutional amendment giving the legislature the right to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples. DOMA passed by the legislature and adopted as state law by public referendum. But Hawaii law provides limited state benefits to same-sex partners.
IDAHO •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
ILLINOIS •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
KANSAS •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
KENTUCKY •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
INDIANA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
IOWA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
KANSAS •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
KENTUCKY •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
LOUISIANA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
MAINE •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
MARYLAND •Current law: The first state law defining marriage as a union between a man and woman was adopted by Maryland in 1973.
MASSACHUSETTS •Current law: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered legislation to allow same-sex couples to marry by May 17, 2004.
•Legislation: State constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages but establishing civil unions gained preliminary approval March 29 during the state Constitutional Convention. The measure must be approved in identical form during the next legislative session in 2005 before going to a state wide vote in 2006. Three bills introduced to permit same-sex couples to marry but are not likely to come to a vote (HB 3556, HB 3677, SB 935). A citizen initiated petition drive is under way to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, but 2008 is the soonest it could come to a state wide vote.
•Court action: Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed a lawsuit July 2004 challenging a 1913 law that prohibits out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. On August 17, a trial court upheld the 1913 law but GLAD said it will appeal the ruling.
MICHIGAN •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
MINNESOTA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
MISSISSIPPI•Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
MISSOURI •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law and written into constitution Aug. 3
MONTANA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
NEBRASKA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
NEVADA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution
NEW HAMPSHIRE •Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
NEW JERSEY •Current law: State law provides for a domestic partners' registry with marriage-like benefits for same-sex couples.
NEW MEXICO No Law on File
NEW YORK •Current law: No public policy
NORTH CAROLINA•Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
NORTH DAKOTA •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
OHIO •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
OKLAHOMA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
OREGON •Current Law: DOMA written into state constitution
PENNSYLVANIA
•Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
•Legislation: State constitutional amendment is expected to be introduced.
RHODE ISLAND •Current law: No public policy
SOUTH CAROLINA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
SOUTH DAKOTA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
TENNESSEE •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
TEXAS •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
UTAH •Current law: DOMA written into state constitution and state law
VERMONT •Current law: State law defines marriage as union between man and woman, but civil unions created in 2000 to provide same-sex couples access to state-level marriage benefits.
VIRGINIA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
WASHINGTON •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
WEST VIRGINIA •Current law: DOMA adopted as state law
WISCONSIN •Current law:No DOMA, but state supreme court ruling and Attorney's General opinion held that only heterosexual marriages are legal.
WYOMING •Current law: State law bans same-sex marriage and pre-dates DOMA laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should Gay marriage not be legal? Because the issue has already been voted on by Americans. The resounding response has been:"NO!"

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by saraandersson123 4 years ago
saraandersson123
http://homosexualbisexualtransgender.blogspot.com...

The [American Psychiatric Association] has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine...Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teenagers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that 'homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA.
Posted by Yurlene 4 years ago
Yurlene
Not all the blame is on the people, but the big corporations pushing the idea of Christmas as being only about receiving gifts etc,.

Talk about stealing traditions...
Posted by Yurlene 4 years ago
Yurlene
1.) There are two kinds of "marriages" one which is some refer as the religious kind, to be wed in a religious ceremony albeit any type of religion, or a civil marriage to be married at city hall.
2.) In the sense of "in nature," marriage has no relevance.
3.) There are those who do no celebrate "Christmas" they celebrate other traditions/holidays that fall around the same time.
You assume that everyone should follow under the same religion whereas they don't, so to assume you are using the religious argument against SSM and that 100% are under the same interpretation of the "church" as you are, then sorry, it is a fallacy.
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
So debate me. Don't just sling character attacks from behind your keyboard. Use your intelligence and debate your point.
Posted by Photographer2188 4 years ago
Photographer2188
Im just curious as to why someone whos so open to equal rights, you clearly arent. Makes no sense to me at all. Same thing goes for the love GOD topic.....cause I dont think thats what GOD is about, and if it is then I think Ill be reconsidering my religion. Cause thats not what Im about. Im all about EQUAL RIGHTS. Even love for that matter......so again I say youre a liar if you say youre for equal rights.
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
Photographer2188, if you wish to issue a debate topic about the love of God concerning gay marriage. I will accept it gladly.
Posted by Photographer2188 4 years ago
Photographer2188
Whoever is a CON on here and they say they believe in equal rights......youre clearly a liar. We don't decide who we love we just do. These people are literally being punished for being loved, being in love, and just being human!!!
It's disgusting to me.
Yes, marriage is a holy union in front of GOD. So what you are saying is that just because someone is gay that GOD loves them less???? If thats the case, then you are standing by the fact that GOD DOESNT love all his children.....and I refuse to believe that.
EVERYONE, and I do mean EVERYONE deserves to have love once, or many times during their lifetime.
Again Ill say, anyone on here who is a CON and you say you believe in equal rights.....clearly youre a LIAR!!!
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VC9PlvKwz4I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Posted by debateme 4 years ago
debateme
i decided to cancel, sorry about that
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
shepamor000, I am always amazed when people regurgitate a single phrase like:"equal rights".

Equal rights does not cover EVERYTHING. Consider this case:

A trans-gendered man wanted the court to recognize him as a woman. He believes he should have been born female, he dressed the part, acted the part and defended his identity as a woman.
...Now, the court granted him the rights he wanted. So, you might think equal rights had a victory.

Until the case went BACK to court, because the parents of a 7 year old girl where horrified to discover, that a grown, trans-gendered man had been using the same women's bathroom as their little girl, at a gas station rest stop.

Who has more rights? The man and his identity or the dignity and security of the little girl?

No such thing as equal rights. In the gay marriage debate, the church should have supreme authority over religious ceremony. If Gay folks want the same "BENEFITS" as married folk....then legalize civil union....but do NOT call it marriage. Marriage is a covenant under God. Civil union is a tax cut for people who live together.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debateme 4 years ago
debateme
breanadawnx3NeonixTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con fails to acknowledge that "marriage" is a word that can be interpreted differently by a church and a government. However, he argues that government should not be involved in marriage, which would allow a gay couple to get married in a church that allows it. Pro makes these arguments well.
Vote Placed by Double_R 4 years ago
Double_R
breanadawnx3NeonixTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argues that marriage is a product of the church which the government has no right to interfere with, clearly implying that the government and church should remain separate. However, if the church does not determine what laws are then he can not use it as an authority for what the law should be, so none of his arguments applied to the resolution. Pros arguments about equality were not compelling, but did give reason for it to be legal.