The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
52 Points
The Contender
pawletoe
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 10/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,938 times Debate No: 5630
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (13)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

Ask almost anyone on the street and they will probably agree with you that homosexual's should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Yet, once you get on the issue of marriage, more than half of the population in America is against it. This right to marriage is the last blockade for equal rights for homosexuals.

I'll let my opponent go first.
pawletoe

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for opening this debate.

Topic Analysis:
I think I can safely assume that, if I can prove gay marriage shouldn't be legalized, then I win the debate.

Debate:
1. I believe all homosexuals should have same rights as any other person. I don't, however, believe they should be allowed to marry.

2. Gay people shouldn't be allowed marry because marriage was started by religion. Most religions believe being gay is wrong.

3. Science supports the fact. Marriage is just something humans make up. They believe they can be one. Obviously, religion is what created and supported this. As animals, we don't need marriage.

4. Gay marriage is already legalized. Several countries and states have already legalized gay marriage. Including: Canada, Belgium, Norway, Spain, and states in the US. I argue this because it contradicts the debate starter's argument, therefore, proving he is already wrong.
a.http://gaylife.about.com...

Conclusion:
I have stated that marriage was not intended for gays by the creators of marriage(religion). I have shown that marriage is what humans create to satisfy ourselves only psychologically. I have also proved that my opponent is already in the wrong by stating gay marriage is already legalized, therefore, making this debate irrelevant.

I shall await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

~Counterarguments~

1. Marriage started by religion.

- Whether or not the origin of marriage was religious or not does not matter. In modern times of America, a secular nation adhering to a separation of church and state doctrine, religious reasons to keep marriage heterosexual is not valid.

- Marriage didn't originate in one place, but was developed in many societies during different times. Monogamy wasn't the only type of marriage that was developed. I doubt my opponent is still an advocate of polygamy, endogamy, exogamy, proxy marriages, or arranged marriages.

2. Science nature of Marriage.

- Institutions have been created and developed by human beings as a mechanism for cooperation and social order. Government is an example of a human institution, as is marriage and money, and even friendship. Even though such abstract concepts do not exist amongst every other animal, this does not mean we should throw away such concepts.

- To some we may not need marriage, and in fact some do believe that marriage is pointless. However, many people DO want to get married, for reasons ranging from love to personal sentiment to economic, and it should be their right to be able to.

3. Gay marriage already legalized.

- While a very few number of states such as Massachusetts is the only state that fully recognizes same-sex marriage, many other states of America still do not recognize it. Note that I intend this debate to be based on American law, as is implied in my first round (sorry if I didn't make that clear). My side still stands as there are still a large number of states who are not in support of gay marriage.

~Conclusion~

My opponent's points have been refuted accordingly. Gay marriage should be legalized since there is no legal reason to make it illegal, and is almost seen with parallel with the prejudice against blacks and women not too long ago in history.
pawletoe

Con

1. Marriage start by religion.

It does matter what is the origin of marriage is. If you do not follow what the creator of marriage intended, then it is not marriage. It is something that is similar but change and made up to fit your needs. You then would call it "marriage version 21st century" or something like that.

2. Origination of marriage.

Notice that I never stated a place that marriage was originated. I said it was made by religion and social group's culture that do not accept same-sex marriage.

3. Marriage.

Whether or not I know the different types of marriages does not matter in the debate. As the contender you are suppose to prove me wrong. Here is a list of the types of marriages and how the originations don't accept same-sex marriage.

a. Polygamy is marriage of having more then 1 spouse. The several spouses are still the opposite sex. The several spouses aren't married to each other, only to the husband or wife.
i. Example: Mormons, nomadic Tibetans
ii. http://en.wikipedia.org...

b. Endogamy is marriage within a social group. The social group leader does not approve of same-sex marriage.
i. Example: Armenians in Iran, Jews, Old Order Amish, Jehovah's Witness, etc.
ii. http://en.wikipedia.org...

c. Exogamy is marriage of different breed. This isn't the marriage of same-sex.
i. Example: European marrying an African person. Chinese marrying an American.
ii. http://en.wikipedia.org...

d. Proxy marriage is, in other words, pre-arranged marriages. I strongly disapprove of this. This contradicts the Constitution of the United States. A person should be able to marry who he/she wants.
i. Example: Hindu
ii. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Science and marriage.

The concept should not be deserted. Agreed. My response is showing how marriage is not important even to heterosexual people as well. This might be attack straight couple marriage yet also gay marriage as well.

5. Gay marriage already legalized.

It seems my resource was overlooked by my opponent. Massachusetts isn't "the only state that fully recognizes same-sex marriage". California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut allow same-sex marriage.

6. Future States

Many future states have debates about same-sex marriage and if it should be allowed. Already we see Michigan, Florida, and Nevada as one of the first couple states that are giving into the people's demands. Some states have not cooperated with people(Texas, Alaska). Those are very few compared to the current states and future states that allow gay marriage.

7. The debate should be based on American law. Agreed.

8. Majority against same-sex marriage.

If "more than half of the population" are against same-sex marriage(According to no resource or study), that is for a reason. The majority of people just don't like gay people. It takes time to show people what is right. Rarely do you see a gay couple(without marriage) in any case. Changes people's mind is not the correct reasoning. If the majority of the people decide to pass a law that states all blond haired people must pay tax then that is the law. If I in return do not like it, I can debate about it. If I fail to win the debate, due to people's strong support to my opponent, then there is nothing I can do about it after that. I can either live with it or move to another country that allows same taxation of blond and brown haired people.

9. Bad side of gay marriage.

In today's culture being gay and not married has more advantages then being gay and married to a person of the same sex. You will be discriminated and looked down upon. NOT because you are gay, but because you married gaily.

Here I will restate my resources' comment: "But, did you know most civil, domestic and registered partnership laws around the world provide fewer benefits than full marriage? So in many cases, life-long partners are denied some or all of the rights of marriage simply based on their sexual orientation."

Therefore, getting married can have bad sides to it. The whole reason gay people get married is because of psychological satisfaction or because of legal benefits. Yet some may not have same legal benefits as straight people can. This contradicts the reason to even get married in the first place.

a.http://gaylife.about.com...

Conclusion:

I have shown why same-sex marriage isn't marriage since the originally principals are not stated in the marriage. I have shown the types of marriages still do not allow same-sex marriage. I have restated my response that same-sex marriage is already being allowed and will be allowed soon enough, making this debate pointless. In our culture, people look more downly upon same-sex marriage then same-sex relationships and there are less benefits in same-sex marriage then straight people have. Therefore, making same-sex marriage pointless as well as the debate.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

~Counterarguments~

1. Marriage started by religion.

-This is committing the genetic fallacy. [1] The current meaning of many things change over time, usually for the better.

2. Origination of marriage.

-As I have said before, the original meaning of marriage has no merit on its value now.

3. Marriage.

-I think it's fair to say to extend my point about the origin of marriage here. Whatever the intended meaning of marriage may be does not matter; only the merit of its value now. My point about different forms of marriage is that they formed in different times with different reasoning, usually being religious in nature. Thus it proves to be a point for you to solve; should you condone such marriages under a legal context because they are religious in origin? If you said no, which is most likely true to be, then it proves my point that gay marriage shouldn't be banned because it isn't supported by religion.

4. Science and marriage.

- Untrue assertion on my opponent's part. He stated that because marriage is an invention of man (an institution), we should abandon it since it does not appear in nature amongst other animals. It doesn't matter who created, or why they created it, but what it means to us now and how we define it (in the context of this debate about the legality of gay marriage).

- I also pointed out how many other institutions such as government aren't "natural". Should we abandon them on the premise they are unnatural? It doesn't matter or not if the roots of government can be traced back to religion; just what it is now.

5. Gay marriage already legalized.

- My apology on the spelling error. However, my point still stands that there are YET states that haven't legalized it; and should legalize it as is the title of this topic. I fail to see your reasoning behind this point.

6. Future States

- Those who still don't legalize same-sex marriage should; I fail to see your point.

7. Majority against same-sex marriage.

- I fail to see your point in this. So are you saying we SHOULD debate about it? After all, we have an opinion and so do others, and the one that comes out to be true affects people's lives.

8. Bad side of gay marriage.

- Your source seems to work AGAINST you, the one you stated at least. It states: "But, did you know most civil, domestic and registered partnership laws around the world provide fewer benefits than full marriage?" So a careful reading shows that marriage has some BENEFITS than other ways of partnership. So in fact, marriage wouldn't be a detriment to gay couples, but more of a benefit in a legal sense.

- Yet most people do not view marriage in such a light; not seeing as a legal opportunity to get some benefits; but for as you said psychological satisfaction.

- This is not a point threatening my side, since what you brought up would be an issue for gay couples wanting to get married. This isn't an argument against the legality of gay marriage.

~Conclusion~

My opponent's points have all been refuted, which several of them committing the genetic fallacy. Gay marriage should be a right, since there hasn't surfaced yet a valid secular reasoning behind banning it.

---References----
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
pawletoe

Con

Final Argument:

1. Marriage started by religion

Keeping the meaning of the origin should be done throughout everything. It keeps history correct. Making another meaning for something can be wrong doing.
a. Take George Orwell's "Animal Farm" novel for example. The pigs change the original meaning of the laws of the farm to benefit themselves. This also shows the other animals behave more obediently and overlook the meaning of something.
i. http://en.wikipedia.org...

2. Origination of marriage

Like I said in my first response, it is important to keep the meaning and history of something. Although, this is a different debate and my opponent should not stray from the subject.

3. Marriages.

It seems I misunderstood my opponent's 2nd round response. He said "[he] doubts [I'm] still an advocate of polygamy, endogamy, exogamy, proxy marriages." I took the types of marriage as his examples of types that allow same-sex marriage which he didn't intend to mean. Therefore, I will go back to what my opponent said before. An adovate is someone who speaks on behalf of something or someone. In this case, on behalf of the types of marriages. So rewording this sentence, my opponent originally meant,"I doubt my opponent is still speaking on behalf of [the different types of marriages]."

On my first response, I never said I will speak on behalf if the types of marriages. Also, since my opponent himself said,"I intend this debate to be based on American law", it is obvious we should be debating base on the American way of marriage: 2 people of whatever breed/race in a society or out of one and not pre-arranged.

4. Never did I say we should abandon it. "The concept should not be deserted."-Pawletoe(round 3, response #4).

5. Everything matters in a creations of anything. For example, a singer writes his latest album and intends to sing it at an army camp to support the troops. Except, another singer steals the lyrics and sings it at an urban night club that ends up booing the singer off the stage. As a result, the original singer is accused of stealing music. This is one reason why any thing's origin is important. This is why we have created copyright laws. Putting your own definitions to something is great, as long as you change the word of that which you have changed.

6. Gay marriage is already legalized.

I argued with this because I am showing how the United States has already approved of same-sex marriage. I will extend on my point. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004. 3 years later, so does New Jersey. Now on 2008, California(on May 15th) and New York(on May 29th). New York passed the law 14 days after California. This shows more and more states are giving into gay people's demands. I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 more states agreed to same-sex marriage this year...

7. Future States

My point is more and more states are allowing same-sex marriage. Which in turn, makes this debate pointless. If in 3 years, 40% more states allow same-sex marriage, it would be point argue about this since same-sex marriage will be getting the majority of approval.
a. For example: If I challenged you to a debate and argued, "President Lincoln was shot in the head". That would be a pointless debate since it is self-evident through history.

8. Majority against same-sex marriage.

Let me clarify... While states are allowing same-sex marriage, we as people are against it. No we shouldn't debate about this since it will be legalized. Yes you do have an opinion.

9. Bad side of gay marriage

The resource states that same-sex marriage(registered partnership) has less benefits then heterosexual marriages(full marriage). It clearly states gay couples have less of a benefit.

10. The argument is an example why not to get married. It shows that gay marriage has a bad effect instead of a good one. Having a different benefit from gays and straights is unequal which contradicts the Constitution of the United States.

11. Finally, people don't adapt to gay couples because it is so different to them. It can actually be blamed on the gays themselves. Gay people always "hide in the closet" and never show themselves for who they are. This makes the public believe everyone else believe gay is wrong. How do you eventually get the point across to the public that gay people want to marry as well?

12. Gays can easily be compared to African Americans. After slaves gained freedom and same rights, we as Americans are FORCED to call them by their origin race: African Americans. This should done with gay marriage as well. We should not allow gay couples to disrespect the religion of others by marrying with a priest and walking around a fire 7 times or breaking glass, and all the other traditions religions have, etc. This is a huge insult to those who are religious.

Conclusion:
My opponent has to originally argue why marriage should be legalized. As the contender, I not only have to disprove my opponent, but can also point out an unsuccessful argument, pointless debate, the change of the subject's origin.

1. I stated the origin of marriage must stay true to it's origin. If not the history and meaning is lost and it becomes something else not marriage.
2. I showed that the debate and argument is pointless since the majority of states will legalize marriage.
3. I disproved my opponent by saying if we legalize same-sex marriage, gay married couple will naturally be treated different then straight married couple. This will bring much chaos.
4. I have pointed out gay marriage is useless and is only made to please the need of gay couples.

On the other hand:
Gay people should not use the religious ways of getting married and should "be registered as partners for life". Gay non-married couples can enjoy the better rights and benefits then having under same-sex marriage. Gay couples can easily wait and fight for acceptance which should be the first step. Gay people should concentrate on gaining RESPECT from the public first. They should not hide who they are.

I have disproved my opponent, have provided several different resources, and have argument against all his responses.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
By the way, I would like to state that I am naturally for gay marriage. I debated against it to put myself in my opponent's shoes. Obviously, I support that phatso86 said as well. I am also against transgenders.
Posted by phatso86 8 years ago
phatso86
well the one reason i am against gay marraige is the same reason i am against publically supporting:

-animal sex
-group sex
-prostitution
-infidelity
-eating you own dung

i mean if any of these are "assumed" to be ok, then anyone taking part in these are still considered "normal"
obviously supporting & promoting any of these can only poison a child's mind, rather than bring its intended outcome (presumably greater "acceptance" for diversity)
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
Trust me, Alaska will be the last state to legalize gay marriage if it even happens at all. The only gay people I've ever met up here moved on to somewhere else where there were more gay people to fool around with. The most you'll see is confused bi-curious teenagers.
Posted by pawletoe 8 years ago
pawletoe
how much does the point count for? I put tie for the first 3 and con for the last 3 but got 6 points... that doesn't make much sense...
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Well...lets debate then!
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
"Well, 1. It wasn't funny.
2. If you oppose same sex marriage for religious religions, you should get better acquainted with the first amendment.
3. I would presume this was a debate on American laws. Considering most debates on here are and it matters a lot where you're making same sex marriages.
4. If you'd like to debate on whether same sex marriage is a sin, I would do it gladly.
5. Of course."

Oh my.... I can oppose same sex marriage on any grounds I wish to. I can also oppose your resolution (if I were party to the debate, that is) on any grounds I wish to. If I could produce an argument that would conclusively prove that homosexuality is a sin and that the First Amendment is not legally binding or that it does not exist or that the proper interpretation of the Constitution renders a sinful act unconstitutional then I might even win the debate.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
"I am one of those that would say that."

As would I.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
@TheSkeptic

I am one of those that would say that.
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Well, 1. It wasn't funny.
2. If you oppose same sex marriage for religious religions, you should get better acquainted with the first amendment.
3. I would presume this was a debate on American laws. Considering most debates on here are and it matters a lot where you're making same sex marriages.
4. If you'd like to debate on whether same sex marriage is a sin, I would do it gladly.
5. Of course.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
Well I might, but I wouldn't want to debate about whether or not the federal government should impose the laws of marriage on each state, since some would say the federal government shouldn't.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sagebrown 7 years ago
sagebrown
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Apollo 7 years ago
Apollo
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 debatefan01 8 years ago
debatefan01
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 mrj171 8 years ago
mrj171
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 jesus_lovesu 8 years ago
jesus_lovesu
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
TheSkepticpawletoeTied
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