The Instigator
kstepinac
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
acwixson
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Okay Throughout the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 815 times Debate No: 21907
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

kstepinac

Pro

I believe that gay marriage has become a highly controversial issue which people have blown out of proportion. Exclude the fact that these people are homosexual. They are people just like the rest of us and if it makes them happy to be together, then who are we to deny someone of their happiness? Gay marriage should be allowed throughout the United States.
acwixson

Con

I will gladly accept this debate. There are many reasons why we should not allow gay marriage. I would like to point out that this topic title is super weak. Let's assume we're talking about the legality of gay marriage rather than its "okayness."

First, it could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

Second, it would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

Third, weakening marriage standards ultimately leads to extinction. This is quite self-explanatory but to explain, procreation can only occur between men and women.

Thus, I negate.

My opponent really makes no significant moral arguments in her case. We can still recognize their rights as people without affording these rights. This is the reason we have a criminal justice system. Stealing makes me happy but is it morally right? Also, the only purpose of legalizing gay marriage is for tax reasons and such which means that we are denying them being together in private, but we are not encouraging immorality.
Debate Round No. 1
kstepinac

Pro

Well excuse me for my choice of wording. However, my topic is still understood, therefore, I will proceed with my claim.

By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together.

First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them.

Second, it is not correct to say that gay couples take away from a traditional family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well.

My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of past beliefs and definitions that were made so long ago. We are long past that and there's nothing wrong with making a change to these traditions, definitions, and moral values.
acwixson

Con

I am not denying that these two people should be together as opponent is suggesting. They can things such as these on their own time. What I am suggesting, rather, is that there have been standards set in place for thousands of years that say that same-sex relationship are fundamentally immoral and we should be very slow to change this norm. Also, even if these scenarios are unlikely, if we maintain this mindset of keeping everyone happy at any moral cost, we will have no choice but to legalize these things when it is important to somebody. And these are legal chances that anyone, liberal or conservative, would not want to happen. It is completely irrelevant that they stay together longer or that cannot view their partner in the hospital. We need to be focused on the moral cost of allowing this. Just because they raise kids in no way proves that they are infringing upon traditional family values as my opponent is attempting to suggest. Also, it is completely relevant that they cannot procreate because we will begin to inevitably disseminate as a human race if we continue on this path. My opponent's primary point is that we need to change moral values and traditions, but it is not this simple. Why make something acceptable now that we have not traditionally and stray from our values. There are moral absolutes and these are something concrete that we can fall back on.
Debate Round No. 2
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
acwixson

Con

acwixson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
acwixson

Con

acwixson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
acwixson

Con

acwixson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
lol either your lazy or a troll
Posted by kstepinac 4 years ago
kstepinac
Well you take an hour to respond. Ill pass.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
It only takes one hour to respond .__.
Posted by kstepinac 4 years ago
kstepinac
For all the people who are making these ridiculous comments, I don't care. Thanks for taking this website way more seriously then you should. However, I have a life more then to check this site a thousand times a week. I'm doing it for a grade in a class so back off.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
NO ONE SHOULD ACCEPT THIS DEBATE

she will FF every round
Posted by OnlineOwl 4 years ago
OnlineOwl
your arguement makes no sense and you will lose.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Besides, before you start new debates, I wish you would finish our technology debate before you forfeit each round.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
The following exception(s) occurred:

1. You are already engaged in an open debate with kstepinac. You cannot accept another open debate from her until your current debate has concluded.
:(
Posted by Layne-vs-Kagan 4 years ago
Layne-vs-Kagan
I'll debate you for fun, even though I might not necessarily believe the arguments i make
first tell me why you're debating though, so I know which types of argument to make?
also, do you think extinction is good?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kstepinacacwixsonTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: -