The Instigator
Kelly.Robbins
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aayu
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Gay Marriage Should not be Handled Differently than Heterosexual Marriage

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Aayu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 24317
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Kelly.Robbins

Pro

Gay marriage should have all the rights of a traditional heterosexual marriage.
Aayu

Con

I accept the debate challenge. I would be arguing that gay marriages should not have all the rights of a traditional heterosexual marriage.

For a fair debate, I'd like my opponent to argue first, so that we both would have equal number of rounds to argue.

Best of luck :)
Debate Round No. 1
Kelly.Robbins

Pro

Kelly.Robbins forfeited this round.
Aayu

Con

Gay marriage should not have all the rights of a traditional heterosexual marriage. I am sure my opponent had some extremely important task at hand that would have barred her from providing her argument. I’d provide my case in hope that she’ll give her argument in the next round.

First of all, let us focus on the contention. It argues that a gay marriage should have the rights of a traditional heterosexual marriage. For the purpose of the debate, we’ll not argue on the legitimacy of a same sex relationship, what we would argue about is the state’s interest in a same-sex marriage.

If one is arguing that the *state* should give equal rights to the participants in two different types of marriages, we are arguing that the state has equal interest in both the factions. This is, however, decidedly not true.

The state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. One of the most common arguments put forward by the same-sex marriage advocates is that since marriage is based on *love* and *commitment*, the state should recognize every couple who loves each other. However, that is specifically not true.

If love and commitment was the only driving factor, polygamy, marriage between cousins, or family members wouldn’t be illegal. Why would the state not allow two people, who love each other unconditionally, to marry; if they are the first cousins? Their blood relation certainly does not affect their love, does it?

Marriage is costly to the state. Whenever a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows certain benefits- Spouse security benefits, tax exemptions from a spouse, right to be covered under the spouse’s insurance policy, and so on. Why does the state support the social institution of marriage, is because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. Aristotle in his Politics explained that marriage creates the first essential and most fundamental human society. And from marriage stems the family. And from the nuclear nature of man, woman and children stems the extended family, from there, the village with many extended families together. From the village arises the town and from towns, the state.

Providing equal rights to the homosexual couple as that to the heterosexual married couples is in direct contradiction to the state interest, because it levies costs, huge costs to the state without corresponding benefits. The state has no interest in allowing two people from the same sex from getting married.

Thus, I contend, the state should not provide equal rights to married gay couples, because the gay couples do not give an equal benefit to the state. I look forwad to my opponents response.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Kelly.Robbins

Pro

Kelly.Robbins forfeited this round.
Aayu

Con

This is unfortunate. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Kelly.Robbins

Pro

Kelly.Robbins forfeited this round.
Aayu

Con





Extend all arguments. And let's show a little love to those bottoms


:)

Debate Round No. 4
Kelly.Robbins

Pro

Kelly.Robbins forfeited this round.
Aayu

Con

Aayu forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Aayu 5 years ago
Aayu
Yeah. Even under the inherent assumption that most people are stupid, it takes a special level of stupisity to believe that legalising Gay marriages equals forcing EVERYONE to marry the same sex.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
lol oops sorry I misread. "I thought your last sentence said:" How can a pastor be stupid". lol My Bad.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
How can a pastor stupid? Hmm Well lets see here.. He is homophobic, he excepts blind faith above evidence and reason, Baptists are sexists, and he wants to force his beliefs on other people. So...I don't know about you but I think he's very very stupid. lol
Posted by Aayu 5 years ago
Aayu
Haha, I was just going through the public response regarding same-sex marriage legalisation, and a pastor had this to say :

"No! I am a Christian, and a Baptist Pastor. If gay marriages are legalized, I am prepared to spend the rest of my life in prison rather than support sinful behavior. The world has chosen to accept all manner of things as normal and permissible, but the Bible still describes homosexuality to be sinful. I openly protest promotion of this law, but if gay marriages become legal, get my cell ready because I will refuse to marry any homosexuals."

I just... died. How can a pastor be so stupid?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Better idea. Take benefits out of marriage all together. And legalize both. :)
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
This debate is off to a smashing start.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Could you take it down to three or four rounds?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Kelly.RobbinsAayuTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The conduct and arguments point go to Con for Pro's complete forfeiture of the debate.