The Instigator
Alphonsetmb
Con (against)
Losing
51 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Pro (for)
Winning
52 Points

Gay Marriage is Wrong

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/29/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,532 times Debate No: 1136
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (23)

 

Alphonsetmb

Con

Why should lovers stop just because they are frowned upon?

It has been said that Gay Marriage goes against the bible, but that leads me to ask- "Why is this being handled by the state?"

I was under the impression that Church and State were separate.

I understand how nice it is that people are trying to keep Americans out of hell, but shouldn't the individuals take that risk themselves? Why not institute laws against atheism? Or we could just jump the gun completely and publicly stone anyone who disagrees with the bible.

Many say that Gay Marriage would destroy family values, but since we have had Gay neighbors for my entire life, and as we have not yet succumbed to Satan's powers, I fail to see the validity of that argument. Basically what this argument means is that Christians are afraid to live in the same neighborhood as anyone who is different.

Furthermore, it is widely believed that gays choose to be that way, just as the rest of us "choose" to be straight.

All I'm going to say is that when you're born, your tongue already has its taste preferences set up. Of course, you may think your favorite food is bagels, because that's all your mother feeds you. Then one day at the store, you buy some cantaloupe, and you discover it's what you'v wanted all along.

We are not born gay or straight; we simply are born with unique preferences, that are not the concern of the government, in any way, shape or form.
Mangani

Pro

For the record- My profile says I am "against Gay marriage". I chose "against gay marriage" because of the way the question is worded. It states "couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, AND BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE(not yelling but emphasizing this statement)". I believe this is an issue of individual states, not a federal mandate. I would personally vote in favor of an institution which gives gay couples equal rights as a traditional married couple- but I don't feel it it is the government's place to enforce a blanket equal recognition of gay couples and heterosexual couples as heterosexual marriage is not a legal institution, rather a religious one that has been secularized. It is from this point of view that I have chosen to favor the statement- "gay marriage is wrong".

Who determines whether a secularized religious institution is wrong or right? Since it is a religious institution, though secularized, it is only logical to follow the philosophy of the religion which first imposed it's institution in America as a legal one- Christianity.

From a Christian point of view gay marriage is wrong. This is the point of view that matters in this argument because secularism, democracy, or any purely logic based institution cannot determine whether a religious institution is right or wrong, and whether or not the right to marry should be modified legally. Furthermore, as with traditional marriages, it is the individual states' rights whether or not to recognize ANY marriage. A collective examination of state laws concerning marriage will show that nearly every state has basic differences governing marriage, and every state reserves the right to recognize marriage licenses from other states- though most submit themselves to recognition of other states' marriage licenses they do reserve that right.

Now that that's out of the way, how is gay marriage wrong religiously? Well, the bible DOES specify that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bible also specifically denounces sex, love, and sexual acts between members of the same sex, and through Mosaic law it is impossible to consummate a marriage between members of the same sex.

The government cannot force any religion to recognize marriage between anyone. The Catholic church cannot be forced to recognize a Muslim marriage license between members of the Catholic church, and vice versa. Certain parameters must be met in every religion in order for the marriage to be consumed, and a basic requirement in every religion is that the marriage is between man and woman. Gay marriage is wrong because marriage is a religious institution, and you cannot force a religion to recognize something that is against it's fundamentals.
Debate Round No. 1
Alphonsetmb

Con

Ah, good point. I apologize for phrasing my debate as relating to
gay "marriage" only, and I see your point of marriage being religious. (Although my parents were legally married by a lawyer, without the help of a church.)

Of course, that leads me to ask whether you're opposed to homosexual unions of any type, and why you think it is wrong. That is the question I meant to ask.
Mangani

Pro

I am not opposed to homosexual unions of any type- only those in which I am asked to be involved in... unless those homosexuals are female.

What I am opposed to is the state or the government trying to force religions to recognize and even preside over homosexual marriages. There should not be any legal hindrance to anyone who wants to assign another person as their heir, beneficiary of insurance claims, power of attorney in medical decisions, etc. As a comedian once stated- hey, if gays want all the crap that comes along with marriage, by all means GIVE IT TO THEM!

I don't believe homosexuality is "wrong", but I do believe gay "marriage" in the religious sense of the word is wrong because religion prohibits it. I would not vote for a consitutional amendment banning it, or having anything to do with it for that matter. Legal unions which transfer all the powers of a spouse to the couple should be legally sufficient for homosexuals, and there are churches that will marry them even without a legal union. I don't think we have a real problem here as long as the religious understand the difference between a legal union and marriage, and homosexuals understand that marriage these days is just a peice of paper giving your spouse rights over your life! There is a happy medium, but zealots are counterproductive to any solution...
Debate Round No. 2
Alphonsetmb

Con

Haha.

Well I guess this debate can't go any farther if we both agree on it. Where do you stand on Gay Adoption? I don't see anything morally wrong with it, but I can see where the child would have difficulty later on in life, having to go through taunting from peers and such.
Mangani

Pro

I don't believe you can judge the quality of a parent by their sexual orientation. Many children are molested by their heterosexual fathers- regardless of whether the children are male or female. Many heterosexual mothers also allow their children to be sexually, mentally, and otherwise physically abused by heterosexual family members- if not by themselves. Since the majority of children in America live in heterosexual households, how much worse can it be in a homosexual household?

I have met homosexual parents and they emphasize great care in protecting their children from most forms of abuse BECAUSE they are being more closely watched by society.

I don't feel sexual preference dictates ability to parent, and keeping a child from an otherwise loving family due to the parents' sexual orientation is just ridiculous...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Dude, you're not making any sense. If you wish to actually formulate a premise and challenge me to a debate, then do so. Otherwise you sound confused. You are directing an argument against me about something I have not even engaged you in conversation about. Are you on something?
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Primarily you. Clearly. Nobody else has this sort of separate but equal state rights position. Save a few wingnuts in Canada before they legalized it at the national level.

*sigh*
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Tatarize, who is your argument directed at? You sound like you're rambling without direction...
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
States should be able to violate the constitution and not recognize marriages from other states? So if you could get enough votes in Mississippi could you pass a law abolishing interracial marriages again?

Religions don't have anything to do with marriages anymore. And you certainly won't force religions to honor them. These are the same arguments offered against Gay marriage in Canada before it passed. You know what happened to the provinces and religions after it passed... nothing... after their hissy fit they calmed down and just keep muttering things under their breath. You can be married in a church, but unless you file the paper, you aren't legally married. Religions don't honor marriages. They don't have to, and the state certainly won't force churches to perform ceremonies they don't want to do; they can't.

State rights aside... people's rights come first and frankly the state shouldn't be allowed to step in and prevent a legal contract, which is, under the law, what a marriage is considered to be. As such, the rights are universal to all government, states and national government.

The "state" is a general term for the government; national and state level government. In so far as the federal government recognizes marriage it should recognize gay marriage. As such, it should still give the state the right to determine their own criteria as to how old two people should be before they are lawfully wed, but not their genders, races, ethnicities, or anything else.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Procreation doesn't ensure the future of the country, and marriage between a man and a woman isn't a guarantee of procreation. Being homosexual doesn't prevent you from procreating, adopting children, being a foster parent, paying taxes, working, delivering babies, or doing anything married couples can do to "ensure the future of the nation", like say... voting.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Ummm....did you read the whole comment? One if the things is help ensure the future of the Country through procreation.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
goldspurs, what can a married heterosexual couple do to benefit the nation that a homosexual married couple cannot? I'd love to hear this one...
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Socialist, I could care less if 2 men or women love each other. I personally don't think its moral, but that is my opinion and I would never say they couldn't be together for that reason alone.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Why should Homosexual couples be provided the benefits of marriage? What exactly does the goverment get from it? With heterosexual couples the goverment gets the benefits because a straight family can help ensure the future of the nation. Why else would the goverment be in the business of endorsing the love of two individuals?
Posted by SocialistRI82 9 years ago
SocialistRI82
What it seems to me thats wrong is people thinking that they have the right to determine who's love is right, and who's love is wrong. I don't get what the issue is with this. Its obvious that you can demonize them, claim that God is against them, and even deny them equal rights, BUT GUESS WHAT???? They are still going to be here doing what they do. People need to go ahead and start worrying about their own lives and stop judging others lives. Who makes it wrong anyways? God? Funny I don't recall God commenting on that matter. I've heard some wacked out southern "pastors" comment on it. But I don't know I tend not to trust what some MAN/WOMAN says about it, I would rather look at what Jesus said in the BIBLE. He taught love, compassion, and all the other good stuff. Oh and what was that He said when he was defending a PROSTITUTE from the angry mob, "He who has not sinned cast the first stone." If you all claim to have faith in God and you still disagree with gays rights, then you are lying. Let God judge their lives and what they have done when they meet Him in the afterlife. None of you were appointed to take over Peter and Paul's role at the gate. So live your own lives, and stop judging others. BE what you say you are, CHRISTIANS.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jat93 5 years ago
jat93
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con spoke abstractly without any concrete facts, pro at least tried to debate with logic/facts...
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro engaged in a debate, Con merely attempted a discussion and a vague one at that.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 7 years ago
headphonegut
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 EinShtoin 7 years ago
EinShtoin
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 Xer 7 years ago
Xer
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 TxsRngr 7 years ago
TxsRngr
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
AlphonsetmbManganiTied
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