The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Tied
112 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Tied
112 Points

Gay Marriage should be 100% legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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: 3/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,677 times Debate No: 7372
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (37)

 

abard124

Pro

We hold these truths to be self evident, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their creator with CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are life, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS."

Yes, you will complain that that is the declaration of independence, not the constitution. Here's some news for you. The country was founded on the declaration of independence, and the constitution didn't come for some years later. Actually we were more like the EU for the first few years. But enough of U.S. history. If all men are created equal, doesn't that mean that we shouldn't judge based on things such as sexual orientation? Our certain unalienable rights (or "natural rights"), the three major ones listed above, may not be tampered with (hence the "unalienable"). Liberty is obviously a blanket category for many things, but you should have the liberty to marry who you want. The strongest point, however, is the pursuit of happiness. Now, obviously, it has a few restrictions. Obviously if it makes you happy to inject a shot of heroin three times a day and then go out and rape a few people, that is kind of a no-no. But the difference of one chromosome really doesn't seem like such a big deal.
I'm pretty sure I've heard all the arguments, but maybe you will surprise me. I will try and start strong and address the points I know of.
1) People will start wanting to marry more than one person. Or animals. Or inanimate objects. Or little children.
Well, technically yes, and technically I could care less about the first three. The people may be wackos, but this is America. We have Michael Jackson. Wackos are allowed. The fourth, marry a small child, that is different, because of the age of consent (again, I am fairly against that as well, but that is a different debate).

2) The Bible (aka the law book of America... Wait... that's not right) says it's a big no-no.
As I said, the Bible is a religious thing. America enjoys a separation of Church and state.

3) Well yes, the bible is a religious thing, but marriage is a religious ceremony.
Usually, but not always. I am atheist. Does that mean I can't get married? I'm technically also Jewish. Does that mean I could have a gay marriage if I wanted one (not that I do).

4) Marriage is only for children.
Well, this is the only one that makes any sense to me; however, does that mean that infertile people should not be able to marry? And birth control and condoms can go away. First of all, teen pregnancies would go through the roof. Back to the topic, you can't single out one group, and when you include everyone applicable, it doesn't always seem like such a good idea. Sorry.

I myself am not gay, but I would like to see gays have rights, liberties, and the same opportunity as we heterosexuals do to pursue happiness.

I am looking forward to the rebuttal!

*Just a side note, Civil unions are pointless. What's the difference (one chromosome), and see above arguments.
Alex

Con

First off I would like to thank my opponent for starting this important and controversial.
Responding to one of his comments, despite my age I think we can still have a very good debate.
I also find it very interesting that we have the same name and live about 10-15 minutes apart out of pure coincidence.

Now, on to my rebuttals which will be followed by my own arguments.

Indeed, all men are created equal and are granted our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And those are granted to all of us.
Our country was founded on the declaration of independence that is correct that actually is not news to me or our viewers I am sure. But one man's pursuit of happiness cannot disregard or overpower the happiness of the majority of the population (that is against it).

My opponent states "If all men are created equal, doesn't that mean that we shouldn't judge based on things such as sexual orientation?"

People are free to think or "judge" however they want about sexual orientation, that comes with the freedom of speech that you so blatantly pointed out. Regardless of why individual people are against gay marriage, it is their right like you said.

"Liberty is obviously a blanket category for many things, but you should have the liberty to marry who you want."

You can in fact marry whoever you want, as long as it follows the definition of marriage which states "the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage." -http://dictionary.reference.com...

And of course the restrictions preventing pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and homosexual marriage. Because marriage between a man and another man is simply not marriage, because marriage was created for a man and a woman.

"Obviously if it makes you happy to inject a shot of heroin three times a day and then go out and rape a few people, that is kind of a no-no. But the difference of one chromosome really doesn't seem like such a big deal."

Who are you to tell the entire population that one chromosome doesn't seem like such a big deal? What does not seem like a big deal to you may in fact be a big deal to other people. Should we be able to marry Chimpanzees because of our chromosomal similarities? Because that is also wrong. The thing is, is there are countless laws that prevent our pursuit of happiness, if we allow gay marriage, we might as well abolish the rest of those said laws, from what your argument suggest anyhow. Which would result in chaos might i add.

"People will start wanting to marry more than one person. Or animals. Or inanimate objects. Or little children.
Well, technically yes, and technically I could care less about the first three. The people may be wackos, but this is America. We have Michael Jackson. Wackos are allowed. The fourth, marry a small child, that is different, because of the age of consent (again, I am fairly against that as well, but that is a different debate)."

First off, you may care less about those wants but many people would disagree. This is indeed America, but "wackos" are not allowed, if they were the United states would be in chaos. Our court system attempts to prosecute those "wackos" in a fair manner, which will not always result in punishment due to our innocent until proven guilty law.

Allowing these wackos free reign over our under aged, animals, deceased, inanimate objects, is simply balderdash, and wrong, and would result in exponential growth of abuse. We cannot allow such atrocities because of "Michael Jackson"

But your idea of pursuit of happiness, as well as the rest of your arguments support the idea of legalizing pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, polygamy and such wrong perversions. Please tell me why we should legalize same sex marriages, with an argument that would not suggest these said perversions. But, from your previous arguments you suggest they should all be legalized. Which would not only diminish the meaning of marriage but would also result in a sexual perversion driven society.

"2) The Bible (aka the law book of America... Wait... that's not right) says it's a big no-no.
As I said, the Bible is a religious thing. America enjoys a separation of Church and state."

Yes, we do. We enjoy a government which is not controlled by the church, which is what separation of church and state is. But the thing is, is that marriage is a religious ceremony. The church is not in control over whether or not gay marriage is legal, the government is. Our government is a democracy, which i will point out the obvious means that the people decide. So why should it be legal when a majority of our population is against said gay marriages?

"3) Well yes, the bible is a religious thing, but marriage is a religious ceremony.
Usually, but not always. I am atheist. Does that mean I can't get married? I'm technically also Jewish. Does that mean I could have a gay marriage if I wanted one (not that I do)."

You can get married. No that does not mean you could have a gay marriage since you are Jewish. sorry.

"4) Marriage is only for children.
Well, this is the only one that makes any sense to me; however, does that mean that infertile people should not be able to marry? And birth control and condoms can go away. First of all, teen pregnancies would go through the roof. Back to the topic, you can't single out one group, and when you include everyone applicable, it doesn't always seem like such a good idea. Sorry."

Since when is marriage only for children might i ask? Last time i checked under aged children cannot get married unless accompanied by the consent of the guardians of both proposed. Nobody is singling out a single group, are you forgetting all of the restrictions we have both explained? Gays are not alone, I could be in love with my dog, my sister, my dead grandma, 6 different legal woman, a 13 year old girl (assuming i was over 18) and i would not be able to marry any of them accept for one of those legal females, but how could i pick? There are 6 of them! That's not fair right? No it is fair, since we all have the same rights.

"I myself am not gay, but I would like to see gays have rights, liberties, and the same opportunity as we heterosexuals do to pursue happiness."

Gays do in fact have the same rights, liberties and opportunity at happiness as us heterosexuals have.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

Thank you for responding. I would first like to apologize for a small misconception. When I said that I felt self conscious about being twice as old as you, I meant that I felt old, not that you were too young. And since you live so close to me I must say: The weather is absolutely awful, isn't it!

Now, back on topic.

"But one man's pursuit of happiness cannot disregard or overpower the happiness of the majority of the population (that is against it)."
I definitely need some convincing that it makes other people less happy. Well, I know THAT it makes people less happy, but whether that is justified, which is, to some extent, what we are debating.

"Regardless of why individual people are against gay marriage, it is their right like you said."
I almost never drink. I think it shouldn't become a habit. I tell my friends who do to maybe drink less. I accept that drinking is legal. Freedom of speech means that you can have an opinion and tell it to people. And remember that if someone wants to go all out and be a stereotypical gay (on a related note, I have a severely homophobic friend, who has had a very similar debate, except I think he makes up 99.9% of his facts. Anyway, I have successfully rebutted almost all of his points, so the other day, he had the audacity to tell me that he would be fine with gays if they didn't talk all weird. I laughed. Hard. He also said the only good thing about the holocaust was that they killed gays. I did not laugh. At all.), fine by the first amendment. If someone wants to be openly homophobic, fine by the first amendment, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

I'd be the first to say that my arguments, and the way I say them, almost never are perfect. Now, I know I said "judge," but I suppose that came out wrong. I think by "we" I meant the law. Sorry.

"Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock."
Obsolete- "no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:"
Although your definitions are not yet obsolete, who's to say they can't be made obsolete. I'm sure you've read..d Shakespeare. In "Romeo and Juliet," "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" does not mean "where are you," but "why are you." I'm just bringing that up to show that definitions change. Granted, Shakespeare practically invented the English language, but my point is, definitions aren't set in stone. Another example, perhaps more related to the topic at hand, if you listen to music from as late as the '40s and '50s, you'll hear about them saying that things are gay. Unfortunately, today, if you were to say something was gay, that would be a bad thing. Back then, though, they meant happy. The dictionary doesn't yet show that as obsolete, but in common tongue, it is.

"Who are you to tell the entire population that one chromosome doesn't seem like such a big deal? What does not seem like a big deal to you may in fact be a big deal to other people."

So I can't marry someone with Downs syndrome? That's a difference of one chromosome. They have an extra chromosome 21 (usually). Women are just like men, except they have an extra X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome. By your logic, what would you do with someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) or Turner's syndrome (X). Technically, Klinefelter's is male and Turner's is technically female, but it's the same amount of difference as normal male (XY) and normal female (XX). I think I was unclear about what I meant by keeping the pursuit of happiness. If rape and murder makes someone happy, obviously that shouldn't be legal. It is really an issue of common sense. How much damage will it do? Gay marriage? No damage at all. Rape? That does damage. If we repeal the social laws, including gay marriage, that don't do any damage whatsoever, then the country won't go into chaos. In fact, if anything, it would get more peaceful, as people wouldn't have as much to complain about.

"First off, you may care less about those wants but many people would disagree. This is indeed America, but "wackos" are not allowed, if they were the United states would be in chaos. Our court system attempts to prosecute those "wackos" in a fair manner, which will not always result in punishment due to our innocent until proven guilty law."

There's no reason to prosecute "wackos" until they actually do something illegal. Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton have broken the law, but people who want to live their life, who aren't affecting the public, I think they are weird, but it doesn't affect anyone but themselves, and the government doesn't (shouldn't) have the right to determine something as petty as who they can and can't marry. The government is there to keep the peace, not micromanage the people.

I think you may have misunderstood my argument, and I may have been unclear. I absolutely don't believe in pedophilia. I meant, by my being against the age of consent, that children should be able to marry, and yes, have sexual intercourse, as long as they want to and their parents allow it.

I'm not looking for a sexual perversion driven society, and I think you are a bit too assuming there. I simply meant that it shouldn't give heterosexuals rights that others do not have (the right to marry who--or what--you want)

"But the thing is, is that marriage is a religious ceremony."

For the sake of time, read my argument 3.

"You can get married. No that does not mean you could have a gay marriage since you are Jewish. sorry."

You could have elaborated a bit? I was just trying to get the point across that your idea of marriage being a religious ceremony is wrong.

"Since when is marriage only for children might i ask? Last time i checked under aged children cannot get married unless accompanied by the consent of the guardians of both proposed."

I'm sorry, I was unclear. Totally my fault. I meant that marriage was only for making babies.

And yes, you are singling out a single group. You are singling out heterosexuals, such as you and me, and the majority of or population. However, for a free society, like you said, all the groups deserve the same rights.

"Gays do in fact have the same rights, liberties and opportunity at happiness as us heterosexuals have."

uhh... How about the right to marry who you want?

I'm excited to hear your response, as I'm sure it will be excellent.
Alex

Con

The weather is awful you are not alone in that feeling.

Clarification that it makes it justified, laws are based on the majority of the people, which in this case the majority is against same sex marriage, hence them voting against it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent uses the term gay showing that words change in meaning over time. And uses Shakespeare as an example. Shakespeare used very different language, hence comprehending his work is rather challenging in my opinion, but anyhow. Please give some more insight on how the definition of gay changing over time, should mean that the definition of a ceremony should change. Because marriage was designed strictly for joining a man and a woman, the word gay was just a word meaning happy, that changed, along with a whole list of other common terms.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

"So I can't marry someone with Downs syndrome? That's a difference of one chromosome. They have an extra chromosome 21 (usually). Women are just like men, except they have an extra X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome. By your logic, what would you do with someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) or Turner's syndrome (X). Technically, Klinefelter's is male and Turner's is technically female, but it's the same amount of difference as normal male (XY) and normal female (XX)."

Please elaborate on how a mental illness is at all related to a man and a woman, besides the chromosome idea that you brought up. Because, a man and a woman is not an illness, and typical folks with those syndromes have an extra chromosome not simply a different one.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, your argument "How about the right to marry who you want?"

Mmk..I am a heterosexual, I cannot marry a man either, but i can marry a woman, just like gay guys can, that is the same right. We both have it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I will now elaborate on the idea of marriage, and further argue your point.

Marriage, created as a religious ceremony indeed between a man and a woman. The fact is, is that because we have freedom of religion we can simply stamp on our name whatever title we would like for the moment. So yes an atheist can get married to a woman just the same as a christian. Anyhow, why should we religious folk change the entire meaning of marriage that WE CREATED so that two people of the same sex can completely contradict and defile our beliefs? Yeah, that tends to make those of us who hold marriage sacred, unhappy.

You shouldn't, you can't, society had created civil unions for people of the same sex, so that they can enjoy the same benefits. Just as we created marriage for ourselves.

The fact is, is that whatever rights are not given to homosexuals are not given to heterosexuals. No one is receiving special treatment. States are in the regular practice of regulating what we can choose. They equally distribute regulation in terms of Pedophilia, incest, and polygamy. Since we already give the right to the state to regulate our choices, we cannot simply alter one of them.

People may be gay as they please, but what you must realize is that marriage is a religious thing so the government cannot tell it what it can and cannot do. If being gay is what makes them happy then so be it, but you don't need marriage to do so.

Your whole argument of "pursuit of happiness" is not defiled or restricted by not allowing same sex marriage, because the simple fact is we do not prohibit homosexuality, and if that makes them happy then they have free reign aside from marriage, but if that is really what makes them happy then they do not need marriage.
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Glad to hear back from you so soon!

"My opponent uses the term gay showing that words change in meaning over time. And uses Shakespeare as an example. Shakespeare used very different language, hence comprehending his work is rather challenging in my opinion, but anyhow. Please give some more insight on how the definition of gay changing over time, should mean that the definition of a ceremony should change. Because marriage was designed strictly for joining a man and a woman, the word gay was just a word meaning happy, that changed, along with a whole list of other common terms."

How would you feel if Marriage became one of those common terms. You don't want to change the definition of a celebration? So be it. Go celebrate the solemnity of thy wedlock (look it up). (hint, Solemnity in this sense has nothing to do with the word solemn).

"Please elaborate on how a mental illness is at all related to a man and a woman, besides the chromosome idea that you brought up. Because, a man and a woman is not an illness, and typical folks with those syndromes have an extra chromosome not simply a different one."

How about a 14-21 translocation? Or would you rather, a different chromosome? How about the chromosome which contains the genes for skin color.

"Mmk..I am a heterosexual, I cannot marry a man either, but i can marry a woman, just like gay guys can, that is the same right. We both have it."

I strongly suggest you look at this topic as a homosexual. That's how I do it. Same thing with gender issues. I look from both perspectives. When talking about civil rights, I think what a black person would think. That's a very effective way to look at things that don't necessarily pertain to yourself. Put yourself in someone else's shoes/

"Anyhow, why should we religious folk change the entire meaning of marriage that WE CREATED so that two people of the same sex can completely contradict and defile our beliefs? Yeah, that tends to make those of us who hold marriage sacred, unhappy."

Here's the thing that has really never made any sense whatsoever to me. If you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't have one. Don't associate with gays if you don't like them. But that argument provides no reason why it should be illegal. It provides a reason for why religious people shouldn't have them, and priests shouldn't be forced to perform them. Simple as that.

"You shouldn't, you can't, society had created civil unions for people of the same sex, so that they can enjoy the same benefits. Just as we created marriage for ourselves."

So, what it sounds like you are implying is that marriage was created by religious people so the values should stay the same. So what that leads me to believe is that, since I'm atheist, perhaps I should get a civil union to a woman?

"People may be gay as they please, but what you must realize is that marriage is a religious thing so the government cannot tell it what it can and cannot do. If being gay is what makes them happy then so be it, but you don't need marriage to do so."

But you need marriage to be happy in a heterosexual relationship? Or at least, it's allowed?

"Your whole argument of "pursuit of happiness" is not defiled or restricted by not allowing same sex marriage, because the simple fact is we do not prohibit homosexuality, and if that makes them happy then they have free reign aside from marriage, but if that is really what makes them happy then they do not need marriage."

We both live in suburbs of Portland. There, they have the first openly gay mayor of a major city (Unfortunately, Harvey Milk was murdered before he became mayor). He did some bad things (although I argue that they wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't lied in his confession). He displayed just about every bad gay stereotype. They aren't all like him. Some of them would be content marrying one of their peers that happens to be the same gender. Like Ellen Degeneres. Perhaps, if Mayor Adams was allowed to marry, he wouldn't have had relationships with that 18-year-old, because he would have been happy.

In conclusion, no matter how religious you are, you should understand that there is no reason to take away rights from other people, which in no way apply to you, and won't hurt society as a whole. It is a waste of legislation, and a scar on the face of America. Perhaps, if we were to take the idea from our neighbors up north, who really should be more of a role model, who we don't give enough credit to, perhaps we could learn something. If you think gay marriage will lead to chaos, well, look at how horrible things are up in Canada...

Alex, I would like to thank you for an amazing debate. People from Oregon must be really smart (well, maybe not Ted Kulongoski or Sam Adams... Maybe only people named Alex from Oregon...).
Alex

Con

I would like to start my final round by showing my appreciation. Thank you Alex for your kindness during this debate, it has truly made it more enjoyable.

The gene for skin color is irrelevant, people(s) with different skin color are allowed to get married.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

"Mmk..I am a heterosexual, I cannot marry a man either, but i can marry a woman, just like gay guys can, that is the same right. We both have it." Yes, i quoted myself, with the sole purpose of pointing out that my opponent did not argue that, but if you look at his response to said quote, he merely asked me to look at it from a homosexual standpoint, which i have done but my opinion was/is not altered.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In his following paragraph, he states that if i don't like gay marriage then don't have one, and to not associate with gay people if i don't like them. The thing is, is that i don't dislike them, they can be as good of people as any. But with that being said, this is a debate so i am arguing my side. I'm not simply going to accept a debate and then go "Oh well, since i don't like gay marriage i just won't have one" I am showing why they should not be legal.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"So, what it sounds like you are implying is that marriage was created by religious people so the values should stay the same. So what that leads me to believe is that, since I'm atheist, perhaps I should get a civil union to a woman?"

No, what i am saying is that it should not be changed to the contradiction of those who created it. And you being an atheist have the choice of a marriage or civil union, haha isn't that great?
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"But you need marriage to be happy in a heterosexual relationship? Or at least, it's allowed?"

No you do not need it, i am happy in my relationship right now. But yes of course it's allowed, we made marriage for us heterosexuals just like homosexuals made civil unions for themselves =)
_________________________________________________________________________________________

"We both live in suburbs of Portland. There, they have the first openly gay mayor of a major city (Unfortunately, Harvey Milk was murdered before he became mayor). He did some bad things (although I argue that they wouldn't have been so bad if he hadn't lied in his confession). He displayed just about every bad gay stereotype. They aren't all like him. Some of them would be content marrying one of their peers that happens to be the same gender. Like Ellen Degeneres. Perhaps, if Mayor Adams was allowed to marry, he wouldn't have had relationships with that 18-year-old, because he would have been happy."

There can be infinite "what ifs" but that is not enough to justify it, because there can also be "what ifs" if we did allow it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
"If you think gay marriage will lead to chaos, well, look at how horrible things are up in Canada..."

I said if gay marriage, pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia ect were allowed it would result in chaos.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

In conclusion my fellow Alex has not successfully defeated my arguments of the following:

-A majority of the population is against gay marriage, therefore due to our democracy it should not be made legal.

-Why the government should not be able to alter the terms of marriage allowing gay marriage.

-Prohibiting gay marriage does not interfere with the pursuit of happiness

-Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights

-How his arguments differ from allowing pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy etc...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you as well for this debate, it has been an enjoyable one. Thank you again for your kindness.
Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
Yes i know, i just don't want title vote driven debates, on either side.

I would rather have honest votes against me than someone just to vote for me because they see the title gay marriage should be legal.

Not saying your winning because of those.

I was referring mainly to a member who messaged me saying how he disagrees with my views, than not even a moment later he had voted all 7 points against me on every debate that still remains in the voting period.
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
I totally agree... Read the debate... There were errors on both sides, and it is subjective. Even if you weren't convinced, maybe someone else was. And 88 points really is a lot, winning or losing, so clearly both sides have followers. Obviously, I read the debate. Does that mean I have been convinced? Of course not!
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
Yes..Please do read the debate and vote accordingly..please..
Posted by prozoro 5 years ago
prozoro
Pursuit of happiness does not actually exist. Please give a credible document that has this, if you disagree.

Also for the voters, please read the debate before you vote..
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
"But one man's pursuit of happiness cannot disregard or overpower the happiness of the majority of the population (that is against it)."
There is more than one reason I believe that that statement is completely wrong, but now, not only is the reasoning faulty, but so are the facts. Check out this article.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
Okay...

1) Children need a mother to grow up healthy.
So what, now should divorce be illegal? Or should the child be taken away if Mom dies?

2) Children need a father.
So if Dad dies before a child is born, should the woman be forced to abort?

3) Same-Sex marriage is unhealthy.
I would have liked if he had cited his sources. Besides, drinking is unhealthy, but see what happened with prohibition?

4) People aren't born gay.
tests have gone either way.

5) You can change your sexual orientation.
Also inconclusive. Yes, you can marry someone against your sexual orientation, but you wouldn't be as happy.

6) It impedes on the freedom of religion.
They can say what they want, but this has nothing to do on what Churches can say or do (freedom of assembly), or if a pastor can speak against it (freedom of speech). All I was arguing was that gays should be able to marry legally. Also, the hate crime argument was completely unjustified. It can't be a crime in the US if it is only what you said (we are ignoring the PATRIOT act, here), because we enjoy the freedom of speech. Maybe they can do that in Canada and Sweden, or maybe they were stretching the truth. Either way, the pastor and the church can say and do whatever they want.
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
The book presented in the video is also good.

I urge that you take particular notice to the hate crime argument, but all else are good as well.
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
When in doubt, i did ask myself that. And this video answered that question
Posted by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
If I'm not mistaken, they can't have civil unions in every state.
And Mr_Smith said it really well. It might not be de jure discrimination, but it is definitely de facto legislation.
And the whole separate but equal thing doesn't hold much water, when really, it is not equal.
By the way, I thought that this was a very interesting (though old) article, suggesting that it might not be a choice as to be gay, therefore making them even more deserving of being able to marry who they want. http://archives.cnn.com...

And when in doubt, ask yourself this: "Does it affect anyone other than the beholder?"
If not, they should be able to do it.
Posted by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
"This violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, meaning that it is unconstitutional to ban homosexuals from marriage."

It would also violate the tenth amendment to legalize same sex marriage.
As well, again NOBODY IS BANNING HOMOSEXUALS FROM MARRIAGE

They can marry a person of the opposite sex, or they can have a civil union with one of the same sex, its fair and its the only right way.
37 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EMOburrito309 3 years ago
EMOburrito309
abard124AlexTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 3 years ago
Pandora9321
abard124AlexTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mark40511 4 years ago
Mark40511
abard124AlexTied
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 DebatePro 4 years ago
DebatePro
abard124AlexTied
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 tiger_lily0803 4 years ago
tiger_lily0803
abard124AlexTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by BlueNotes 4 years ago
BlueNotes
abard124AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by numbany 4 years ago
numbany
abard124AlexTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by untitled_entity 5 years ago
untitled_entity
abard124AlexTied
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 5 years ago
pcmbrown
abard124AlexTied
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 cbass28 5 years ago
cbass28
abard124AlexTied
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:43