The Instigator
LandonWalsh
Pro (for)
Winning
43 Points
The Contender
scottberman
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal

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
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: 1/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,993 times Debate No: 1582
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (16)

 

LandonWalsh

Pro

Gay Marriage should be legal, and churches should stop lobbying Washington to ban gay marriage.

I'll allow my opponent to make the opening argument...
scottberman

Con

I will agree that churches should stop lobbying their position, I find it very hypocritical of them to be doing so considering part of having church tax exemptions is that you can't contribute to any public official; and I would like to make abundantly clear that I am NOT against gay marriage completely, just against the way that it is currently proposed. I will make this argument on the sole argument that divorce cases in a gay marriage would be a disaster. This is because in a standard divorce case there is a Husband and Wife, clearly labeled 'sides'. Typically, there are certain issues that are meant to help the wife (prenups not included): Physical Assets - House, car, etc. and Liquid Assets - Current monies, and Future monies (alimony, child support); finally there is the issue of children, if applicable. Again, typically the mother gets the children (typically, mind you).
In a gay marriage these things are not clear. If a man and a man, with kids (whole 'nother issue, I know),apply for a divorce how do you decide who gets what. Now if it were law that a pre-nuptual agreement must be made before a gay marriage, then this debate is null, because these issues could be readily resolved. However, this is not the case. For the children, if neither side was willing to give up at least partial custody, then one could see the problems that would cause.
Again, my sole argument is that Gay Marriages, as proposed currently, should not be allowed because of the havoc it would cause the judicial system in resolving divorce cases.
Debate Round No. 1
LandonWalsh

Pro

Well, I was looking for someone with a bit stronger stance against gay marriage…
But as for the issue of custody is concerned. That's what they have joint custody for.

As for the general idea of gay marriage…
Ask yourself this: Is marriage an institution of the church or the state?
Some will say both, but most if not all will say that is a spiritual union and contract deriving from god and church. The state's contractual involvement is limited to property and children.

The two arguments given by anti-gay marriage individuals involve both contracts.

Argument 1: God is strictly against Homosexual behavior and marriage, thus gay marriage should be outlawed.

Argument 2: The children of homosexual marriages would be confused and suffer.

Rebuttal 1: As an institution of the church it is a church's decision weather or not a marriage should be allowed within that church and that church alone. Banning gay marriage at the state or federal level is no different of a situation than legislation being passed that forces churches to marry homosexuals. Both outsource church choice and both further destroy church sovereignty.

The state also has a duty to acknowledge any contract made by any two individuals or group of individuals as long as all parties agree to that contract and no party was coerced into that contract. In a truly free society, two individuals could make a contract to fight to the death that would bar the victor of criminal repercussions… But sadly we live in so such society.

Also, the bible involves mans relationship with god and not mans influence on man. Christians are supposed to be a shining light for people and not their tyrannical moral enforcement. If a person or a group of people decide to go against god's will and get married or marry homosexuals… They have that god given right to do so…

Rebuttal 2: This is possibly the silliest argument ever… First of all, children are much smarter that we give them credit for and often accept situations long before stubborn adults will.

Second, you will find that homosexual couples adopt and take care of mentally disabled children more often than heterosexual couples. A solution to a very sad problem?

And last there are no studies whatsoever proving that children of homosexual parents end up being somehow scarred. It is simply unproven fear propaganda.
scottberman

Con

Rebuttal: Joint custody is fine, when you can manage to get the plaintiffs to agree to it; however, since we are talking divorce, they more than likely will not. If everyone could settle for joint custody, then there would be a lot less congestion in family courts. This is no small matter, do not dismiss it as one. The arguments which you are trying to force me into are not my positions. Legal costs that would result from trying to figure proper precedents would require Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case. Also, you failed to rebut anything about properties or financial assets. These are also big issues. I am not arguing this on a moral basis, though that is obviously what you want me to do. My argument is: That court cases resulting from divorce would be too much for the courts to handle. Now, there are some subtopics in this. First, this would be giving the government the role of defining this kind of marriage. That would essentially be the government indoctrinating religion. As current divorce precedents stand, there is no feasible way of being able to split assets, or children. So again, without mandatory pre-nuptial agreements, gay marriage cannot work.
Debate Round No. 2
LandonWalsh

Pro

"Rebuttal: Joint custody is fine, when you can manage to get the plaintiffs to agree to it; however, since we are talking divorce, they more than likely will not. If everyone could settle for joint custody, then there would be a lot less congestion in family courts. This is no small matter, do not dismiss it as one."

"My argument is: That court cases resulting from divorce would be too much for the courts to handle. "

So let me get this straight... Gay couples shouldn't be allowed their civil right because the burden on the court system would be too high?

Seriously sounds like a social problem, not a legal one.
scottberman

Con

Wow, you must still be in high school, legalities decide issues, that's how the world works. Marriage is not a civil right. Marriage was created by the church, not the government. And yes, until the LEGALITIES of this issue are worked out, we should not simply say, "Go ahead and get married, we'll sort everything out later." I'm sorry if your little dream gets ruined because it is unfeasible as it stands. And again, you are distorting my argument. Try coming up with an actual response this time instead of being angry you didn't get the argument you wanted. That's the whole point of debating, to argue DIFFERENT points of view.
"Seriously sounds like a social issue, not a legal one." REALLY??!! Every social issue IS a matter of legalities. Legalizing marijuana is a social issue that is based on legalities. Abortion is an issue based on legalities. And, yes, GAY MARRIAGE is an issue based on legalities.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by johnrasheed 8 years ago
johnrasheed
its adam and eve not adam and steve
Posted by scottberman 8 years ago
scottberman
Marriage is not a right, and don't try to compare this to segregation. They were being denied government and commercial services, not religious ceremonial traditions.
Posted by LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
Its a matter of civil right when other groups receive those rights and they do not. Think im wrong? Go tell a black woman to sit in the back of the bus.

And insults wont win you debates.
Posted by scottberman 8 years ago
scottberman
Correction: "Legal costs that would result from trying to figure proper precedents...."

Sorry, two sentences in one.

Legal costs that would result from drawn out court cases while trying to determine precedents would be enormous. Each case would have the possibility, due to the sensitivity and impact of decisions, of going to the Supreme Court.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by silveracer 8 years ago
silveracer
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kals 8 years ago
Kals
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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 johnrasheed 8 years ago
johnrasheed
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chob 8 years ago
Chob
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Pat6564 8 years ago
Pat6564
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by hellstorm 8 years ago
hellstorm
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Keithinator 8 years ago
Keithinator
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by hark 8 years ago
hark
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by CharmingAnecdote 8 years ago
CharmingAnecdote
LandonWalshscottbermanTied
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:30