The Instigator
untitled_entity
Pro (for)
Winning
58 Points
The Contender
Hunton711
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 10 votes the winner is...
untitled_entity
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,545 times Debate No: 9030
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (10)

 

untitled_entity

Pro

Hunton711 asked me to challenge him to this debate, so I am. I look forward to debating Hunton and welcome him to this site. I would ask my opponent to use this round to clarify definitions and Burden of Proof arguments if they arise - as a result I ask him not to post an argument for the second half of this round and allow actual debating to commence in round two.

I, in this debate must prove that gay marriage should always be legalized whereas my opponent must prove that it must never be legalized.

Resolved: Gay Marriage should be legalized.

Definitions :

Gay - of, relating to, or used by homosexuals [1]
Married** - A) The act of uniting in wedlock [2]
B) To join as man and wife [3]
Should - used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [4]
Legalized - to give legal validity or sanction to [5]

**There are two provided definitions of marriage. The first one, A is taken from the American Heritage dictionary published in 2008 the second is from the same dictionary published in 2004. In 2005 most dictionaries were changed to accommodate the new definition. I will be operating off the new definition and assume my opponent will too seeing as it is after 2005.

Sources:
[1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2008
[3] - American Heritage dictionary circa 2004
[4] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Hunton711

Con

The real definition of Marriage is- Marriage is the social institution under which a man and a women establish there decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments religious ceremonies etc...

Marriage is a holy matrimony, a bond between a man and a women by God, that's where the holy part comes in, and in the bible says man shall not live with man and women shall not live with women.

"Leviticus 20:13- If man also lie with man kind as he lieth with a women both of them have committed an abomination and shall surely be put to death."

Homosexuality is a perversion.
Marriage is the beginning of a family.
Gay's shouldn't even be allowed to adopt.
Because that adopted kid was formed by a man and a women, let's not corrupt its mind to be gay.
Debate Round No. 1
untitled_entity

Pro

I'm just going to make a few quick notes first. Apparently my opponent was not down with a clarification round. Oh well.

--> The "real" definition of marriage… Well, seeing as you didn't cite your source I question the validity of it. I provided two separate sources and will operate off of the recent one. So I will say that your definition is in actuality an opinion and therefore not a valid source.

--> Thanks to my opponent for the bible argument…The resolution doesn't dictate that gay marriage should not be legalized due to the biblical argument behind it, but I will operate off of it if need be. I am not very familiar with the bible but that does not allow me to be biblically ignorant in this debate. However, I will state it as I've stated before. When elected officials take the oath of office, they place their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution, not the other way around. Under the 14th Amendment of the United States constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny anyone any rights on any basis. [6]

--> I will also go into the utter ignorance that is the "gay's shouldn't even be allowed to adopt. Because that adopted kid was formed by a man and a women, let's not corrupt its mind to be gay." Alright. Well, I'm going to break this down, or attempt to without getting my own feelings involved. I notice that my opponent is against abortion… Let me ask you, where do you suggest we put the children that are put for adoption? Orphanages are becoming rapidly overpopulated, if two women or two men can provide a great home for a child it should be nobody's business. That is unless you'd rather abort them. Why isn't heterosexuality a sexual perversion? Because everyone in your family is straight? Because everyone you know is straight? Do you understand that we gay folk come from you straight people? We can't reproduce ourselves so we have to come from somewhere.

But first, my contentions. I am going to list a few and then elaborate on them in later rounds – I misjudged the character count.

A)– Traditionalism
a. The traditionalist view of marriage is tired. This view is tired because it has been around for so long and relentlessly abused. If we were still operating off of original traditions people in long term, committed interracial relationships would not be permitted to get married either. Women who had sexual relations with their husbands prior to being married would be stoned to death [see video]. I think that was also in Leviticus. The fact of the matter is the times have changed and it might benefit the church system to get with them.

B) – It is irrational…
a.It is irrational to deny a group of humans a human right. The California Supreme Court has recently spoken about how marriage is rapidly becoming a human right. If I do recall correctly, I believe the Declaration of Independence reads that all men are created equal and that everyone deserves a chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By denying a man from marrying his male partner we are impeding the quality of his life, the unnecessary limit to his liberty and depleting his happiness. So not only is it irrational to infringe on someone's basic rights it goes against the culminating point of the documents the United States was founded on.

C) – Religion is not an argument…
a.Religion is not an argument, it is an excuse. Religion should not involve itself in governmental affairs. That goes against the principle of church and state. There is not a sole universal religion, therefore we cannot claim that gay marriage should not be allowed due the fact that it goes against Christianity. Pam Belluck (NY Times Staff Writer) [8] noted that the states with the highest amount of Conservative Christians also have the highest divorce rate. If the gays are destroying your sanctity of marriage, what are you doing to it?

Is it not true that the bible also dictates to love thy neighbor? Or is that only if the neighbor is heterosexual?

That is all that will fit for now. I will continue in the subsequent rounds.

Sources:
[6] - http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
[7] -
[8] - http://lists101.his.com...
Hunton711

Con

Thanks for your response.
I see that you feel that gay's should be able to adopt.
Well, I doubt that they ever will be NOT be able to but personally I don't think they should be able to.
Anyways, you say the Bible says that anyone who has sex before marriage will be stoned to death, this is true therefore I am against sex before marriage.
Just because people have sex before marriage doesn't mean the tradition of marriage should be broken.
Therefore, gay marriage should not be acceptable.
Religion is not an excuse, it's [homosexuality] a very big deal to some people, so they are against it, along with me.
It is NOT just about religion, it's perverted.
It says love thy neighbor but it also says that homosexuals shall be put to death, do the math.
I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 2
untitled_entity

Pro

I thank Hunton for responding, I was getting worried there.

Rebuttals :
"Anyways..."
You may be against sex before marriage, but you ignored the multiracial relationship point. Regardless, the face of traditional marriage is changing. It is no longer just white dresses and flower girls. Many new - age weddings don't even take place in churches. In which case there is not a valid argument, even based on the ones you've provided to keep gays from marrying. The tradition of marriages are being broken, whether you want them to or not, and they probably will continue to change allowing gays to marry would just be incorporating them into this progression.

"Adoption"
My opponent completely ignored my point, but whatever.

"Religion is not..."
It absolutely is. You have not provided a valid reason not based on religion, other than the perversion argument which I will touch on very soon. Homosexuality is a very big deal, I agree completely. It is a very big deal to me that you will be provided with rights that I may never get.

Perversion...
Do you watch porn? That is also perversion. Do you understand the child molesters are allowed to be married? That's perversion too. You're pointing a double -edged sword in a very dangerous direction. Why is it a perversion? Because it is not what you're used to?

"Love thy neighbor"
So...basically, what you're saying is, a book that preaches about how it is sin to kill should put an entire group of people to death? Oh yes, I can see it now. "Grab ye pitchforks and torches and skin and kill the homosexual bassterds" [I know that is incorrect spelling] - would that be the accurate thing to do in this situation?

I don't see the need to do so now, so I might still bring up more points in the subsequent round.
I look forward to Hunton711's response and the closure of this debate.
Hunton711

Con

I understand where you are coming from, you want rights.
You should but I'm sorry but your lifestyle is just wrong.
And I really love the child molesters point, it's good, :]
Well, I don't think they should be able to marry either.
So please don't misjudge me.
There are soooo many things that I wanna speak up about.
And porn, well, yes, I do.
Hence the fact that I'm not 18. :But, not lesbian porn.
And I know this makes me look bad and makes me look like I pick my perversions, but I don't.
I'm against porn but... Well, you know.
I know you want rights but just look out there and I swear you'll find a guy that will love you just as much if not more (NO offense) than your, uhm, girlfriend.
Please understand where I'm coming from.
I'm just against it and so are the majority of people in the U.S.
Debate Round No. 3
untitled_entity

Pro

Well, this is the last time I will speak in this debate. I thank Hunton for his...interesting perspective on this issue. I don't mean to be patronizing or mean, but I have noticed some things in this debate that are rather upsetting, however, this is a debate and I will continue to do exactly that, debate.

Rebuttals:
"You should..."
I should want rights, or I should receive them? I think the answer is both. Why is my lifestyle "just wrong"? Because people like me choose to be with people of their own gender? I believe that it is called love and it really doesn't matter the gender, it's hard for anyone to find.

"Child molesters..."
I'm not misjudging you. I'm reading exactly what you're writing and acting off of that. I violently disagree but that's not the point. You do watch porn, so you suffer from a perversion as well. So I assume you shouldn't get married either, right? But you're against porn? Wow. So not only do you believe I'm backwards and immoral but you're a plethora of contradiction...interesting.

"I know you..."
I'm sorry but I'm not interested in men. It is not a "I can't find love" thing it's a, "I'm happy just the way I am" thing. I'm in a deeply committed relationship and would not give that up, especially for a man. It's not something I'm interested in. That is also not the point of this debate...

Summation of points:

--> Traditionalism is no longer traditional. What my opponent fails to realize is that tradition has already been broken. Not all black couples "jump the broom", not all Jewish ones dance the Hora and smash bottles, and not all people throw rice. The times and practices have changed. What my opponent also fails to realize is that if we were still operating off of tradition, many interracial couples would not be permitted to marry either.

--> My opponent is willing to discount an entire group of citizens a human right just because he disagrees with their sexual preference. This essentially is considering a group that makes up about ten percent of the world, subhuman. Due to the fact that you disagree with the way people live their lives they should have rights stripped? That is irrational and dehumanizing and is a reprehensible action. However, I am forced to not be blind to your beliefs. This denies a gay person their God - given rights, limits their liberty and impedes the quality of life which is all unfair. Again, all gay people had to come from somewhere, so if you're looking for someone to blame you should most likely try the straight folk, gays cannot reproduce on their own.

--> Religion is still not an argument, no matter how much of the bible my opponent wants to use. The bible contradicts itself ever so frequently that though it may be a good basis for some things does not really prove itself useful in this argument. The bottom line is that presidents/vice presidents/senators and congressmen do not base their political policies off the bible. They base them off the Constitution and that is the document that should be adhered to. In addition, there is no universal religion. To solely operate off of Christianity would also circumvent other religions from playing a part in the legislative process and that too would be unfair.

Conclusion:
Most of my points have either gone unchallenged or partially challenged but reinforced. I hope the voters will recognize that some of my opponent's points didn't really have anything to do with the actual topic of this debate. There is no logical reason as to why homosexuals should be denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. We are all humans and to be denied a human right is rather degrading. Marriage is not a heterosexual privilege but a human right and it is about time this gets recognized.

** I would like to honestly thank Hunton711 for this debate. Despite the fact that we obviously disagree I thank him for a nice exchange and forfeit - free debate. I believe in my mind that Hunton is a product of two or perhaps or perhaps an entire family of ultra - conservatives. I hope that you become more open - minded with age and experience and understand that there are certain things in life that cannot be helped. I did not choose this life, and I'm sure that there are many people who would actually WANT to live this way. I don't believe a lot of people realize that it is not that easy or great to be gay and often times is an internal identity struggle. However, I've learned a lot about people from debating this topic and thank Hunton for the challenge.

I urge a vote for PRO and thank you for reading.
Hunton711

Con

Porn and gay marriage is a different idea.
I don't know how else to put it.
The fact that marriage is being changed and flipped around is terrible.
And your statement about gay's being born that way, seems incorrect to me.
It's been studied on that people that are homosexual's claim that it is contagious.
Were you close to someone gay when you were young?
There is no proof or evidence that homosexualoty is determined at birth.
There are actually cases where man have raped little boys and that little boy turns gay when he grows older.
Terrible.
Canada has legalized gay marriage and this will spread to the U.S. also.
Marriage is a tradition between a man and a women.
And if that changes, I'll be devastated.
Nothing against the gay people, just there lifestyle.
I am not good at this debate thing just yet but I just wanna express me feelings whether or not I win or lose.
Well, this is it.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
RFD:
B/A: Pro
Conduct: Pro, Con said things like "You should but I'm sorry but your lifestyle is just wrong." The debate was on whether gay marriage should be legalized, not whether untitled_entity's lifestyle is wrong. Saying offensive things to an opponent doesn't advance the debate.
S&G: Pro, many mistakes on Con's part.
Sources: Pro, Con's sources were non-existent.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Another 7 points to Hunton?
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
Oh, welcome. Things like that aren't uncommon. However, most people on this site have integrity.
Posted by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
Ah. I'm new to this site; hadn't realized that.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
People should really not be allowed to vote for themselves. They end up giving themselves all seven points (which is clearly not justified).
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
@abromwell - it was his own vote for himself.
Posted by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
It does not speak well to the integrity of this debate that Hunton711 has earned any points whatsoever.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
RFD:PRO
(1) Tied. I like gay marriage because maybe it could help move marriage from a social institution to a religious institution. I dislike gay marriage because I dislike marriage.
(2) Pro, with the movie clip. I think the gay marriage issue will open a number of doors for humanity that should have been opened a long time ago.
(3) Tied on conduct.
(4) Pro had better spelling and grammar.
(5) Pro made arguments.
(6) Pro used sources.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
"Nothing against the gay people, just there lifestyle."
Nothing against flies, I just swat them when they try flying.

To the fly, there is no difference.
Posted by Hunton711 7 years ago
Hunton711
its wrong in my eyes
i dont know what else to say
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by kukupser 7 years ago
kukupser
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 Nova 7 years ago
Nova
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 greatstuff479 7 years ago
greatstuff479
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 Repeat_Gamete 7 years ago
Repeat_Gamete
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 Bnesiba 7 years ago
Bnesiba
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:60 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
untitled_entityHunton711Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50