The Instigator
Victoria_Wintour
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 966 times Debate No: 26343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Victoria_Wintour

Pro

Hello Ladies and Gentleman and welcome to this debate on the legalization of Gay Marriage. I believe that Gay Marriage should be legalized! I believe this for the following reasons:
1. Marriage is a civil right - Everyone should have the same right if they pay the same taxes ect

2. Marriage is no longer a lone religious experience. All marriages by law are civil marriages they are then later referred to religious marriage.

3. Gay Marriage supports the family - You can not turn someone straight so why keep that person from creating a loving family that can enrich our society.

4. Religion and state should be separated - Regardless of what your religion says you should not enforce it on people who do not share your views or religion.

5. I believe it unfair that you can demand a right and deny another the same right.

6. Civil Unions are NOT the same.

7. Gay Marriage does not ruin marriage- Divorce and cheaters do. How can a man who cheats on his wife be allowed to marry and then remarry after breaking the contract of marriage without being punished were a gay couple who have been in love for years who are perfect for each other be refused? It does not make any sense!
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

I’d like to thank Victoria_Wintour for starting this debate. In the first round she has presented seven arguments for the legalization of gay marriage. I will respond to them here. I did not realize that Pro made 3000 the maximum character count until after I accepted. I'm not sure I would accepted if I had realized this before. That is a very small amount, and it's not really fair to one's opponent if you present them with as many points as Pro did. I did not have nearly enough room to fit my entire post. Hopefully I'll have room in the next round.

ARGUMENTS

1-

1A- Gay people do have the same rights as straight people. Straight people can get married and gay people can get married. If it illegal for a gay person to marry someone of the same sex, it is also illegal for a straight person to marry someone of the same sex. The rules are the same for everybody, as they should be. Allowing gay marriage would change the definition of marriage from something rational and appropriate to something irrational and innappropriate.

2-

2A- It is true that marriage is no longer a lone religious experience, but that in itself is not a reason why gay marriage should be legalized. They are two separate points.

3-

3A- There is no reason why we cannot allow gays to form loving families that enrich our society without allowing them to marry. Those are two separate points.

4-

4A- This is a repetition of argument #2. I agree that religion and state should be separated, but that does not give us a reason to be for gay marriage. One does not need to rely on religion to oppose gay marriage.

5-

5A- I think what my opponent meant to say was that it is unfair to grant a right to one person and deny another of the same right. This is a repetition of the first point, so I’ll repeat my response too.

Straight people and gay people do have same rights. Allowing gay marriage is not about giving rights to gay people (they already have the right to marry), it’s about changing the definition of marriage to include the union between two people of the same sex. Pro has not presented an argument for why the change is appropriate.

6-

6A- Whether civil unions are essentially the same thing as marriage may only be a matter of opinion. Pro has not explained why she believes this. But even if that is true, that is not a reason to support gay marriage. They are two separate points.

7-

7A- I agree that gay marriage does not ruin marriage in the sense that Pro means, and I agree that it is unfair for people to cheat on their spouses, but that is not a reason to be for gay marriage. Again, they are two separate points.

CONCLUSION

None of Pro’s arguments for the legalization of gay marriage are good. In five of her seven arguments, she conflates multiple issues into one. She argues for one but then forms a conclusion about another. This is fallacious. Her other two points are just assertions, not arguments. And with that I turn the debate over to Pro.

Debate Round No. 1
Victoria_Wintour

Pro

CriticalT thank you for accepting the challenge. Sorry about the issue with word count as this is my first debate on this website I wanted to make this a smaller debate to get a feel for how the site works.

First I will discuss what Critical said in his first argument:
(1) No gay people do not have the same rights as a straight person! Gay people can not turn straight and so can never fall in love with the opposite sex. Yes a straight man can not marry another man but he doesn't want to it is not in his interest. However he does have the right to fall in love with the sex he is interested in and marry them were a gay person can't!

(2) I understand what you are saying I just wanted to dispel any 'God says it is wrong type arguments'

(3) You are basically saying that Gay people do not need to marry to have a loving family however the rights and security that marriage gives is needed when raising children such as being allowed to visit your partner when critically ill in hospital. Also saying you are married in our society and culture is a status symbol to your relationship it means you are committed gay people want to declare there love. Not allowing gay marriage is basically saying there relationship is inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them.Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights,

(5) The definition of marriage has been constantly changing since it was first written in biblical times. It used to be prohibited for blacks to marry whites. As well as a marriage contract back in the Elizabeth period being contracts of wealth and not love. Also the definition was written under religious guidance so surely in a society that is not ruled on religious law we should not be covering the old dated version of marriage and is it really much of a negative change to say marriage is between 2 people who love each other instead of marriage is between a man and a woman who love each other. It is not such a change!

(6/7) I was also just wanting to shoot down some arguments.

These points were merely a basic outline of some very basic facts that I wanted to state when starting this debate. Critical you actually have not answered the question about why Gay marriage should not be legal you have just shot down my arguments. I am interested to know why the legalization of Gay marriage would be bad for the society? In the 10 countries that gay marriage is legal in the legalization has not caused much issue if any at all.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

INTRODUCTION

In my post for round two of this debate, I intend to present my case against gay marriage.

“Critical you actually have not answered the question about why Gay [sic] marriage should not be legal [sic] you have just shot down my arguments.”

I know. That’s because you didn’t give me enough room to! I do not have enough characters to present both rebuttals to your arguments as well as my own case. In this round I will post as much as I can fit of my own case, then leave the rest of it as well as my rebuttals in the comments section.

ARGUMENTS

Positive Arguments

There are simple and obvious reasons why gay marriage should be legalized:

A marriage is not understood as being simply a really good friendship, but something more special and intimate. Part of marriage involves the bringing of children into the world. This ensures the survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are able to create offspring, but homosexuals couples cannot. There is a discrepancy here, an inequality between heterosexual and homosexual unions. Another aspect of marriage is the relationship itself between the two people involved. The relationship is one of deep sexual intimacy. The bodies of two men or the bodies of two women do not fit the purpose of the sexual organs. I hate to become graphic, but this is what the debate calls for. The penis is fit for the vagina. The two fit together like a hand and glove, or a lock and key. They compliment each other. Two penises do not compliment each other, nor do two vaginas. The man’s body as a whole compliments the woman’s body, while two male bodies or two female bodies do not compliment each other.

I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be really great friends. I’m not saying that two gay people cannot be intimate in some way, as I am intimate with my friends. I’m not saying that two gay people cannot love each other very much. No one in the world is trying to deny that there is some kind of relationship between two people of the same sex. It’s only a certain kind of relationship that is being opposed, the sexually complimentary union between two people. That can only be achieve by a man and a woman.

Pro says that she is interested to know why the legalization of gay marriage would be bad for society. I assume that by “bad” she means “negative practical consequences.” But it is not my burden to show that legalizing gay marriage is “bad” for society in the sense that I believe Pro means. My burden is to provide reason for why gay marriage should not be legalized. That reason is that it is not meet the standards of marriage. The push for gay marriage is reliant upon a confusion between different kinds of relationships.
<SEE COMMENTS FOR CONTINUATION>

Debate Round No. 2
Victoria_Wintour

Pro

Victoria_Wintour forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I extend my arguments to the third and final round. I'm sorry to see that my opponent forfeited her final round. If she does not want to debate, then she should not be instigating debates, and if she was unable to rebut my arguments, then she should have explicitly conceded.

VOTE

conduct: con
Pro forfeited and provided no reason for it. She also made the character count only 3000 characters, and it's basically impossible to debate as many points as Pro brought up and do so for such a heavy debate topic as this on that low character count.

grammar/spelling: con
Anyone can read through Pro's posting for round two and see that she had numerous grammatical errors, run on sentences mostly.

arguments: con
My arguments remain without refutation.

sources: tie
Pro made one quick remark for which she should have given a source, but her main points did not require sources, and none of my points required sources.

5 points to me
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Victoria, you state, "Gay people can not turn straight". What about this? http://www.ha-fs.org...
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I just realized I made a grammatical error in my last post. I introduced my positive case against gay marriage by saying that there are simple and obvious reasons why gay marriage should be legalized. I meant to say "should not".
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
<CONTINUATION OF DEBATE> #3

ifferent rules that go with the different kinds. Two people loving each other is a necessary, not a sufficient, reason to allow them to get married.

CONCLUSION

In her concluding remarks, Pro says that in the ten countries in which gay marriage has been legalized, there has been no issue. I"m not denying this, but she has to provide evidence of this. She needs to provide sources and links that I can use to investigate it myself. And there is an implicit appeal to popularity here too. Just because several countries have no issue with gay marriage does not mean that it is not wrong.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
<CONTINUATION OF DEBATE> #2

3-

Pro presented two arguments here. I"ll address them separately.

3 (a)

Pro just sidestepped my point and reiterated what she said before. I"ll elaborate my point again: There is no reason why we cannot make it so that gay couples can receive the same legal benefits of marriage. We do not have to grant special benefits to only married people. That we do not is only a contingency, an externality. Pro"s point really proves that the laws about granting rights to married couples needs to be changed. It does not prove that gay marriage should be legalized.

3 (b)

Pro says that not allowing same sex couples to marry sends the message that it is okay to discriminate against them. Maybe it does, but it does not have to. If society lets it send that message, then that is a separate issue. The issue there would be to deny same-sex couples the right to marry and also not discriminate against them. Again, it is an externality if discriminate against gay people. It is not a genuine reason for why gay marriage should be legalized.

5-

Pro"s fifth argument in round two does not really refer to her fifth argument in round one but appears to be a different argument, but I"ll address it anyway.

Pro talks about how marriage was once considered something else. This is interesting, but it is not an argument for why gay marriage should be legalized. She seems to be implying that marriage used to be things that are no longer acceptable, and that what we call traditional marriage is just another example of that. But she did not spell that out or elaborate on it. It needs to be argued. She then asks whether it is such a negative change to request that marriage be defined as a union between two people who love each other instead of between man and woman. Well, yes, it is. A mother and son may love each other but that does not mean they should be allowed to get married. There are different kinds of love, and accordingly there are d
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
<CONTINUATION OF DEBATE> #1

A homosexual relation by definition cannot be marriage because it lacks the necessary aspects that make marriage what it is. Marriage is universal. What I mean by that is that it is something available to everyone. It is not something that only two people in the whole world do. How we define marriage reflects on us as human beings. It reflects our values. Do we want to define marriage as simply the union between people who love each other very much and ignore the different kinds of love and the rules that come with them. and hence have no reason not to allow a brother and sister to marry each other, or do we want to keep things in perspective, understand the differences in love, and act accordingly?

<Negative Arguments>

1-

1A- Pro pointed out that gay people cannot fall in love with the opposite sex. This is an interesting point but it does not support gay marriage. What it shows it that gay people have it hard in that they will never be attracted to the opposite sex. It is not a reason why we should recognize gay marriage thought. Pro said, in reference to a straight man, that ""he does have the right to fall in love with the sex he is interested in". No, he doesn"t have the "right" to, he is just able to. This has nothing to do with legality. Pro is confusing nature and the law.

2/4/6/7-

These were not arguments for gay marriage but were negative arguments against. I did not present these arguments so Pro"s rebuttals to them are irrelevant to the debate. A debater is supposed to wait for his opponent"s positive case before presenting his negative case. Otherwise he is just wasting character count.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I'm not sure why your profile said "male". When I joined, it let me you set up my profile page and there is an option where it lets me pick "male" or "female". If you go to "edit my profile" on the left side of your profile page, there should be an option where you can change the gender.
Posted by Victoria_Wintour 4 years ago
Victoria_Wintour
I am a female. For some reason my profile says I am a male it was like that when I got here and it does not allow me to change it do you know how?
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Just curious. Are you male or female? Your icon is an image of a female and Victoria is a female name, but on your profile page you say that you are male, and your news feed refers to you as a male.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
Victoria_WintourCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully proved his case that gay marriage should not be legalized by using common sense. Pro's fallacious arguments were excellently refuted by Con. Pro, on the other hand, didn't respond to Con's argument and also forfeited her last round. It's very clear that Con won this debate.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
Victoria_WintourCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: CriticalThinkingMachine thought has way out of that Winter.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Victoria_WintourCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Agree with con's assessment.