The Instigator
Tes95
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Gay Marriage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 9 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,437 times Debate No: 27905
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (65)
Votes (9)

 

Tes95

Con

(Using my same standpoints as all are valid and relevant.)

Separation of Church and State works both ways, therefore on legal grounds? This issue should be locked away indefinitely. Gays bring up the "fact" that it is a "Civil Rights" issue. First off, marriage was created by straights. As a patent owner, do you not have rights to said patent? As the creators of marriage, do we not have the right to reserve it?

Do you have any idea how many issues this causes? So if I had a birthday party, and I only invited Joe, John, and Susie, should I be vilified and legally punished/rendered irrelevant because somebody whined a little too loud? The action of allowing Gay Marriage has the cataclysmic effect of giving a spoiled child a toy. It will cause reverse discrimination, and destroy traditional marriage. The argument is "Well, they should be able to be with who they love, no one is forcing you to do it, so it doesn't cause any harm." Oh, so if being discriminated against for being gay and living with that everyday isn't okay, straights having to know for the rest of eternity that someone essentially stole our children's free will is?

Gays are like caged animals. Aggressive because they are cornered with no way out regarding explanations. Every explanation (AKA it's biological) was made by a straight. Give a mouse a cookie? This is give a brat an excuse and he'll use it. I can't even think of a word for how spoiled an individual would be to have to think they deserve something automatically that is so clearly a choice.

Blacks were born black, and this is undeniable. So if I'm white, and I say I deserve your black skin because I have a right to want it... what kind of argument is this! I'll tell you: it's "The I want it so Give Me" argument. Civil Unions with all the same benefits? Fine, stop spending money and time when we have existential threats going on, on this ridiculous matter. Not gonna do much good if you're dead. But this compromise isn't enough and it shows the sheer arrogance of the LGBT.

Gay Marriage is a falsity. The fact the word "Gay" is before the word "Marriage" makes it a separate entity (therefore by Separation of Church and State it must be referred to differently) and a perversion of it. Straights cannot co-exist in a world where "Gay Marriage" is legal. There is an existential threat in showing kids pictures of women on women and man on man. It's literally brainwashing.

How ludicrous is this argument, honestly? They're born this way, but they use their minds, their free will! To tell you about it. To "come out". To actively live the life. They have the choice not to be (and I have heard MANY gays tell me they tried not to be) so obviously the choice was there to become gay if they can choose not to be. Gays aren't kicked to the curb here, straights are. This is a tyrannical move. There is no gay gene. It's only their word, and of course they'll never tell the truth. This can only bring death, destruction, and the extinction of humanity.
drafterman

Pro

Pro's Points 
    • Separation of Church and State
Pro, rather ambiguously, invokes Separation of Church and State. Unfortunately, Pro fails to elaborate on how granting gays the right to marry is somehow a violation of this precent. As presented by Pro, this is a baseless assertion. There is some mention of it being treated separately because "Gay Marriage is a falsity," but there is no elaboration on this point. Government recognized marriage isn't, in any form, a violation of Church and State since no religious aspects are acknowledged by the government in terms of its recognition of marriage. Marriage is a legal state between two individuals which, at their discretion, may be supplemented by religious ceremony. However, the inclusion or exclusion of religious ceremony to a marriage does not impact its legality. Furthermore, laws allowing or recognizing gay marriage include explicit statements affirming the protection of religious entities to decide, for themselves, what they consider to be a marriage[1].
    • The "patent" on marriage
The reference to patents here is questionable. Creating something does not automatically confer a patent to the creator, nor was the act of marriage ever granted. Furthermore, simply being of the same sexuality as the patent holder does not grant you rights on how the patented idea can be used. If marriage was ever patented (and I'm pretty sure that's impossible) the patent would belong to the individual or group who actually patented, or their heirs should they be dead.
    • Consequences
The consequences identitied: the cataclysmic effect of giving a spoiled child a toy; reverse discriminationl destruction of traditional marriage; stealing children's free will; brainwashing; death, destruction, and the extinction of humanity. Lacking is how gay marriage will bring about these results. I could equally say that allowing gay marriage would harbor an unprecedented era of peace and prosperty, but without some sort of evidence or argument, assertions are worthless.
    • Gays are spoiled/caged animals
Pro asserts that Gays are spoiled and are like caged animals. I don't see why this means they shouldn't be married, even if the statements had merit. There is no reason to believe they have merit, though. Gays are denied a great many things, which is contrary to the notion of them being spoiled.
    • Gays Want It
Cool. They want it. So give it to them!
    • Being Gay is a Choice
While Pro's statements fly in the face of the established science it is more to the point to note that it is irrelevant to gay marriage. Why does it matter if they can choose to be gay?
    • Conclusion
Pro's arguments (or lack thereof) are either baseless assertions or irrelevant red herrings. Pro needs to elaborate as to how gay marriage is either prevented (via Church and State) or will result in the dire consequences he mentions. Otherwise, they are rightfully dismissed.
    • References
[1] "Affirmation of religious freedom. This Part does not authorize any court or other state or local governmental body, entity, agency or commission to compel, prevent or interfere in any way with any religious institution's religious doctrine, policy, teaching or solemnization of marriage within that particular religious faith's tradition as guaranteed by the Maine Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 or the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. A person authorized to join persons in marriage and who fails or refuses to join persons in marriage is not subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal"
http://www.mainelegislature.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Tes95

Con

My opponent is quite fond of dodging bullets. Separation of Church and State and essentially another form of Checks and Balances. It prevents the government from creating an "entanglement" either religiously or legally. Given marriage was created by religious straights, it most definitely is an interference into the Church, the Synagogue, and the Mosque. No religion on this planet endorses same-sex marriage. My opponent has you believe that marriage is a "legal status". How cold and calculating is that, not to mention being completely false as evidenced by history. Just because a judge, who is a mortal man not a God, says "Marriage is a legal status", does not mean it is. Marriage was only regulated by the religious institutions until government became more prominent.

My opponent believes that my marriage/patent theory is invalid when it couldn't be more true. To quote him from an opinion thread on this site: "Nobody has the monopoly on marriage." Really. So how is it there is more straight marriages than gay? The creator of McDonald's, does this individual have the monopoly? Of course, he created it. My opponent has stated numerous times that despite the fact straights made marriage? Gays can and will, take it. This is the attitude that is extraordinarily dangerous. It's fascism and bias.

My remaining points are as follows.

Gays speak about emotional trauma, what bigger emotional trauma than straights having to realize they've won, their children who would have been straight have now been stamped to believe by lesbian and gay teachers that it's normal (yet science can't prove this). So tolerance and sensitivity is dead here.

Gays already have a superiority complex. I have experienced it constantly and logic dictates this is a little thing called a pattern. They believe (they campaign on it) that they are entitled to things that they are denied, and such a trivial thing. They want it, so they think they'll get it. Spoiled.

Gays persecute anyone who disagrees with them via peer pressure. Anyone. This is not equality so it can only get worse if this "Gay Marriage" is legal.

They cannot have children, and on the most basic of levels, this is an existential threat the more they grow in population. Until extinction. Doesn't matter how long it takes, it will happen as children are manipulated.

Gays cannot compromise. They could have Civil Unions with every single benefit of marriage. But no. They want the one thing we have made it exceedingly clear they have been told "No" on. So they bitch and moan and mark it down as a Civil Rights issue when marriage is a privilege for one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage.

These are how civilization will fall.
drafterman

Pro

Separation of Church and State

Pro is laboring under the impression that government recognition and acceptance of gay marriage would represent interference with religions. This is false. There mere acceptance of gay marriage from a legal perspective does not confer any restrictions on how religions recognize marriage from their perspective. As stated, where gay marriage is accepted, explicit mention is made that this does not prevent religious institutions from discriminating as they see fit. Religious marriage and legal marriage have always been separate and distinct concepts. You can be married in the eyes of the government, but not any religion, and vice versa.

Finally, the Episcopalian Church recognizes gay marriages[1].

Patent "theory."

While McDonald's has a monopoly on McDonald's, he doesn't have a monopoly on burgers, fries, or fast food in general. The point is still invalid.

Threats

Pro fails to elaborate the mechanism by which gay marriage will result in these enumerated threats.

Civil Unions

Civil unions aren't the same as marriage and don't confer the same benefits or effects[2]. This is another failed example of "Separate but Equal."

Remaining Points

Pro's remaining points seem to be a thinly veiled homophobic attack on that which Pro fears or does not understand and do not have anything to do with whether or not Gays should be allowed to get married.

[1]http://www.cnn.com...
[2]http://www.debatepolitics.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Tes95

Con

Let me just come out and say that my opponent's last response sickens me. He must fear these points if the most he can do is degrade them on a social level (IE, they're false, they're homophobic, they're unfair, all of which are lies by the way).

Ever hear of Class Warfare? Happens when one class is denied something due to pre-existing conditions that the other doesn't have. If you take marriage away from heterosexuals, there will be GLOBAL -Moral- Class Warfare. There are some issues people do not care what a government has to say on, and there are some issues people fight and die for. A sacred heterosexual (and make NO mistake, it IS a heterosexual institution!) institution since the beginning of time is one! This will cause the downfall of civilization. The amount of rage that would be felt by straights essentially being told to "Shut the **** up and deal with it." would be infinitesimal. And due to the fact weapons are purchasable, this could very well be WW3 as outlandish as you may believe.

"Separate but Equal", what a joke! This is not segregation or discrimination! Since we cannot prove that you are born gay, there is no discrimination, besides the fact it is a straight service created by straights reserved for straight people!
Gays don't like being told no on this, ladies and gentleman, it's an infuriating spit in the face to label straights as being unfair when we don't let you pull Eminent Domain on us!

The Hatfields and McCoy's killed each other off over a stolen pig. You really want to chance Gays and Straights doing the same over marriage? Let me just tell you, my opponent is a liar with the statement "Civil Unions do not grant the same benefits". They most definitely do, and the majority of straights are fine with this. But it's not enough because gays are prideful creatures and what they want they will attempt to get. The only injustice is the stealing under the guise of Civil Rights of our marriage from us! If gays had any case for this they wouldn't be constantly interfering in our schools and court systems commanding everyone to believe their way is the "One True Way" sounds very zealot like, doesn't it?

Gays don't care about the consequences and they don't care about straights. If they did, they'd cut corners like us and accept Civil Unions. My opponent is a die hard, try hard LGBT supporter just due to the way he advocates. If not by word, by action. We will never see eye to eye, I'm sure. But the readers of this may. Straights world wide are begging not to let this happen. It is a gross injustice, forget if it's morally wrong based on biblical reasons, it is morally wrong because you can't just take something for nothing and just because you want it. Ladies and gentleman, I plead you to examine my points and change your point of view to see what we feel regarding this. Thank you.
drafterman

Pro

Taking away Heterosexual Marriage

No one is trying to take away Heterosexual Marriage. The ability of heterosexuals to get marred is, in no way, affected by also allowing gays to marry.

Denying Gay Marriage isn't Discrimination

Pro claims that it isn't discrimination because being gay cannot (in Pro's estimation) be shown to be determined at birth. This is a nonsequitor. Discrimination is discrimination and has nothing to do with whether or not you are born gay. For example, we aren't born old, yet discrimination based on age can be illegal.

Civil Unions

Without specific evidence or citations, Pro simply reasserts that Civil Unions are the same as marriage. I can do naught but refer to my previous citation outlining the significant differences.

Morally Wrong

Pro states that allowing gays to marry is morally wrong because they want it. It is the chief principle of liberty that all freedoms should be granted until a compelling reason exists to restrict it. Not only is Pro's statement a baseless assertion that verges on nonsequitor, it flies in the face of the principles this country was founded on.

Previously Points Left Uncontested

Pro's previous points regarding Separation of Church and State and the dire consequences of Gay Marriage have not only gone unsupported, but have been dropped entirely by Pro. This is tantamount to a concession.

It is commonly thought that highly aggressive homophobic attitudes are actually representative of latent homosexual urges. To help Pro cope with these conflicting emotions, I present the linked video.

Debate Round No. 3
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
The amount of stupid in this debate is quite astounding....

Excellent >:)
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
Whew. That was close.
Posted by Tes95 1 year ago
Tes95
And so the mighty shut up.
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
Sure. Anyway, turning off alerts for this debate. See ya later.
Posted by Tes95 1 year ago
Tes95
An hour to type a weak response, you are terrified, little man.
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
Is that what your boyfriend told you? Youre the bottom, arent you?
Posted by Tes95 1 year ago
Tes95
Look at how the uncertainty climbs. When I give piercing, sharp blows, you shut down. It's no longer "you're this, this, and this". It's agreeing with me and simple denial within a few small words. Because you know further confrontation is detrimental for you. In the real world? It's also known as submission.
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
If you say so, bud.
Posted by Tes95 1 year ago
Tes95
No, but you are acting defensive, afraid, unsure, and surprised at how quickly I adapt to your disgraceful tactics and what it means for you.
Posted by drafterman 1 year ago
drafterman
Well, I'm certainly not acting like I'm humiliated.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Chicken 1 year ago
Chicken
Tes95draftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Kingcripple. Seriously Give an RFD from the actual debate and not your own personal insight. Don't add arguments into a debate just so you can vote for the side you like.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
Maikuru
Tes95draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering DebaterAgent's vote with an RFD of "ok...." If this votebomb is removed, I will vote arguments and conduct in Pro's favor, as clearly warranted by Con's complete lack of argumentation and attacks on Pro's character.
Vote Placed by DebaterAgent 1 year ago
DebaterAgent
Tes95draftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: ok......
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 1 year ago
iamnotwhoiam
Tes95draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: See Comments
Vote Placed by kingcripple 1 year ago
kingcripple
Tes95draftermanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think the question Con shouldve raised is why gays want to have marriage. Obviously the answer is for certain legal rights. I believe no one should be married for those reasons. If straights did not have these rights, gays would not be whining. to me its for the wrong reason.
Vote Placed by Bodhivaka 1 year ago
Bodhivaka
Tes95draftermanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion, the majority of Con's statements were nothing more than emotionally motivated arguments which lacked any convincing evidential substantiation, and I believe pro effectively demonstrated this in his arguments. Sources go to pro, as he was the only one to use any.
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 1 year ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
Tes95draftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter tBoonePickens
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 1 year ago
tBoonePickens
Tes95draftermanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Because I can.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
Tes95draftermanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstguy's arguments were rabid emotionalism. Secondguy patiently pointed out flaws in Firstguy's arguments.