The Instigator
theswifttransgressor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GreenTeas
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Gay Marriage

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
GreenTeas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 26348
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

theswifttransgressor

Con

In my humblest opinion, Gay marriage is wrong. It is contradictory to everything the LGBT community is preaching. They criticize the people who discriminate against their beliefs yet they are campaigning to allow gay marriage to be legal? Why? First off, you can get a civil union, It is just as legible as a marriage except with no religion involved. Second, you can't preach non-discrimination when you are trying to force a church (who is openly against the LGBT community as part their religion) into allowing gay people to get married? That, if I recall correctly, is discriminating against a belief system is it not? And thirdly, I am gay myself so this is from the most un-homophobic point of view a person can have.
GreenTeas

Pro


Opponent’s First Proposition: The LGBT Community Supports Anti-Discrimination and Gay Marriage is a Form of Discrimination Against Religious Beliefs


Discrimination is defined as “making a distinction in favor of or against, a person …, class, or category to which that person … belongs.”


My opponent argues that because the LGBT community advocates for the right of homosexuals to marry each other, that this right would discriminate against the religious beliefs of others. However, permitting gays to marry does not in any way affect religious groups from practicing their beliefs in the manner which they deem appropriate. Religious groups are not required to recognize or practice gay marriage, nor would these religious groups be required to marry gay individuals. The legal recognition of gay marriage would have absolutely no affect on the ability of churches and religious individuals to practice their beliefs.


The absurdity of this argument becomes even clearer after considering the following analogy. Robert the vegetarian believes that it is wrong for people to eat meat. People want to eat meat. Robert the vegetarian argues that allowing these people to eat meat is discrimination against his belief that people shouldn’t eat meat.


Discrimination necessarily requires a “distinction in favor of or against” a group of people. If homosexuals and heterosexuals have equal rights to marry, there is no distinction in favor or against either group of people, and thus discrimination does not exist. The current legal environment currently favors discrimination against gays, preventing them from marrying.


Opponent’s Second Proposition: Civil Unions are Legally the Same as Marriage


This is incorrect. While civil unions and marriages share many similarities, they do share different legal recognition. A number of federal laws, including those involving taxes, health insurance, and social security benefits, provide different recognition and impose different obligations or benefits to civil unions and marriages. Moreover, it is important to note that most states do not recognize civil unions, so this is not an option for many gay couples.


But, perhaps more important than the legal treatment of marriages and civil unions, is that “civil unions” do not confer the same socially recognized importance of dignity, clarity, security, and power of the word “marriage.” Separate but equal is not equal.



Opponent’s Third Proposition: The LGBT Community is Attempting to Force Churches into Allowing Gay Individuals to Get Married


The legalization of gay marriage would not force churches to marry homosexual individuals. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, religious freedom is protected from government intrusion. Even if gay marriage were legalized, churches would not and could not be forced to marry them. Churches and their members would be free to exercise their religious beliefs and practices as they see fit, and if they so desired, could choose to marry only heterosexual couples in their church. Legalization of gay marriage only entails the government’s legal recognition of the marriage and has no affect on religious institutions.


Opponent’s Fourth Proposition: Opponent is, Himself, Gay and Therefore has an “Un-Homophobic” Point of View


I will have to concede this point.


Debate Round No. 1
theswifttransgressor

Con

In Reply to 'Gay Marriage not being discriminatory towards religious beliefs':
You said that 'Robert is a vegetarian so therefore people who eat meat are discriminating against his belief', This is a bad example. A practicing vegetarian does not belong to a church or organization. Saying that people who eat meat are discriminating against their belief is wrong, they are not discriminating against them until they, for example, force a Sirloin Steak down their throats. That would be a good example for the gay marriage case as they are asking a church, which is openly against homosexuality, to join them in marriage. This is discriminating against Christian's or Muslim's or any religion's beliefs because they are being forced into doing something they aren't comfortable with and that they could ultimately be frowned upon for by their God.
In reply to Civil Unions:
A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people. In my point of view, if a gay couple really want to be joined in marriage but aren't prepared to be in a civil union just because of benefits or taxes, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to get married. Sounds absurd that I think gay people should have to give up more to be in a marriage rather than a straight couple, but straight people can get a civil union as well so it is hardly the case that a civil union is just for the gay people to 'get what they want', it is a completely open thing. Also it is a more sentimental union, seeing as the couple don't wish to bring such things as religion or money into their relationship, it is just love.
In reply to the subject of gays forcing the church into allowing gay marriage:
The word marriage, although it is a roman word, is that of a religion. It is the bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God. So a gay person (who is an atheist per say) asks the state if him/her and his/her partner can get Married, they are asking if they can get married under the eyes of a certain religion's God even though they do not believe in that God. That is offensive and making a mockery of a religion just like religion makes a mockery of homosexuality. If they want to be married under no religion with all the legal stuffs that a 'normal' marriage would have, then why not ask that a civil union could have more legal stuffs, why ask if they can just get married under a religion they don't agree with?
GreenTeas

Pro


Opponent’s First Proposition: Legalizing gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples


My opponent continues his argument that gay marriage is discriminatory toward religious beliefs, suggesting that it is analogous to forcing a sirloin steak down the throat of a vegetarian. As such, I will reiterate my point that gay marriage does not force churches or religious believers to alter their beliefs nor would they be required to marry gay individuals.


Marriage between a man and a woman is currently legal and recognized by the government, yet religious institutions can refuse to marry straight couples for any reason, or no reason at all. If gay marriage were legalized, religious institutions would still have this same power to refuse marriage. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of religion and guarantees the freedom to practice religious beliefs without government intrusion. Due to these protections, no religious institution can be forced to marry any couple, of any sexual orientation. To state that legalization of gay marriage would force churches to marry homosexual couples necessarily misunderstands the protections of the First Amendment.


Similarly, many churches and religious groups believe that gay couples should be free to marry. One could argue that the illegality of gay marriage is discriminating against these churches and their religious beliefs that homosexual couples should be free to marry.


Opponent’s Second Proposition: If gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then they don’t deserve to be married


My opponent previously argued that civil unions and marriage were legally identically, but now, seemingly admitting that is not the case, shifts his argument and states that if gay couples aren’t willing to become civilly unionized, then maybe they don’t deserve to be married.


My opponent is essentially arguing that if gays are not willing to accept some lesser right (i.e., civil unions), then maybe they don’t deserve the full right (i.e., marriage) that everyone else is entitled to have. Imagine how offensive and discriminatory this assertion would be if applied to any number of rights that the government currently recognizes. Imagine if the government said to African Americans, “if you aren’t willing to accept that you are 3/5ths of a person, then maybe you don’t deserve to be a full person.” Or, imagine if the government said to women, “if you aren’t willing to accept 70% of the pay that a man receives for the same job, then maybe you don’t deserve the equal pay that the men receive.” No one is required to accept some lesser right to “prove” that they deserve equal rights.


My opponent also states that “[a] marriage should be about love, not about legal stance.” This is an admission -- that is widely accepted -- that one of the primary purposes of marriage is as an expression of love and unity between two individuals. Civil unions do not share this same historical and cultural importance. Gay couples, both religious and non-religious, wish to be part of the institution of marriage, an institution that encompasses this cultural significance, not the sterilized union created by a bureaucracy to recognize a legal relationship.



Opponent’s Third Proposition: Allowing gay marriage would offend God and religion


My opponent argues that marriage is the “bringing together of 2 souls under the eye of their God.” However, the institution of marriage pre-dates modern religious belief systems and has historically existed in societies with many religions, many gods, or no gods. Marriage is a social contract between two individuals that originally existed to ensure paternity and transfer property. It is not limited to any religion or belief system – for example, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews, and atheists all may get married, yet their beliefs systems, gods, or lack of gods, conflict with one another.


My opponent states that allowing gays to be married would offend “a certain religion’s God.” Yet, Catholics are free to get married despite that it would offend the Muslim god, since Muslims believe Catholics are infidels that will go to hell, and vice versa regarding Muslim marriage. Alternatively, most religious believers think atheists will go to hell, yet atheists are free to marry. Marriage is not specific to any particular religion or belief system.


Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, simply because a religious person will be offended by gay marriage is not relevant to whether gay marriage should be legalized. Many religious people were offended and opposed freeing the slaves, opposed women’s rights, opposed black rights, and currently oppose gay rights. The fact that they are offended is of no consequence to whether gay couples should be given equality in the institution of marriage.



Debate Round No. 2
theswifttransgressor

Con

My opponent states that gay marriage is not discriminatory towards a church because a church has a choice whether or not to marry anyone, let alone gays. This is most definitely true but what are the chances of a church accepting a gay couple to be married? These churches will most definitely deny each and every one of the couples. And then what? All the efforts will be lost? All the protests and rallies and petition will amount to nothing? No. That is not human nature. We instinctively do not want to sacrifice anything and we most certainly do Not enjoy having our rights being subject to the whims of someone who doesn't understand our situation. And where do you think that will lead us? Will we be so peaceful in 10 years time? What about 30 years time? What if it is made clear that we will Never be allowed to get legally married so long as the church has a right to choose? Will there be a new marriage for gay couples that includes all the rights of a normal marriage? Doubt it. Will the gay community make a new religion in the hope it gets recognized and marriage under that religion will be righteous? Again I am pessimistic. So what will we do? Would we go so far as to force a church into letting us get married under the steam that they are not being fair? With that I cannot give a prediction which would not make me sound like a homophobic (of course in saying that I would be a homophobic?)
The churches are being put under pressure to allow these marriages. Of course they have a choice but when a whole community of people are looking at you under their noses, ones judgement can become not of your own.

My opponent, I think, has misunderstood what I have wrote above about civil union-ship. Of course at the start I was naive in thinking that a civil union has the same rights, I will concede to this point apologetically. But in an attempt at perverting my words, my opponent has failed. I stated that 'A marriage should be about love, not about legal stance. If one is more concerned about their legal stance more than they are concerned about the life they want to spend with their partner then maybe they should not be getting married at all, this of course goes for all people' meaning in shorter words that the gay community has been fighting for marriage as a sign that love has evolved. Unfortunately I do not believe that gay marriage will ever become legal. So why do gay couples not get a civil union? It is by no means a shameful thing, nor is it a thing for gay people just to settle with what they are given. I will admit that they are also by no means perfect but in a world where homophobia is still high and the acceptance of homosexuality is low, a civil union should seem like a God send (that was a clumsy term of phrase but I said it and that's that.). Now, comparing this to racism and using the analogy 'if you aren"t willing to accept that you are 3/5ths of a person, then maybe you don"t deserve to be a full person.' is also clumsy and dramatic. The fact that you compare me stating that 'gay people shouldn't be so concerned about legal stance if they love each other enough' to a black person being of a 'lower class and if they don't like this then they don't deserve to be treated equally' is racist of you. (I do not want to start the racist blame game but making out that I am racist out of something not racist would require you to have a bit of racism in you to see the racism would it not?). The exact same goes to Women' rights and I stand by my statement now hoping you comprehend fully.

Again when I talk about a Gay marriage being offensive to ones God, my opponent seems to misunderstand or is choosing to.
'Catholics are free to get married despite that it would offend the Muslim god, since Muslims believe Catholics are infidels that will go to hell, and vice versa'. This is not a correct analogy. I said that if a gay person where to ever get married Under The Eyes Of Someone Else's God (In a church they do not follow) then This would be offensive to that church. I did Not say that a gay person getting married would offend a religion unrelated because it goes against their teachings, I said that if a gay person where to get married In the church of someone else god, then That would be offensive. It would be them using that religion just so they could get married disregarding the feelings and respect of that religion. I think me explaining this to you would also cancel out your last paragraph and before I finish I would like to present to you a question.

Do you think society is ready for gay couples to start getting married, taking into account both points of view?

That is all I have to say.
GreenTeas

Pro


Opponent’s First Proposition: If legalized, churches will refuse to marry gay couples, ultimately leading negative consequences


First, it is incorrect to say that all churches will refuse to marry gay individuals. Gay marriage is currently legal in six states – Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont (as well as the District of Columba). Many churches and religious organizations in these six states accept gay marriage and choose to marry homosexual couples. There have been no negative consequences associated with the legalization of gay marriage in these states.


Moreover, even if every church refused to marry gay couples – which the previous paragraph demonstrates is not the case – gay couples can still schedule a marriage ceremony (outside of a church) or acquire a marriage license through their local courthouse. The legal institution of marriage is a right conferred through the government, not through religion or churches, and therefore gay couples could become married without the involvement of any church.


Opponent’s Second Proposition: Gay couples who truly love each other should be willing to settle for civil unions when marriage is not an option


I disagree with my opponent for the reasons discussed in the previous round, specifically that individuals should not be required to accept a lesser right in lieu of equality. We are nation founded on principles of equity and fairness, we are a nation that refuses to settle for inequality simply because that is the best that is currently offered.


The civil rights of women and blacks illustrates the importance of refusing to settle with inequality, and demonstrates the importance to society of pushing back against an establishment that wants to prevent equality.


Opponent’s Third Proposition: If gay couples are married within a religion’s church, they will offend that religion’s god


First, churches may refuse to marry gay couples within their church. Therefore, it follows that if a religious group does permit gay couples to be married in their church, that they are likely a religious group that is accepting of gay marriage and will not be offended. Many churches are willing and do accept gay marriage, as shown in the six states that have already legalized gay marriage.


Thus, gay couples will be married in churches that are accepting of gay marriage, or they will be married in ceremonies outside of church. Therefore, there is no risk that gay couples will be married “in the church of someone else’s god.”


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
theswifttransgressorGreenTeasTied
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: FRD not needed
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
TrasguTravieso
theswifttransgressorGreenTeasTied
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: Perhaps the weakest defense of traditional marriage I have seen in a long time. Debate goes to pro.