The Instigator
Chob
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
Madmire
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

Gay Marriage

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  
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: 12/27/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,862 times Debate No: 1079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (14)

 

Chob

Pro

The struggle to illegalize what men and women do in their own bedrooms is sickening, and the religious right has far too much of a stronghold in politics. There should be full, unequivocal equality in marriage for same-sex couple. Gays and lesbians should enjoy the full set of rights that I experience in my marriage. This nation was founded under freedom of religion (or even freedom from religion) and on separation from church and state. Furthermore, those who claim that their moves to illegalize same-sex marriage are for "family values." However, I have seen more families destroyed in the name of "family values" than for any other reason. For instance, my friend since middle school was disowned by his father after coming out about his homosexuality. He committed no crime, but rather, he was only just being open about himself. I find the hypocrisy to be appalling. Prejudice and bigotry had dug itself into the American fiber and has not yet been uprooted. Only with the passing of a bill that legalizes same-sex marriage in all fifty states will we eventually uproot such rampant homophobia. In fact, about ninety per cent of Americans were against interracial marriage before the Supreme Court intervened and finally had the common decency to say that interracial couples could marry. I fail to see how same-sex marriage is really any different of an issue.
Madmire

Con

To start things off I'm going to point out the fact that marriage in and of itself is a religious institution and should have no place in government anyway. The very concept of "marriage" is a religious concept that should be defined only by the church that is marrying the couple be the gay or straight. However civil unions are something that the government should regulate and endorse. These unions should most definitely be able to be between homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. Let's put marriage back where it truly belongs, in the hadns of the religious institutions that define it. Let each church and religion define marriage for themselves and let the religious marriages have no bearing on the civil standing of any citizen. That is mainly semantics yes but it is a very important distinction that must be made for this argument to ever be won or lost.

The biggest issue that I have with your argument is that you fail to offer any real reasons for your stance. Yes you tell a wonderful story but in the end pulling the heart strings is no way to truly win an argument.

Also the Constitution of the United States is still important no matter what good ole George W. would have you believe and nowhere in the Constitution is the topic of marriage addressed. Thus it would fall under the 10th amendment as something the states must decide for themselves. So a law that would mandate legalizing gay marriage across all 50 states would be struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court. The only defense for your point is the whole issue of tax breaks for married people and again this issue is easily solved by instituting civil unions for both homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Debate Round No. 1
Chob

Pro

The biggest flaw in your argument is that marriage precedes religion. When a man and a woman go to city hall and apply to get married, they do exactly that. They apply for a marriage license, not a civil union license. I could not care less what partnerships churches want to bless, for that is irrelevant. I am talking about full, equal marriages.

Furthermore, saying that because something is not in the Constitution that the states should decide upon it is just wavering between two sides of the argument. When states decide upon the issue nothing really gets done. We can see this in the Civil War, where South Carolina initially seceded due to states rights. There is something also very wrong with the idea that a gay couple living in Massachusetts should have more opportune marriage rights than a gay couple living in the state of Texas. Civil rights should be universal. Just think about this: what makes people in one state more deserving of better rights than in another state? People across the United States deserve the same, equal treatment as one another.

And the little anecdote I told about my best friend was not to pull at your heart strings. It was to illustrate the stronghold that religion has on progressing.
Madmire

Con

Well I definitely agree with you on the fact that religion has a little too much sway in politics and I apologize if I sounded rude i just hate it when people try and change minds by telling stories.

You are right that marriage precedes religion but without religion marriage would not exist as an institution and that is where the majority of the problems stem from. In my opinion something as simple as the term marriage causes a lot of problems, those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons do so, for the most part, because homosexuality is considered wrong in their religion and thus having a married homosexual couple is wrong to them. That is why changing everything from marriage to civil unions would help the situation to at least be able to be solved in a way that doesn't involve what every individual religion thinks about the term marriage.

I have to flat out disagree with your argument about the Constitution, we must follow the Constitution as much as we can even though these days no one seems to remember or care. The rights of states to decide things for themselves is one of the main things that makes this country different from most in the world. If something isn't specifically in the Constitution then it should be left up to the states to decide for themselves, this should include a lot more things than it does today but unfortunately does not. The problem with your argument here is that while this sounds good in principal, there are many many examples of personal rights that are different between states. One good example is firearm laws, one cannot single out marriage to be the same in all fifty states and let other personal rights continue being unequal. The more things that are demanded to be exactly the same in all fifty states the more.

Also marriage is not a civil right, it is an institution and like all institutions it has restrictions. This is a point that is often overlooked, but is very important. All institutions in our society have exclusions that define what the institution is, without exclusions it wouldn't be. Every person has the right to marry, there are certain exceptions that are the same across the board. No one can marry a child, a close blood relative, etc. there is no discrimination involved, the right to marry is the same for all people and it has the same exclusions for all people. It is simply not an issue of Civil Rights.
Debate Round No. 2
Chob

Pro

You are right when you say many people oppose gay marriage because of their religious views. I am not disputing that. What I am disputing is to let these people's creed get in the way of progress. Civil unions establish a second-class citizenship status for gay men and women. And if marriage is as you say it is (a religious institution) then why let anyone decide upon it? If you wish to remain consistent, then you probably should say that marriage should be left up to individual churches. However, marriage is not solely a religious institution.

To address your point, laws on firearms should remain consistent throughout all fifty states. There are some issues (most specifically the issue of how people should be taxed and by what rate, etc.) that should be left up to the states, but not civil issues. You still have not explained why a gay couple in Massachusetts should have any more rights than if that same couple moved to Texas.

Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, however, every American, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, political views, or income level, has three unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Banning same-sex marriage, or, at least, leaving it up to states (so the federal government does not look like it is discriminating, but rather, they're leaving that up to the more conservative states) undermines those unalienable rights. An issue of civil rights, perhaps not. But an issue of unalienable rights, same-sex marriage absolutely is.
Madmire

Con

Madmire forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sludge 8 years ago
Sludge
I don't think "Amos" knows what he's talking about. We went to war because of states rights, the same "rights" that states that want to ban gay marriage claim they have. I think Chob's story showed just how cowardly people like his friend's father is. And if he is "tugging at our heart strings," don't we all deserve it?
Posted by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
sorry i meant son* not "sun"
Posted by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
the bible is flawed because it wasnt written by Jesus or god but by people years after things were said and done and some people who had listened to Jesus's speakings were excluded such as the pagans so i say its flawed because not even you can disagree that people themselves are flawed and since it was not written by the father or the sun who were not flawed but rather passed down a generation or 2 before being written and put together the possibility of it being flawed is a 100% possibility why because we as humans are out for self interest it is only human nature as it is animal nature the people who wrote the bible would have changed or excluded certain things that were said or some views by others. if you sit down and read the book its completely Gender and racially bias in all reality Jesus would have been Born to either a middle eastern family so depictions of him being white are completely wrong and i know this might not be the bible but still the religion itself is biased you cant say that its not all im saying is yes marriage might be between a man and a woman on religious basis but it is between two people on a legal basis and to refuse two peoples want to have the same recognition that everyone else gets when they love each other is for one unconstitutional and unethical i mean come on if god made everyone in his image then perhaps if he were human he would choose to be gay to not for reproduction but for love and just for your info im not atheist and i do know about the rest of the empires that came out of Rome but what i was saying is it did not entirely fall until fully Christian i mean if you wana argue with a History major about history be my guessed it will be a losing battle bud.
Posted by Chob 8 years ago
Chob
To Leo: try to keep the mud-slinging to a minimum. Do not call an entire group of people, about ten percent of the population, "mentally unhealthy." Some people have grown out of their bigotries. This is a debate site, not a hate-mongering one.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
I'm not saying everyone is gay.
In the comment you were referring to, I was responding to US patriot, who was saying that comparing the love felt in a gay relationship to that in a straight one is 'an insult to millions of years of human evolution.'

I was letting him know that it was by the same well-developed mechanism that gay people feel love for their partners.

Also, I'm unsure what definition of mental health you're using, since being gay doesn't sound particularly insane to me, especially for people with a genetic propensity to be gay.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 8 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Yeah roman empire went down after converting to Christianity. What a shame you have just done to world history, completely deleted the Roman schism, The subsequent Carolinian Empire the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. But most atheist thrive on taking the bible out of context and backing up their argument so I'm use to things of the sort.
beem0r are you saying that every human is gay? That is inherently wrong. Some people are actually mentally healthy thank you very much.
and stashu Christianity is not flawed buddy . I'd like you to give me examples of how its flawed I will refute every single on of them. And I bet you every single example will have text taken out of context, probably from some book you bought/borrowed or a website you go to get quotes you can throw at Christians. But I dedicate my life to studying the bible and a million and one attacks that have been used against it. I also have a software bible so I can quickly reference any scripture you take out of context and 10 commentaries on them. I'd really like to see you take me on of how the bible is flawed.
And from the evolutionary stand point the goal of every organism is to reproduce. And beem0r your saying that being guy is a genetic disease, and that gay people wouldn't pass down their genes. I reject that because if that were the case I wouldn't have to stand the site of them anymore they're gene pool would have washed out thousands of years ago. Homosexuality is a choice. And it is not found in nature as a way of life. Studies have found eratic homosexual behavior in nature, they have also found cases were homosexual behavior exist in a short phase of an organisms Life. But many studies have shown and I refer this to another debate on the site. That no organism has a homosexual lifestyle, it is against the goals of evolution.
Humans have the ability to choose to be a career querr or not, and that is the reason that humans have homosexual lifestyle, but that doesn't make it right
Posted by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
dude you do understand that the roman empire lasted over a millenia!!!!!! they fell after they converted to Christianity. hmmm i see some foreshadowing there!!!!!!!
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
They didn't end by lack of reproduction, that's for sure.
Posted by RMK 8 years ago
RMK
The last comment about the Greeks and Romans "man love"

How did those empires end? foreshadowing America?
Posted by Stashu18 8 years ago
Stashu18
wow if your comment "To compare that to the love a man feels for a woman, is an insult to millions of years of human evolution." was directed towards me Patriot please do not comment with such an ignorant comment Romans and Greeks existed in thriving Empires and kingdoms no more than a few thousand years ago so to even put millions of years is just so ignorant they believed that the love men shared for each other was the ultimate love and i will ask you to be a slight bit more mature because you did just insult 2 very well known and liked civilizations that we as Americans base alot of our beliefs off of!
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ctlaster 8 years ago
ctlaster
ChobMadmireTied
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 Sludge 8 years ago
Sludge
ChobMadmireTied
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 Madmire 8 years ago
Madmire
ChobMadmireTied
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 Pricetag 8 years ago
Pricetag
ChobMadmireTied
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 U.S_Patriot 8 years ago
U.S_Patriot
ChobMadmireTied
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
ChobMadmireTied
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 Hoyt13 8 years ago
Hoyt13
ChobMadmireTied
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 monetary_sniper 8 years ago
monetary_sniper
ChobMadmireTied
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 azrael777 8 years ago
azrael777
ChobMadmireTied
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 beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
ChobMadmireTied
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