The Instigator
TheElephantOpinion
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BEaPATRIOT
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/6/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 527 times Debate No: 40079
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheElephantOpinion

Pro

This debate is about the subject of gay marriage and if it should be legalized. My viewpoint is that gay marriage should be legalized, and I will be arguing pro for this debate. The first round is just for acceptance, as well as any information that my opponent might wish for me to know. Good luck to both of us.
BEaPATRIOT

Con

Hello,
I think gay marriage should not be legal but they should be able to form a partnership with each other that allows them to get the same rights as married couples. The term marriage is a Religious term and should be sacred to Religion. For example, lets say i start a organization for helping animals find homes, and instead of calling my self the owner of the organization i call myself the pope, and my organization takes off and becomes world known, there would be a catholic outcry because the term "pope" is sacred to Catholicism. I hope that makes sense. So don't call it marriage, call it partnership (or something else). If the gay community did that then almost EVERYONE would be on board. Marriage is a Religious tradition and it should and needs to stay that way.
If you don't mind me asking i would like to know for arguments sake; are you gay?
Debate Round No. 1
TheElephantOpinion

Pro

In response to your question, no, I"m actually not a lesbian, but a few of my friends whom I admire are homosexual. But, back to the debate, an organization can not own a word just because they"re attributed to it, unless it is copyrighted. Marriage can also be associated with the government, as you must sign a legal document in order to get the rights of a married couple and some people are even married at a nearby courthouse instead of a church. And your argument that almost everyone would be for a partnership with the same rights as marriage is not necessarily valid. Marriage is an emotionally important word. It"s a tradition that has been going on for thousands and thousands of years. It has a great meaning in our culture, one that a civil union just can"t compare to. That is why many homosexual couples would reject civil unions. It"s their concern that by using the words civil union instead of marriage, it"s saying that their commitment isn't the same as that of a heterosexual couple. That their love is so different it doesn't even deserve the same term "normal" relationships get. In addition, legally speaking, civil unions are not equal. Marriages are recognized in every state in America, while civil unions aren't. A homosexual couple may be able to be partners in New Jersey, but they probably would not be able to move to, for instance, Virginia and still keep their rights. Imagine telling a straight couple that they can"t get married, but they can still be partners. The only reason that they can"t say married because the word is associated with religion. You can picture their reaction; "Why don"t we get to call our love marriage? Our love is just as real!"
As history has proved, separate is not always equal.

Citations:
http://www.alternet.org...
http://gppreview.com...
http://www.bluethenation.com...
BEaPATRIOT

Con

BEaPATRIOT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheElephantOpinion

Pro

Well, I"m not sure what else to say, since you forfeited that round. I suppose I"ll just use this opportunity to disprove common arguments against homosexual marriage that I have been dying to get my opinion out for.
Arguments against it are almost always religious. And, although Islam and other religions condemn being gay, the most powerful voice against it comes from the Christians.

One common quip is that "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" My response to this would be that back then
there would have been no other humans on Earth. They would have had to populate it themselves, so Adam and Steve never would have worked. At 6.79 billion people and growing for the world"s population, it"s safe to say this is clearly not an issue anymore.

Another argument could be "Because Jesus said so!" Not so. Jesus the person never said a word for or against homosexual marriage.

A variation of this would be "Because the Bible says so!" I"m going to break this up by Testament. First, I admit that the Old Testament does speak out against same sex marriage. On the other hand, the Old Testament also says that it is sinful to eat shellfish, pork, or wear clothes that are more than one color. And, given the other context of this Testament, I don"t think that's a reasonable argument for modern day society.

However, the New Testament does not say anything against homosexual love. The original text in the New Testament was referring to prostitution and molestation, not committed same sex affairs. The translation must have changed over time, and the bits the old Catholic Church left out or revised wouldn't have helped.

More specifically to the Bible argument, I've also seen objections along the lines of "The Bible defines marriage as one man, one woman!" Also not true. In those days, and in some parts of the world today, marriage could easily be defined as one man-many women, one man-many wives, a conquering soldier and his prisoner or even a rapist and his victim.

Let me use an example. A mere 500 years ago, it was virtually illegal for the Bible to translate into any language but Latin. You might be rolling your eyes, thinking "Well, that"s just outdated." Take a moment to think about that. Some common idea only 500 years ago qualifies as way outdated, but a book written 35,000 years ago holds exactly the same truth as today. Quite selective thinking, isn't it?

The point I'm trying to make is that, had society not moved onward, precious few Christians would have been able to read their Holy Book today. Here's another example; the proverb "dime to a donut" has lost its applicability in less than 200 years. Times change, no religion can be accurate according to the times forever. Love is one of the few things that has always be constant throughout human history. And marriage is really about love, not gender.
BEaPATRIOT

Con

BEaPATRIOT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheElephantOpinion

Pro

Well, as my opponent has not raised any new objections, there is nothing for me to dispute. Preventing homosexual marriage is discrimination. As citizens of the United States, we have the right to freedom of religion. However, freedom of religion is not an excuse to oppress the rights of others. Americans all have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Vote pro, please!
BEaPATRIOT

Con

BEaPATRIOT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
The word "marriage" is not owned or copyrighted by any religion and therefor religion should have no right to a monopoly on it. There needs to be a separation of church and state on this issue. Besides, some religions support and are even willing to perform gay marriages, so how can that argument have any merit? Also, if we are making the claim that religion should "own" the word "marriage", then which religion should be the owner? For example, if one religion is known to be the oldest religion known to perform the practice, and they do not agree with the validity of any marriage that is not performed by their priests in their own ceremony (as many do), then should all other marriages be null and void? What about atheists getting married? If marriage is strictly religious, then should we take away their right to marry as well?

The truth is that the word marriage is not necessarily the issue here, it is religious prejudice against homosexuals. The actual solution is for religious people to learn to mind their own business and stop trying to force others to live by their rules. That's what freedom is all about. It is no one else's business what homosexuals do in their own lives when it has no affect on heterosexual people and they are not harming or taking advantage of anyone who is not willingly participating.
Posted by Kiko700 3 years ago
Kiko700
It's a lost cause, Gay marriage will be legal everywhere in the west soon. Even US conservatives are starting to support it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.