The Instigator
Ennagirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
16 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 584 times Debate No: 60019
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Ennagirl

Pro

If you take religion out of the question, I don't see how gay marriage is a bad thing? Gay couples can raise children. They pay their taxes like everyone else. And I don't see how their marriages would affect other people. I've never heard anyone complaining that somebody else's marriage was hurting their own. That just doesn't make sense.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.

First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.


Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. (http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.

Contention 2: Civil Unions are a better alternative to Gay marriage

Now I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.

the same sexover 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriagenot closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)(http://www.lambdalegal.org...) Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).

Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...)










Contention 3: Financial gain from Civil Unions

Civil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Debate Round No. 1
Ennagirl

Pro

For you first contention, as I stated before. This is not a religious debate. I'm speaking purely from a political standpoint as with religion it's just 'what god says goes' so there really is no argument there.

As for your second contention, Civil Unions are extremely similar to marriages. It uses the mentality of 'Separate but equal'. Which is not true equality. I don't see the point of having the same thing but 2 different names. Why not just make them the same? If you don't want to call it marriage, then why not just change marriage to 'Civil Union' and then everyone has to civil union instead of a marriage. Then it's just the case of using a different word. Also, the data from your charts are outdated. Here are some more recent polls showing that over 50% now favor gay marriage. http://www.gallup.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com...


As for your third contention, this revenue is not related to just civil unions. It is related to both civil unions and marriage. They both create revenue because they are both basically the same thing with a different name. Therefor if gay's were allowed marriage, the same financial gain would be produced. Except without the hassle and discrimination of separating the homosexuals from the heterosexuals.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.

This is a gay marriage debate. The only thing Pro said concerning Gay Marriage and religion in the first round is that if you take religion out of the equation Pro doesn't seem how it's bad. The fact is that I have brought up this point and weather or not Pro wants to debate it or not Gay Marriage is a predominately a Religious topic then political. I extend my arguments across the board.

1st amendment as of a few months ago the Supreme Court Released it's Ruling on Religious institutions. The Hobby Lobby Case has implemented that companies have religious freedom and can't be enforced to cover contraceptives. (http://www.tpnn.com...) You might be asking yourself now, what on Earth does this have to do with Gay Marriage. Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional. Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (http://www.loc.gov...)


Contention 2: Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

I agree for the most part that the state should recognize Civil Unions instead of Marriages, but the current standing is that the government recognizes marriage and that marriage, as I stated last round, is a religious institution and that due to the Separation of Church and state the Federal Government must stay out of the marriage industry. Marriage is actually inclusive to other religions besides just Catholicism, Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage. (http://www.billionbibles.org...) Many religious groups do not support Gay Marriage, but do support Civil Unions. Though with a majority of people supporting Gay Marriage the majority is actually split on what to do and how to do it while a ton of people who are against Gay Marriage, including Staunch Conservatives support Civil Unions.

Contention 3: Finiancial Gains from Civil Unions

My opponent is incorrect as the Document that I have provided is the Impacts of Civil Unions on Hawai`i’s Economy and Government. Not Gay Marriage. This has been tried in New York City, but the Finiancial Gains from Civil Unions were greater than that of the ones in New York.

Contention 4: Marriage is for repopulation as well.

We all know that homosexuals cannot reproduce. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) The Population of Earth is falling and we cannot let it die out.



Debate Round No. 2
Ennagirl

Pro

If you scroll up and look at the category for this debate, you will see it is in the politics category and the the religion category. I stated that in the beginning because I wanted to make sure my opponent knew that. I'm debating this from a political standpoint as for the reason it should be legal. Things are not made illegal and legal depending on if religions find it right or not. Because then it would have to adhere to all religions, which wouldn't work. Which is why instead, laws are created for the common good. And a homosexual marriage benefits the common good just as much as a heterosexual relationship because both can start families with children who grow up to be good members of society.

Nobody is forcing anyone to have a homosexual marriage, so everyone can still have their religious freedom to not have a homosexual marriage.

"I agree for the most part that the state should recognize Civil Unions instead of Marriages, but the current standing is that the government recognizes marriage and that marriage, as I stated last round, is a religious institution and that due to the Separation of Church and state the Federal Government must stay out of the marriage industry."

As I said this is not a religious debate. Government gives out marriage licenses and benefits to people who have one. Therefore, unless you wish to argue that government should not do this at all for anyone, then this contradicts itself.
Marriage is indeed recognized in many religions, and many religions condemn homosexual activity of any kind. But religions are free to make any rules they would like, but that doesn't mean all the rules they make are beneficial for society nor are they laws.

Homosexual marriage is not the norm. Just as back before women's rights was a thing, women working was not the norm. When people started saying women should have the right to work as they like, people were divided on the matter. It was a new concept and divided the people. Same with black rights. Whenever an issue divides the nation people are always cautious on how to proceed and just let things continue the way they are until someone stands up and says something.

As I said, Civil Unions generate the same revenue per person as a marriage does. The fact that there were more in Hawaii than New York does not prove anything. And marriages are not supported by government because of the financial gain. They are supported for the common good of raising children which homosexuals can do just as well as a heterosexual couple. Which brings me to your next point.

Homosexual couples can in fact, reproduce. It is in the same way that a heterosexual couple with an infertile member would reproduce. They obtain an egg or sperm from a donor. Also adoption is available and there are lots of homeless children who need to be adopted. The declining birth rate might actually be improved if homosexuals were allowed marriage as it would encourage them to start families of their own and provide them benefits to raise these children.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Religous reasons.

My opponent continues to try to discount this point, because Pro claims that this debate is not about religion, but the fact remains that once again that that is the main reason why it's illegal and why it's such a hot topic. Taking this out of the Gay Marriage debate makes it irrelivant. I extend my argument.

My opponent has dropped my Hobby Lobby argument so extend that across the board.

Contention 2: Civil Unions

It does not contradict itself. I stated that the federal government should recognize Civil Unions in order to accept everyone. Marriages will still prosper, but federal governments will acknowledge who is joint on taxes and such via the Civil Unions. Not the Marriage. I also never said that religions should direct society. I merely stated that society should not merely dirrect religions. Legalization of Gay Marriage would be forcing the state over religion and my opponent dropped that argument that I have made last round so I also extend that across the board. My opponent also dropps my argument on how gay marriage supporters are devided so I also extend that across the board.

My opponent says that gay rights are not the norm, but with my purposed solution compared to Pro's we will be making everyone, even the religious groups, happy with the change. Marriage will stay between a man and a women while the Federal government recognizes only Civil Unions. Thus there are no discrimination.

Contention 3: Financial Gains from Civil Unions

My opponent keeps disreguarding this contention, because he claims that they make the same profit, but I have provided federal government document analys that proves my point while Pro has yet to provide a source. I extend this point across the table.

Contention 4: Reproduction

Though they can indeed reproduce the fact is that a man+man=/= chile and women+women=/=child. You may go to the clinic and get certain 'things' to help, but the homosexual couple cannot reproduce without help vs. a heterosexual couple that can do it normally without any help.
Debate Round No. 3
Ennagirl

Pro

Ennagirl forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended. Please vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by younglaw 2 years ago
younglaw
I want to vote for pro, but I am quite new so I cant vote but if u could count my vote that would be great
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by saboosa 2 years ago
saboosa
Ennagirllannan13Tied
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: It was a mix-up
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Ennagirllannan13Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a great, resourceful debate with convincing arguments because of the wide variety of reasons he stated gay marriage is wrong. Pro did not provide good arguments at all and didn't clearly refute Con's points. Pro also made some grammar mistakes such as 'the the' and 'therefor.' I do not see any reason not to give conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
Ennagirllannan13Tied
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: There was a forfeit, pros points were refuted and con's points remained uncontested