The Instigator
ConservativilyLiberal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
EndarkenedRationalist
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
EndarkenedRationalist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 755 times Debate No: 63147
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

ConservativilyLiberal

Con

I do not support Gay marriage, I understand with the increasing number of people accepting it, it is to be legalized in many parts of the world soon. However i want to argue agaisnt it. Not from a religious view, since I understand that whomever is agaisnt me may not be of a Christian belief.
EndarkenedRationalist

Pro

I would like to welcome my opponent to the site and extend my hopes for a fruitful debate!

I accept your challenge. I will be arguing in favour of the legalisation of gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativilyLiberal

Con

Thank You for the welcome!

First off, the use of religious Text cannot be used, even though im a Christian, i dont derive my argument from here.

Although I support Civil Unions (making it constitutionally legal, and fair for everyone, since its endorsed by all Governmential and Political institution), However Marriage has traditionally been an Religious practice, and Homosexual marriage underminds all major religions (i am not using text, i am using historical facts). underminding a once Holy and very special practice is very offencive.

Marriage between a man and a woman is as natural as the wind. And according to Science, the purpose of life, mandatory to the continuation of an species is to "Be born, grow, reproduce, and die", if you cut off born, well, youre never born, thus dont exist; grow, you cant grow enough to gather food or to make food, and are most likely eaten or killed; reproduce (my point) to continue your species, this, according to science, is critical. And Die, if we didnt die, we would be Gods.

I will leave some views open for you to introduce, on round three we will argue against the points we have given, dont argue agaisnt my points until round 3... only introduce 2 more.

Good Luck :)
EndarkenedRationalist

Pro

I agree that religious text should not be a part of this debate. Therefore we will refrain from discussing Scriptural interpretations and Biblical hermeneutics.


Contention 1: Marriage Is A Civil Right.

In the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, Chief Justice Warren wrote that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men" [1]. This struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriages, largely as a violation of the 14th Amendment's right to equality under the law. The situation with gay marriage bears a striking resemblance to that of interracial marriage. Both were banned based on an immutable characteristic; both violate the 14th Amendment's right to due process and equality under the law. To grant some couples (white heterosexuals) the right to marry and deny it to others does, unmistakably, violate that right.

Nor is this the only case where the Supreme Court has established marriage as a civil right. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled with the notion of marriage as a civil right in 14 cases [2].

Subpoint A: The Status Of Law In A Democratic Society

The United States is founded with the idea that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The United States is not a theocracy. Religion has no role, nor should it have a role, in state affairs. Even if it was true that marriage belongs to religion, which I have disproven, the fact that America is governed by secular law would nullify any role religion has in saying who marries whom. Churches and other areas of worship are not essential to a wedding ceremony. Public officials, such as magistrates or justices of the peace, can perform what is called a civil marriage [3] - that is, a marriage without religious interference.

Subpoint B: Denying Homosexuals The Right To Marry Deprives Them of Liberties

Because homosexuals cannot, in many states, be legally married, they are denied several protections and benefits that are granted to their heterosexual counterparts. For instance, if one partner dies, the other is not able to automatically inherit the property or personal items of the other without a will [4]. They also cannot draw Social Security from the deceased partner as a heterosexual can. They are not covered by family leave, and they are denied hospital visitation rights [4]. They can't even file joint tax returns, not to mention that they are denied any tax credits for children. That heterosexual marriages receive all these and homosexuals do not is a case of discrimination and inequality before the law. Consequently, it stands in violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States.

Therefore, in order illegalize gay marriage, we must find a compelling, secular reason to do so, especially since the majority of Americans support the legalization of gay marriage [5]. This is CON's task. If he is unable to provide a compelling, secular reason to illegalize gay marriage, then I win this debate.

Contention 2: Many Religious Groups Support Gay Marriage

This is a fairly self-explanatory point. Despite what some conservative Christians may believe, there are many religious groups that accept homosexuality. These include [6]:

Reform and conservative Judaism

The Episcopal Church (which stated an opposition to banning same-sex marriage and support unions)

The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

The United Church of Christ

Society of Friends (Quakers)

The Evangelical Lutheran Church

The Presbyterian Church (which supports same-sex unions)

Contention 3: Gay Marriage Has Economic Benefits

Marriage, like just about everything else, is a business. Profit is a golden incentive. Legalizing gay marriage could send the marriage industry skyrocketing. Forbes reports that legalizing gay marriage would bring about $16.8 billion to the marriage industry [7]. Not that the marriage industry has been stagnant, but this is a venture with a large benefit and very little/no cost. USA Today agrees that legalizing gay marriage could help beneficial impacts on businesses [8].

Next round will be refutations. I look forward to CON's responses!

Debate Round No. 2
ConservativilyLiberal

Con

ConservativilyLiberal forfeited this round.
EndarkenedRationalist

Pro

Since CON didn't get a chance to refute my argument, it wouldn't be fair of me to do it to him.

Extend my contentions.
Debate Round No. 3
ConservativilyLiberal

Con

ConservativilyLiberal forfeited this round.
EndarkenedRationalist

Pro

And extend my arguments again

Thank you! Please vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by EndarkenedRationalist 2 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
You know, I had hope that this wouldn't be a forfeit.
Posted by Mr.Lee 2 years ago
Mr.Lee
Well, I think that gay marriages will decrease the amount of drama over it. Sadly, I think that the homosexual
population will go out of style, just like hippies did. I think it is a fad, to be honest.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
ConservativilyLiberalEndarkenedRationalistTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ConservativilyLiberalEndarkenedRationalistTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, pro only one to use sources
Vote Placed by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
ConservativilyLiberalEndarkenedRationalistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's grammar was awful and he forfeited.