Debate Rounds (4)
Marriage has been documented as religious as early as 110 where "bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exhorts, "[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust." In the 12th century[where?], women were obligated to take the name of their husbands and starting in the second half of the 16th century[where?] parental consent along with the church's consent was required for marriage." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Even now religion is primary to many marriages. In fact "The rate of satisfaction in marriage is higher for husbands and wives when both regularly maintain religious attendance and feel that God is the center of their marriage. (The State of Our Unions 2011, 31, 33)
Also saying that "If we do not let a couple marry simply due to their own sexual preferences, we are denying them a basic" is just as effective as saying that if two 8 year olds would like to get married it is their basic right to do so. Basic rights are not defined by one person. Currently it is still illegal in the United States of America for homosexuals to marry making it not a basic right.
I would now like to clarify my earlier statement of "it is still illegal in the United States of America". As there are places in the United States where homosexuals are not allowed to marry "it is still illegal in the United States of America". Now the definition for the word "right" as used above is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way"(1). As we are currently debating the moral and legal entitlement you are currently stating you are right and i am wrong, in other words a fallacy namely circular reasoning(2). Simplified you are stating It is a basic right therefore it is morally and legally correct and vice-versa.
It also appears to me that you are contradicting yourself when you say "It does not matter how important marriage" as you earlier mentioned it"simply makes it easier for them to navigate in today's society"(3). If we look at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary's definition of society "people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values" it can be noted that the tradition of marriage is losing it's place in society and therefore could be said to actually make gap between Married homosexuals and society larger than before. Other than homosexuals only religions are pushing for people to get married, and religions are also losing there place in society.
With all due respect, I do not agree with your argument that if something, i.e. Gay Marriage, is illegal in one place within a larger entity, then it should be considered illegal everywhere when referring to the entity as a hole. For instance, in California it is "Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1, 1989" (http://www.ca.gov...). That would meet your suggestion of illegal, I believe. 7 states have similar bans, all on the sale of assault weapons. The other 43 states do not have these laws. Would you say it is illegal for people to have assault weapons here in the U.S?
For your second point, Gay Marriage is a legal right in most states, which I believe makes it a basic right. We can debate morals all day long, but in the end moral ideals are in the eyes of the beholder. The the landmark case of Maynard v. Hill in 1888, the presiding judge stated "Marriage is "the most important relation in life" and "the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." In the case of Zablocki v. Redhail in 1978, the judge stated in conclusion "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
For your third point regarding my contradiction of myself, I would ask you to allow me to explain myself. When I refer to "society," I am referring to the culture and environment of the place we live in. I apologize if I used a confusing word, that was not my intent. It is absolutely easier for a married couple to deal with things like management of shared money, and shared possession of property. Not allowing homosexuals to marry would make it very difficult to do these things, as they would not receive the same benefit as their heterosexual counterparts.
Lastly, you state, "religions are losing their place in society," and "the tradition of marriage is losing it's place in society." Marriage is not losing it's place in society. If it was, why did more than two million couples marry in 2014? You also stated that religions are losing their place in society. According to the Pew Research Institute, %16 of Americans did not follow a religion. That is actually a small decrease in the number of non-religious people. That does not seem to be losing it's place in society, at least what place it actually has. Religion should be a personal thing, not something used to dictate laws. Separation of church and state.
Jubjub forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.