The Instigator
Dr.Zoos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
14 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...
johngriswald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 901 times Debate No: 10320
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

Dr.Zoos

Pro

Anyone looking to debate the topic of gay marriage? It's my topic for debate in English class and would like to test my knowledge. My stance is that homosexuals should be allowed to marry another person of the same sex. 4 rounds. 1st round accept challenge and if you would like to, state your argument against, or I will begin in 2nd round.
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate.

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation.

Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I that Gay marriage should not be allowed from a moral standpoint

Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: marriage, explain the rights you would entitle gays (for example are you against giving the rights that come with marriage to gays or simply not for allowing them to use the word marriage. Those arguments are two completely different ones. Are you against it from a moral, religious or legal standpoint?

Supporting Information - This is where you would include the scripture against it depending on what religion you are arguing from, if you are indeed arguing from a religious perspective. If you are arguing from a moral perspective you would include why you view gay marriage as wrong (using logical points) and include facts and research that proves that Gay marriage is immoral. If you are arguing from a legal perspective you would give precedents from case law, and explain why those court cases precedent should not logically be overturned.

Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.Zoos

Pro

Thank you for accepting and good luck to you as well.

I will stand on the side for gay marriage, morally and legally. You may present your religious argument if you would like.

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).
http://www.medterms.com...

marriage-the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Homosexuals are continually denied civil rights in this nation. Marriage, adoption, the right to openly serve in the military, and the benefits that come with a marriage. Homosexuals have been given the right to a civil union, but a civil union is not of equal value as a marriage. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to marry, not just for the rights, but to show their love for each other in front of their families and loved ones.

Homosexuality is a genetic condition, and by denying homosexuals rights based on a genetic condition equivalent to depriving African Americans of their rights. Our nation realized it's mistake it made against African Americans, yet it continually discriminates homosexuals.

Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois, comes from studies of genetically male infants born with malformed or ambiguous genitals. In many such cases, surgeons would construct a vagina, and instruct parents to raise the child as a girl, with no knowledge of his medical history.
As adults, those prenatally male/postnatally female people were virtually all attracted to women, Bailey said.
"If you can't make a male attracted to other males by cutting off his penis, castrating him and rearing him as a girl, then how likely is any social explanation of male homosexuality?" he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent will likely argue that many religions frown upon homosexuality, but homosexuals are denied the right to marry on a federal level, where there is a seperation of church and state.

The first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion." Yet, the GOVERNMENT forbids homosexuals from receiving the religious sacrament of marriage.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexual relationships are not immoral. Immoral based on religion? Yes, but again there is the seperation of church and state.

"There's no reason that the government should prevent homosexuals from entering civil marriages because some religions object to the concept, any more than the government should ban atheism because some religions object to it." - Lisa Pampuch - newspaper columnist
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Homosexuals are only offered a fraction of the one thousand and forty-nine benefits with a civil union that heterosexual couples are offered with a marriage. Homosexuals are denied hospital visitation, healthcare, the ability to collect benefits upon death of a spouse, the ability to sue for wrongful death, and the entitlement to joint title on property. These rights are only given in the states that allow homosexuals the opportunity of a civil union or the right to marry, however, these rights are not recognized on the federal level. In some of the states that allow civil unions and the right to marry, the couple can file jointly for state taxes. On the federal level, homosexuals cannot file jointly because the relationship is not recognized.
johngriswald

Con

I thank my opponent for both his timely response and his excellently organized points, contentions, definitions and supporting information, I look forward to debating him.

I would like to start out by accepting my opponent's definition of homosexual, however I would like to contest his definition of marriage.

My opponent and I both agree that the first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion."

I completely agree with both the US constitution and my opponent on this point.

However, my opponent and I disagree on the definition and the meaning of marriage. Basically there are two main institutions of marriage. There is a Civil Marriage, and there is a Religious Marriage.

DEFINITIONS

Civil Marriage - a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.
Religious Marriage - considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

Now obviously these are two very different things, however they confusingly use the same word "Marriage". There is a religious ceremony, and then there is a legal aspect to marriage. My opponent and I both agree they should remain completely separate. After all, why should religion have a say in the rights and benefits of a partnership? We all share different faiths ideas and opinions (and sometimes no faiths). Furthermore why should government have a say in a religious ceremony? After all it is unconstitutional that a government should make any law respecting that of a religion.

Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage. Marriage is commonly known as a religious ceremony. In fact even my opponent recognized the word "marriage" to be such when he stated: "Yet, the GOVERNMENT forbids homosexuals from receiving the religious sacrament of marriage."

You'll notice that my opponent said "religious sacrament of marriage" he clearly views marriage as being part of a religious institution.

I would also like to concede and agree with my opponent that homosexual relationships are not immoral.

To conclude: Legally homosexuals partners should have the same rights that heterosexual partners have. However, marriage should be considered a religious institution as it is commonly known as such. Thus, it is unconstitutional for government to make any laws respecting the institution of marriage. The word marriage is commonly recognized by our society as having one with religious connotations, which my opponent also agrees with. Society gives words their meaning. In the past the word faggot was a term known for a bundle of wood, however today, the word faggot is a derogatory term used to insult homosexuals. Thus since society recognizes in large the word marriage as being a word to describe a religious ceremony, it should be considered as such and should not have any government interference. If a particular religion wants to allow homosexuals to participate in a religious ceremony it should be allowed to. If a particular religion wants to prohibit homosexuals from participating in a religious ceremony it should also be allowed to

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate and look forward to his rebuttal in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.Zoos

Pro

I greatly respect my opponent for conceding the thought that homosexual relationships are immoral as well as the ban the government has placed upon gay marriage.

But, my opponent says "Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage."

Currently, there are nine states that allow homosexuals the right to a civil union. These civil unions still do not allow homosexuals all of the legal rights as heterosexuals are given. Homosexuals are denied Social Security benefits, Immigration Rights, and the right to file jointly for Federal taxes.

My opponent also says "Thus since society recognizes in large the word marriage as being a word to describe a religious ceremony, it should be considered as such and should not have any government interference. If a particular religion wants to allow homosexuals to participate in a religious ceremony it should be allowed to. If a particular religion wants to prohibit homosexuals from participating in a religious ceremony it should also be allowed to"

With which upon I will agree, but the fact is that this has not happened. If gay marriage were to be legalized, and churches has the right to present homosexual couples with the sacrament of marriage, then they should have a choice. Some churches today still even turn away interracial couples for marriage.

I do believe this is immoral and racist however.

Many argue that the Bible frowns upon homosexuality, but not once is the term homosexual or gay mentioned in the bible.

Matthew 22:37-40 states, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The passage states love thy neighbour as thyself, yet those that are religious obviously discriminate another based on sexual orientation.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 states "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed"
johngriswald

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his timely response.

My opponent stated: "These civil unions still do not allow homosexuals all of the legal rights as heterosexuals are given. Homosexuals are denied Social Security benefits, Immigration Rights, and the right to file jointly for Federal taxes."

You will see in my conclusion that I completely agree that legally homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals in a civil union when I stated in my conclusion: "Legally homosexuals partners should have the same rights that heterosexual partners have."

"With which upon I will agree, but the fact is that this has not happened."

It absolutely has happened:
"The UCC's general synod passed a resolution affirming "equal rights for couples regardless of gender".

The decision is not binding and will not require pastors to marry same-sex couples, though some already do."
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk...

My opponent has agreed and accepted my new definition of marriage. The first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion. Furthermore there are many religious institutions that allow gays to marry. My argument is, that it is unconstitutional ( for the government to make any law respecting what religion can and can't do. Instead the government only has authority over the civil union process and not the religious ceremony.

"I do believe this is immoral and racist however."
A religion can do whatever it wants.

"Many argue that the Bible frowns upon homosexuality, but not once is the term homosexual or gay mentioned in the bible."
Actually it is quite explicity mentioned in the new testament by Paul

Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

So you cannot blame some christians for feeling as they do. However the same apostle (Paul) who had those thoughts on homosexuality also had these thoughts on marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:1 "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry."

1 Corinthians 7: 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Also old testament law does not apply anymore.

You'll notice that Peter is not God when he gives directions from God in Corinthians 7:10 he says "not I, but the Lord" Which is different from Corinthians 7:8 when he uses the words "I say".

Do I believe that Gay marriage should be allowed in the Christian church? Absolutely. However I also believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to make any law that forces or prohibits a Religion to do anything (in a religious context that doesn't violate anyone's rights etc.)

To Conclude: My opponent accepted my definition of marriage as being one that is a religious ceremony. My opponent himself stated that "The first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that 'respect an establishment of religion' " Therefore my opponent completely agrees with my side that it is unconstitutional for a government to either legalize or illegalize gay marriage from the basic premise that it is unconstitutional. We should allow each individual relgious institution decide for itself whether to allow it or not. Those that do will gain a great set of people. Those that don't will miss out on what the homosexual community has to offer.
Debate Round No. 3
Dr.Zoos

Pro

Dr.Zoos forfeited this round.
johngriswald

Con

Unfortunate for the forfeit. Extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Eresgoth 7 years ago
Eresgoth
Dr.Zoos posted that there is nowhere in the Bible where the term homosexual or gay is used, I would beg to differ and I will only post one area because his claim was universal and thus only needs one example to be proven otherwise.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality, Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God."

-Corinthians 6:9-10 (Taken from the Amplified Bible)
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
My personal view on gay marriage: it should be legalized, all homosexuals should receive the exact same rights as heterosexuals. I personally believe their love is equivalent to any other's love.

Why did I take this debate? Because it was one of the few open debates and any good debater can debate against a side he doesn't believe in, also because I misread your stance on gay marriage thinking you were against it. However lulz, I will do my best.
Posted by Freedomaniac 7 years ago
Freedomaniac
Here's my view on gay marriage:

When people ask me if I'm for the legalization of gay marriage, I must ask in return; why is it that marriage itself must be legally recognized? If two people want to live together and share their wealth, then that's all there is to it, there's no need for government to get into peoples' social lives.--Marriage licenses?!--Is it not a private matter? Why should this even be a political issue? The government has nothing to do with it. So, no, I'm not for the legalization of gay marriage, I'm for the delegalization of marriage.
Posted by johngriswald 7 years ago
johngriswald
Also I apologize for the use of her.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dr.Zoos 6 years ago
Dr.Zoos
Dr.ZoosjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Dr.ZoosjohngriswaldTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Dr.ZoosjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07