The Instigator
gocubsgo25
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
spartantreky616
Con (against)
Tied
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 90003
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

gocubsgo25

Pro

Today I will be debating whether or not gay marriage should have been legalized throughout the United States. I support the legislation.

Gay marriage is a very simple topic to argue, and it should be clear to all people that they deserve rights. Gay people are still people, and marriage is by definition: "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a relationship". Therefore, gay marriage should be legal. This is not a question of religion, or politics, it is a debate of morality. Do we choose to recognize gay people as less than human who do not deserve to marry that whom they love, or do we embrace them as people who have differing attractions to people than the average straight person?
spartantreky616

Con

Thank you for this opportunity. To put my basic beliefs out there, I am a Christian, and I think that gay marriage is morally wrong, so basically, I say that it shouldn't be legal. That being said, it is not the job of the federal government to make it legal or illegal on a national level. In Article 10 of the Constitution, it states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Whether gay marriage should be allowed is a decision that should be left up to each individual state. If Alabama doesn't want gay marriage in its state, but California does, then the federal government should have no right to tell either one otherwise. That's what democracy should be: The people go to their state governments and say "we want this" or "we don't want this", then the state government puts the issue out to the rest of the state population and says "do you want this?", the people vote, and depending on the vote, the laws are adjusted. I would not vote for gay marriage in my state, but if it becomes legal because of popular vote, then that is the result of the system. It is not within the power of the Supreme Court to make a federal law on June 26, 2015 allowing gay marriage in every state when it was distinctly clear that prior to the ruling by the Supreme Court, thirteen states had voted to make it illegal in their individual states. Making a decision like that is trampling on the constitutional rights of those states to make their own decisions.
Debate Round No. 1
gocubsgo25

Pro

gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.
spartantreky616

Con

On a level regarding family structure and social results , homosexual relations are unhealthy for family structure. A traditional family consists of one man, one woman, and (if any) one or more children of varying genders. Let's use a traditional marriage family that has one son in 4th grade for this example. The kid gets picked on at school and comes home with a bloody nose. The mother will most likely stoop down with a wet towel, wipe the child's face clean, and tell him that he will be alright, that mommy loves him, and that he needs to forgive the boys who hit him and not be angry too long because it doesn't matter what those boys think of him. The father will probably take him aside and tell his son what to do when he finds himself in a similar situation. A good father will tell him to only fight to defend himself. From our mothers, we learn gentleness, while from our fathers we learn how to protect, and from both we learn to stand up for ourselves. With a homosexual marriage that may potentially adopt, the child only gets one side of the spectrum, and soon, children will be too violent, or too gentle. Men and women need each other to raise a child properly, to balance the extremes found in both genders, and when that family structure is broken in the name of sexuality, then the next generation is less equipped to interact with their society.
Debate Round No. 2
gocubsgo25

Pro

gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.
spartantreky616

Con

As for the morality, Christians will always be against it because it is immoral, unnatural, and an abomination to God, along with all kinds of sexual immorality: fornication, sex before marriage, homosexuality, and bestiality. The slogan "God hates Gays" has been widely used by Christians, and I say that it is a lie. Being a true Christian, I know that God does not hate people who prefer homosexual relationships. Yes, it is an unnatural decision to be homosexual, but it does not make you less human. God loves homosexuals and is willing to forgive them if they ask for it and make the effort to change. God does not hate gays, God hates the act of homosexuality. There is a huge difference. The beautiful thing is, it's your choice. You don't have to believe in God, or believe that homosexuality is wrong, or anything like that, but each and every one of us will have to account for our actions when the time comes.
Debate Round No. 3
gocubsgo25

Pro

gocubsgo25 forfeited this round.
spartantreky616

Con

spartantreky616 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by spartantreky616 7 months ago
spartantreky616
Good point spiffy.lex, and I did so. The 14th Amendment states that the states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The key words are "due process of law". Prior to the Supreme Court ruling in 2015, every state had taken said process by bringing it to the people's vote, and 13 states said no while 37 said yes. Gay Marriage, which can be classified as a liberty, was made illegal in those 13 states within the bounds of the Constitution. The Supreme Court over stepped the "due process of law" by overriding the laws of the states. The Constitutional rights of the states were trampled on, and the vote of the people in those individual states was made null, which is a huge Constitutional violation. Every state made Gay Marriage legal or illegal in completely legal ways.
Posted by spiffy.lex 7 months ago
spiffy.lex
The con should look at the 14th amendment; That is why it shouldn't be voted on in a state level.
Posted by UNOWN301 7 months ago
UNOWN301
Another thing I will mention is that the term "Gay Marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. Marriage as traditionally defined "between a man and a women" said nothing about the sexuality of the individuals getting married. It also said nothing of race, hair color, eye color, etc. The only relevant factor to traditional marriage was sex - not sexuality. Therefore, using a term like "Gay Marriage" makes no sense because that was already allowed by the traditional definition of marriage. A more accurate term would be "Same-sex marriage". This indeed would not have been allowed by the traditional definition and therefore is the contested principle.
Posted by SmexyShrexy69 7 months ago
SmexyShrexy69
1 Corinthians 6:9
Look it up
Posted by UNOWN301 7 months ago
UNOWN301
You define marriage as "the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a relationship", however classically marriage has been defined as "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman".

Obviously, if we accept your definition, then this isn't going to be a very interesting debate because it is plainly obvious that two same-sex individuals should indeed be able to be in a union. The interesting and more relevant question is whether marriage should be defined as you have, or in its traditional sense? For example, some have proposed that we call a union between two individuals of the same sex a "civil union" rather than redefining marriage from its traditional meaning.

So its not really an interesting question that if we take your definition and decide whether same-sex couples should have that - because there is nothing to debate about that. The interesting question is whether we should redefine marriage to your definition in the first place. I think therefore, you should change your resolution to something more relevant.
No votes have been placed for this debate.