The Instigator
wayneii308
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
lovelife
Con (against)
Winning
32 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,473 times Debate No: 12815
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (11)

 

wayneii308

Pro

I believe gay marriage should be legal. The fact of denying happiness to human being IN THIS CASE is unacceptable.
lovelife

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. I will use this round to define terms.

marriage "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"a state of well-being and contentment "
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I will allow my opponent to make the first arguments and again thank him for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
wayneii308

Pro

I thank my opponent for being so gracious about this. Its nice to discuss with you for my first time on the site. :)

I would like to point out that the definition she has pointed out is incomplete and the full definition stated is:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

I would like to start off by saying that denying gays the right to wed is denying them happiness. If that's what would make them happy, it isn't out of reason.

If two men or two women are in a deep, committed, romantic relationship, why shouldn't they be able to see each other if one is desperately ill and in the hospital?
lovelife

Con

I would like to tell my opponent that I also enjoy talking to him for the first time on this site, and its been a long time since I've been been a devil's advocate, so I just hope I do a decent job.

I would like to ask my opponent why gay marriage should be included. Those in homosexual relationships can get the same rights without marriage per se. What does marriage do that a power of attorny cannot? Why should gay marriage be allowed, when marriage itself was started by the religious, which deem gays as unacceptable, or hell-bound?

In the OT for example those that are gay should be put to death. When Jesus came he made the punishment on earth less severe but did not erase the crime. Why should homosexuals be allowed to "dirty" religious institutions, when by their nature they are against religion.
I understand there are religious homosexuals, and they may have a personal relationship with God, but that does not refute that God would not want Gay marriage to be legal when it clearly goes against his rules.

Gays should be given the same rights, however they can get the same rights without changing an institution founded by a religion which by its nature hates them, or at the very least does not want to accept them.

I await my opponents responce.
Debate Round No. 2
wayneii308

Pro

Gay's should be offered the binding certificate of marriage because being married in the United States gains the couple 1,400 civil liberties they wouldnt otherwise have. Theses include, joint adoption, joint taxes etc...

In the bible, it clearly states, All people are created equal. So shouldn't they have the right to wed? Our country was founded on the premises that all men are created equal. In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By not allowing them to wed, I think we are taking away the ability of the pursuit of happiness, thus violating the constitution.

Sources:
http://www.ushistory.org...

http://www.religioustolerance.org...
lovelife

Con

"Gay's should be offered the binding certificate of marriage because being married in the United States gains the couple 1,400 civil liberties they wouldnt otherwise have. Theses include, joint adoption, joint taxes etc..."

That is exactly why they should not be allowed to wed. If you give tax breaks to everyone that just "feels an emotion" and giving them free money for doing nothing you are destroying the very meaning of that institution. The tax breaks and many other benefits are for those that might unknowingly have children so they can help prepare easier. By giving it to just anybody you are taking away from it's meaning.
Adoption should not be up to homosexual couples since children need a male and female parent in order to be raised correctly and idealy. Children should have influences from both sexes, not just from two males or two females.
Further as far as tax breaks because they may have children even with adoption and other options to aquire children it is always a choice, not an accident, and should be better prepared for then when hetero-sexual couples have children, thus making the money purposes worthless.

"In the bible, it clearly states, All people are created equal."

Where does it say that? I've heard things about the Chosen People in the bible, but not everyone is equal. Love thy neighbor as thyself maybe, but not everyone is equal, to my knowlage.

" Our country was founded on the premises that all men are created equal. In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

By not allowing them to wed, I think we are taking away the ability of the pursuit of happiness, thus violating the constitution."

How is civil unions, or a power of attorny any lesser than marriage? They can be perfectly happy without it being marriage, but instead something different where they have rights that pertain to them.

"Canada legalized same-sex marriage in mid-2005. Meanwhile other states have created civil unions and domestic partnerships that same-sex couples can enter into and obtain some or all of these state benefits."
What is wrong with civil unions or domestic partnership?
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by country77 6 years ago
country77
me personally im not much on gay marraige, and if this was a subject of religion then of course i would be Against it........BUT.....if this has to do with if it should be Legal, then im alright with it bienf legal, because abortion is legal.....so just on that alone then i think gay marraige should be legal even though i am really against gay marraige......a person cant say "if its legaL THEN ITS OK".....cause there are many stupid things tyhat are legal and allowed by law......so even though this debate has nothing to do with abortion, and even though i hate the thought of gay marraige, i will have to go against my own thoughts on gay marraige and go PRO for it just on the thought that killing babies are legal, so the law dont need to act all "moral" when it comes to gay marraige.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Panda, I was just using arguments used against me in the past. I know it was all BS.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Wow, Lovelife really did a bad job in this. Pro was right to change that biased definition she gave. Her first argument about "civil union, not marriage" was quickly debunked, and her argument about tax breaks and the need for 2 sexes in a marriage was unsourced BS. Arguments and sources to Pro.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Oh wow thats all? grr I'm sorry I didn't mean to bring in questions and stuff in the last round. I just got caught up Dx
Posted by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
I changed it for the haters.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
I would take it. I want to learn more about each side.
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
*Cricket chirp*
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
"It does specify in the big black letters that say Gay Marriage at the top of the page. "

Irrelevant, which is the point you appear to be missing. Your argument is "to human being" which has 0 to do with context in regards to the validity of your argument. That you can apply that argument to specific cases doesn't negate that your claim is not specific to the resolution itself.

For your argument to be solely restricted to gay marriage, it would need an additional qualifier along the lines of 'only in the case of gay marriage' or similar - which while it doesn't make your argument, or lack of, any better, it does restrict it to the resolution.
Posted by Alex 6 years ago
Alex
That represents the resolution, yes. Sigh, good luck here on DDO mate.
Posted by wayneii308 6 years ago
wayneii308
It does specify in the big black letters that say Gay Marriage at the top of the page. Pretty strict to me.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 
Vote Placed by opinionated_girl 6 years ago
opinionated_girl
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 CarmenAnu 6 years ago
CarmenAnu
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by clucas 6 years ago
clucas
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by alyssa_16 6 years ago
alyssa_16
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Mac 6 years ago
Mac
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by BobMarleyIsDead 6 years ago
BobMarleyIsDead
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 Postup10101 6 years ago
Postup10101
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Grantarp 6 years ago
Grantarp
wayneii308lovelifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03