Gay Marriage

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

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.

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?

Report this Argument

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.

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...

"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?