The Instigator
lawyer1995
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
31 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: 11/2/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,569 times Debate No: 13542
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (11)

 

lawyer1995

Pro

"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?"- Anonymous

There is nothing wrong with Gay or lesbian marriage. It may make certain people uncomfortable, but for some people, being in small spaces makes them uncomfortable. Does that make small spaces wrong? There is no logical explanation for Gay and lesbian marriage to be illegal.

1. It doesn't effect anyone except for the 2 people.

There isn't much of an argument other than that. If it doesn't harm you, then you should let it be.
Marauder

Con

Thank you for starting this debate.

Some definitions:

Gay: For this debate it does not mean ‘happy' but rather the resolution is referring to sexual attraction to people of the same gender, or homosexual. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Marriage: Biblical religious concept where two become one. http://www.intothebible.com...

Before presenting my own case I will address my opponents points.

1)Dogs are not allowed to marry because there dogs and don't know what that is. They don't seek it or care about becoming married, and neither do their owners for the most part, and if the owners they are in no way stopped from dressing up there dogs and pretending the dogs are spiritually bonded by it while the dogs wait for their owners to take off the embarrassing clothes and give them bacon.

2)The concept of ‘if it doesn't hurt you, you should let it be'. Had my opponent said ‘if it doesn't hurt you, you could survive letting it be' then I would agree that that saying would hold true all the time inherently. That is logically sound. But saying that just because isn't harming you should leave it as it is, make no attempt to change what the status quo without interference is not logically sound. If you only did what was necessary to survive and avoided the unnecessary progress would never be made.
Now the question is, what exactly is the case hear? Well its actually not cut and dry enough where considering either of the things my opponent brought up are relevant issues needed to be considered (humane treatment, equality, doesn't hurt you).
The issue of being for Gay Marriage is only relevant to the religious people that believe in the practice of the biblical concept of two people spiritually being one. If a homosexual union between two peoples spirits is consistent with that religion's (Christian) doctrines on marriage, or spiritual union, or even good and evil in general then of course Gay Marriage should be allowed to be practiced by it. But if by those beliefs that practice the belief in marriage are not consistent enough to be compatible with there being homosexual marriage then of course it would be irrational of them to practice any such thing.

Such is the case with Christian doctrine that tries to convince people their souls can become one in the union of marriage, for they do not encourage gay sex at all and even go as far as to call it a sin in many cases. They do not encourage homosexuality as good in any way so while on holding that belief it would not be rational to encourage mixing it with something they hold as a holy practice (marriage).

So because it would be inconsistent with its faith, beliefs, teaching, ect… the church should not start practicing gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
lawyer1995

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. It is my first, so I wasn't quite sure how to start it off. I will admit it was a week beginning, but I do hope to pick it up as I go along!

1) Marriage is a spiritual bonding, I agree, but the point of that quote is to say, homosexuals are people too. They should be treated as people, and not as dogs. In other words, they should be able to marry, because they know what it is, and they seek it, and care about it.

2) I would usually agree with my opponent in most cases to 'make no attempt to change what the status quo without interference is not logically sound.' But in this case, I would classify it differently. Since it makes 2 people inherently happy, and doesn't harm you, you should leave it be. This is one of the problems I have with the Christian Religion. They need to make sure if they believe it, that's how the world should be run. Just because Christianity feels it is not right for same sex marriage, doesn't mean that's how everyone feels, particularly the homosexuals. Church doesn't have to approve, but they need to let people do what is right for them.

The Church doesn't have to practice gay marriage, they need to let it alone.
Marauder

Con

I thank my opponent for her steadfast reply.

After reading my opponents argument, I think it's clear she is very confused as to just what we are arguing over. She claimed 'The Church doesn't have to practice gay marriage, they need to let it alone'
The first half of that sentence "The Church doesn't have to practice gay marriage...," is basically conceding the debate because the whole point in contention is what the church should do. As it was defined in round one marriage is a spiritual belief that two people could possible be 'one' that came out of the bible. For the nonspiritual individual this should sound as a rather crazy and inherently impossible thing as married couples do appear to still be physically separate beings.

But for the people of faith who believe in the bible that this concept came out of, they do not find it quite so crazy. So they do practice it, but the practice is based on a number of beliefs that justify it and explain the full purpose behind this seemingly crazy concept of two people becoming one, and as explained in this source http://www.intothebible.com... part of basis of this belief rather requires both genders involved
"There are two reasons for taking up the theme of marriage in a study of biblical doctrine. The first is that
the subject of marriage is an essential part of the doctrine of man. Every human being is made in the image
of God, and this is usually taken up in the doctrine of man. But, every human being also has gender, and the
image of God in us is not to be divorced from the fact that we have gender. The biblical doctrine of man
must take into account that man was created male and female. Once we take up the subject of gender, we
must press on to the subject of marriage because gender was created for marriage and its significance is
only fully realized in marriage."
So as you can see, there doctrine of marriage would just start falling apart if have only one gender involved. both man and woman is in God's image according to our teachings, so having marriage only involved one would sexist start to separate one gender or the other from the image of God, and that would not be correct or at least consistent.

My opponent speaks of the Church though and there teaching as if they are on the side of this issue that matters to a larger group then them. It is there teaching and comes out of there beliefs so altering the belief justified by their doctrines to start with would of course only be of concern to them.
I believe my opponent may be under the impression that marriage is a thing the state, or government is to be concerned with, that the reasons for practice exist somewhere outside of the church and thus they can 'leave it be' and just do there own thing. the very concept of Marriage is there own thing though! If you don't agree with the principle basis of there faith like there scripture's for example than the idea of two people becoming one become totally insane and a wishful form of thinking.
The concept that parties un-related to the church, such as the state, can be concerned with is that of civil unions, a legal concept rather than a religious of how people have chosen to live together. But this debate is not concerned with legal questions or debates but a religious one as it clearly say's 'Gay Marriage' in the resolution not 'Gay Civil Union' and Marriage was clearly defined in round on as a biblical religious concept, not a legal one.

This simply is not a question of equal treatment of people who are leaving you alone but what they themselves are going to practice.

and on a further note, equal treatment really is meaningless term when it comes to what a group 'should' or 'should not' do. At Bush Gardens when I was 8 I was not treated equally as the taller older people than me when they refused to let me ride roller coasters like the LockNess Monster http://www.buschgardens.com.... But they would have been daft to let me on, I just didn't qualify to get on the ride I was too short. the reasons for creating those prerequisites were sound of course for my own safety. likewise with marriage seeing as it is only justified as being practiced for certain prerequisite line of reasoning (stuff the bible teaches) then it goes to follow that the way practice must be justified in line with those prerequisite line's of reasoning. And marriage between the same genders simply dont match the criteria for what marriage is in the first place.

I 'wanted' and 'seeked after' riding the roller coaster when I was 8, but I just didn't qualify because of height. It's just a fact that the rides design was not made for my participation at the time, nothing wrong with that, you can not accuse Bush Gardens of treating me more like a dog than a human because dogs are also without exception not allowed to ride the roller coaster. It's a strawman to even bring it up that dogs are not allowed on the ride.
Debate Round No. 2
lawyer1995

Pro

I would as well, like to thank my opponent for the speedy reply.

1) My opponent only seems to have 1 religion on their mind, Christianity. To get the big picture, you must keep a broad view. There are Religions that accept homosexuality, for instance, Unitarian Universalist, Episcopal, and Lutheran. Each of those Religions can spiritually bond 2 people.

2) My opponent claims "Every human being is made in the image of God." Before going any further, I'd like my opponent to prove "God." If my opponent cannot prove God, nearly everything she has said would be a insufficient claim.

3) Again my opponent brings up the Christian Church, Marriage can be under the Episcopal Church, thus the Church is accepting the homosexuality.

4) I'm not quite sure what my opponent meant to prove when she mentioned a roller coaster. I believe she is trying to say she was treated like a dog when she was not able to ride the coaster. As she also stated earlier, dogs would have no urge to ride the coaster, in fact strapping them in would be a difficult enough task, just because the dog wouldn't corporate. As for the safety part, Gay marriage is not a unsafe in any way.
Marauder

Con

My opponent might not be aware of this because she is a girl, but we guy's are kind of insulted when you refer to us as a 'she'.
If your too lazy to look at my profile and see that I'm a dude please stick to non-gender specific terms when referring to me like 'my opponent' or 'Con'.

To begin I am not sure why my opponent listed one argument twice in both bullets 1) and 3). Maybe she thought I had 2 different cases that took the same answer, but she did not spell out just what cases she responding two with 1) and 3).
Whatever the case I shall respond to both with the same argument, since points 1) and 3) are identical.

You will all note that not once did I say 'Christian' church, but rather just 'Church', I did not spell out anything that could entail I was speaking of a particular denomination, but rather only the whole ecumenical church that follows the bible that the strange concept of marriage came out of.
To point out that some of the denominations in the ecumenical church do the practice of gay marriage would be circular reasoning http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu... . You see for showing the church should not practice gay marriage I gave a line of reasoning as to what there bible taught and what would be consistent to the teaching of marriage. My opponent simply cited that some churches are practicing gay marriage, ergo it must be right (the 'ergo it must be right' I did kind of add but since my opponent did not actually state her point I can only assume that was what she was going for). Well I am saying they are wrong and inconsistent with what they teach about marriage when they fail two include both the existing genders in the human race. If you want to stand behind what the Unitarian Universalist teach you will have to present there actual arguments and line of reasoning for it rather than just point out 'well they teach it!' At the very least give a link to article with an argument and line of reasoning of some kind pertaining to this debate.

Now for bullet 2). It's rather a cheap debate tactic to go 'prove god!' in the very last round of the debate. That particular debate resolution is worthy of having two 5 round debates dedicated to it and I am but given 1? Luckily for the sake of what is relevant in this debate I do not have too. If my opponent challenges me to 'prove God' then I should have the right to equally challenge my opponent to 'prove marriage' every case of marriage I have seen seems that the individuals remain individuals don't they? prove that two people could ever become 'one flesh'. You cant because this is a spiritual belief to start with, with its origins rooted in the bible. If you are to assume marriage should be done at all (strait or gay) that belief requires God. So belief in God and belief in marriage both go hand in hand. If there is a case argued to justify the seemingly nonsensical teaching of marriage that does not use God as a very real being in its line of reasoning I certainly have not herd and even more important for the voting audience of this debate, by opponent did not present whatever this mysterious line of reasoning would be either.

Last, bullet 4). No the point of the roller coaster analogy was not to make a case about safeness or unsafeness of gay marriage, although such arguments of that kind do exist (the AIDS one), I am sorry if it came off like that because I am not using that case in this debate. The point was about design and what that means for the 'unjustness' or 'human' treatment in something. I do not in anyway think I treated like a dog because I could not ride the LockNess Monster at Busch Gardens when I was 8, In fact that was my who point. That it's a straw-man to press that dogs are not allowed to marry thus no gay marriage is treating gay's like dogs, because the reasons behind not practicing it have nothing to do with non-equal treatment out of bigotry or hatred. People are not allowed on roller coaster's if they are not tall enough. the coaster is not designed for me to ride it. marriage was not designed to be done without two different genders in it. You should not say I am being treated like a dog when the Park Staff with the measuring stick blocks my passage to the roller coaster, and likewise you should not say gay's are treated like dogs because they cannot marry. It's just the fact of what marriage is and how it works that it does not work for gays, nothing un-humane or dog-like treatment too it.

Voters, you of course are to vote at your own good judgment and however you like, but if it would please you to hear just a few of my own thought one the point distribution for this debate, then (if you do not care then just ignore the following).......

....spelling and grammar: Tie, I don't feel like I made any mistakes this debate, but then again considering my past history I would not be surprised if all gave this to Pro because I did in fact make some that I am unaware off.

arguments: Now, if you are of an opposite stance to me on this issue and have no doubt I would lose a debate to you on this topic, do you think I lost to the opponent I had for this debate?

Conduct: If you think this one was a tie I would like to point out that Pro refereed to me as a girl.

Sources: my opponent does not have source, not even for things that would be easy to source like the fact that the episcopal church is pro gay marriage. This would have been a far more challenging debate had she sourced a little more including that churches apologetic cases for a one gender marriage. however no such thing was done.

That is all, I thank my opponent for debate.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
I'm with the libertarians on this one. Why the hell is government involved in marriage anyways? And I never understood why non-religious people wanted to get married?
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
Yurlene
@opinionated_girl
Actually most LGBTQ people are people of faith. You make over-generalizations on people as well as stereotype them.
Your so called fact is your opinion. I know for a fact that homosexuality is not a choice, but partaking in any religion is a choice.
Those people that thought they were "curious," would be considered to be "bi-curious" and not gay.
So if you did not "choose" to be straight but made that way, wouldn't it be the same for gays?

Have to understand this though. Its not about blaming God or anything like that, at least to me personally. Its just wrong to use God to justify blind hate towards another person. Its the people who uses God and his word as a shield to mask their ignorance and hatred. A bit different from hating something/someone that doesn't really exist in the first place ~_~
Posted by opinionated_girl 6 years ago
opinionated_girl
@Ste93 Yes I am straight, but it doesn't mean I "gay bash." Usually homosexuals are athiest, because who wants to believe something that is condemning them to a lake of fire for all eternity? I know for a fact though, that homosexuality is a choice. I know a few people who have been in conflict with their sexual orientation and thought they were either gay or bi, but realized later, that it was just curiousity. And no, we can't literally see God, but there is proof all around. The joining of sperm and egg creates a burst of light, just like at the beginning of the world(God's doings). DNA being perfectly put together to create every fiber in your being. The way the gravity holds us perfect to where we don't burn from the sun, or freeze from being too far away. Everything works hand in hand too perfectly to say that it "just happened from an explosion." The problem nowdays is that people don't look to God, they look to religion and that is where they fail. Religion does nothing, and when people are let down by other people, they blame God.
@Marauder Yes God judges us for sin, but it's just like a test in school, with more on the line of course. The teacher gives you the material, teaches it to you, and gives you the base line of what will be expected, just like God. And yes sin is a natural thing, but God expects you to try not to do so. Just like having manners in public, even though burping is a natural thing, you don't do it at the table all free willy and not excuse yourself. Yes everyone is born with the tendency to want to sin, but we have God to help us fight the temptation.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@Ste93: "To say 'you must conform to this set of beliefs to enter into an official commitment with the person you love' is profoundly unfair and ridiculous."
this is true; and I would not argue a debate were marriage was defined as an official commitment with someone, for this debate though it was defined as that strange concept of two people becoming one.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@oppinonated_girl: actually, even if you take it as an axiom that gay's are not born gay, you still do not eliminate the fact that the people god judges to go to hell will have acted in a very 'natural' way. Sin is not an unnatural tendency for man, and from experience I think it can be reasoned that almost everyone is born with a greater tendency to one particular sin than other sins and more inclined to it than other people might be, this sin most often being referred to as our 'infirmity' by old scholars http://new.gbgm-umc.org....
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
@ opinionated_girl - are you for real? You're just putting us on right? You need to come into the forums; you'll have fun there.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@mageist24: we certainly invited the best apologetic for saying two people can become one. all other attempts at justifying it fail. Ours does not though.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
@rainman715: it's not like it was my only source and it I only used it in defining gay, something I didn't expect my opponent to actually need to look up anyway. Wikipiedia is good enough for definitions anyway since definitions are not were you prove stuff in a debate but rather define what terms mean for the rest of the debate. so the wiki page's I think did a sufficient job enough of making it clear by 'gay' i did not mean 'happy' or 'lame' but rather 'homosexual'
@lawyer1995: okay, thanks for making that clear, consider us cool now.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
appalling*
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
excuse me for the appauling spelling mistakes!
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: equal rights all the wya
Vote Placed by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 BenMitchell 6 years ago
BenMitchell
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Checkmark-1 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 Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by opinionated_girl 6 years ago
opinionated_girl
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by vickynoh 6 years ago
vickynoh
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Rainman715 6 years ago
Rainman715
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Evolution078 6 years ago
Evolution078
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by pbplk58 6 years ago
pbplk58
lawyer1995MarauderTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32