The Instigator
raphaeljames
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
36 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/7/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 892 times Debate No: 14689
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

raphaeljames

Con

I am Con gay marriage. I believe they should be allowed a civil union but not a marriage which is specifically in a church (house of god) because the bible does not condone homosexuality.
Danielle

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent Raphael for sending me this challenge.

So far Pro has said that he is against gay marriage because marriage is a religious term and the Bible condemns homosexuality. Unfortunately this is completely false. Marriage is not only a religious term but a legal term, and carries with it a lot of legal implications to protect rights and establish certain privileges for married couples. To be married refers to a legal procedure that bounds two people and their assets. Even when religious people get married in the church, it only counts in the eyes of the law if it is sanctioned by the government. As such, to award monetary and legal privileges to one group based on sexual orientation is a blatant civil rights violation considering its ignorant and discriminatory nature.

Whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not has no bearing on this discussion considering we are supposed to live with a separation between Church and State. The church does not and should not have to recognize the marriages of homosexual couples, but the government does. It's irresponsible and unfair to suggest that civil unions replace marriage for gay people. As it stands, marriages currently have grant over 1,049 federal and state level benefits while civil unions provide merely 300 state benefits alone [1].

I could name innumerable discrepancies. For starters married couples receive A LOT of tax exemptions, gain access to medical decisions, can transfer assets to partners without tax penalty, get a lot of legal protection in terms of parenting, etc. Marriage grants a lot of protections that gay people have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees on to ensure the same protections of their partnership. Furthermore marriage must be acknowledged everywhere in the country whereas recognizing civil unions is conditional by city. I could continue, but the point is simple: civil unions are blatantly inferior to marriages in terms of protection.

In conclusion, marriage is not only a religious relationship but a legal one. While "civil unions" might be able legally become equivalent to marriage (even though they are currently FAR from it), marriage as an institution is fostered by society as a whole and has become a social construct -- not just a religious one. Atheists get married and have the lowest divorce rates in fact [2]. You cannot stop atheists from getting married, so saying marriage is a "religious" institution is simply and utterly not true. You cannot say gays shouldn't be married because of what the Bible says, considering the separation of Church and State (and marriage as an undeniable legal institution with legal meaning). Basically you simply cannot deny the equal right of homosexuals as heterosexuals to marry. Banning gay marriage has not been justified.

[1] http://gaylife.about.com...
[2] http://www.barna.org...
Debate Round No. 1
raphaeljames

Con

raphaeljames forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Please extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
raphaeljames

Con

raphaeljames forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the debate. Please extend my arguments - thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by nonentity 5 years ago
nonentity
lol theLwerd has this, hands down. I sort of feel bad for Con.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
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 nonentity 5 years ago
nonentity
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G to Pro because Con failed to capitalize God, which is kind of a big deal if you're using belief in him as part of your argument. Arguments and sources to Pro for obvious reasons. I wanted to give Pro conduct because Con forfeited, but didn't want to be accused of vote-bombing. Pro's going to win anyway :)
Vote Placed by Green_Man 5 years ago
Green_Man
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason S
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
raphaeljamesDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro because Con forfeited. Arguments - Pro because Con never responded to Pro's arguments, and didn't make any of his own. Sources - Pro for the obvious reason that Con didn't use any. Spelling - Pro, but who cares?