The Instigator
nkastner
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Aaronroy
Con (against)
Winning
18 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 4 votes the winner is...
Aaronroy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,576 times Debate No: 15136
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

nkastner

Pro

Gay Marriage should be legalized, for if two people love one another, who are we to interfere? There are no reasons why gay marriage shouldnt be legalized. Marriage is about love and gender shouldnt matter.
Aaronroy

Con

I accept this debate. However, I do believe gay marriage should be legal, the majority DOES rule. Currently, the majority of the US population (assuming this is terms to gay marriage on US soil) is against gay marriage. Thus, I am going con to support the majority of the Americans. I await your contentions for round two.
Debate Round No. 1
nkastner

Pro

If you are for gay marriage why are you arguing against it.but my argument is this .....people dont choose to be gay, they are born to be gay..choosing to be gay would mean choosing to be ridiculed, laughed at, and disliked by many. its not a choice they make willingly, its a choice they have to make because they were born this way..so why should we ridicule them for it?
As for the religion factor dosent god accept all people for who they are and dosent the bible stress loving people for themselves...these people call themselves "good christans" well god is about accepting everybody so how is denying people..a way of religon and or god.
and on top of that what happened to the seperation of the church and the state? Religon was seperated from goverment for a reason and has been seperated for this reason...there is no reason why religion should be brought into religion...
Aaronroy

Con

1) Response to 1s contention
Yes, I agree there are cases in which some people are born homosexual, but that doesn't automatically imply that they should be given the right to marry. The right to marry has to be determined by the People, of which the majority do not approve of a Federal law allowing gay marriage abroad the nation. If a law were to be passed without the consent of the People, the law would be infringing on the values set down by our forefathers nearly 230 years ago. In short, it doesn't matter if gay marriage is right or wrong; it's if it is right in the PEOPLE'S eyes is the true matter.

2) I never said anything about religion, nor do I find it relevant. Also, it's not only Christians who disapprove of Homosexuals. Atheist, Muslims, Hindus, and various other beliefs have members of which frown upon homosexuality. As a baptists, my religious society doesn't frown upon homosexuality- but that doesn't change what is right and wrong, it's what the majority rules it as, stated before in my response to the 1st contention. Thus, I conclude referring religious beliefs to homosexuality is irrelevant.

In response, I'm going CON because allowing gay marriage goes against the majority of US citizens. In the USA, the majority rules. By the people, for the people.

Vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
nkastner

Pro

And where are the statistics that show majority is against it? On top of that how does a gay marriage affect these people? If two gay people get married how does it affect your life? Shouldnt the gays have the choice over the majority...it affects the gays not the majority..On top of that gays are currently not receiving the same rights as straight people, because of there sexuality should they really be deprived of Rights? Currently gays can't enlist in the army and gay partners of policemen cant receive the benefits of their significant other strictly because of their sexual choice how is that right?finally god is about loving all people,therefore religions against gays are going against god
Aaronroy

Con

Please, for the love of decency, DROP THE RELIGIOUS SUBJECT. I'm not arguing over religious approval, I'm arguing over the rule of the People. Your contention of religious people "loving" gays is fruitless and without avail, for I have no wish to argue against it, for religion goes far beyond politics.

http://abcnews.go.com...

55% opposed gay marriage, 37% for gay marriage.

No, gays should not have a choice above the majority. That's like having a bill open to Congress in the Democrats mindset, but Democrats liberals can vote on the bill- most likely resulting in a 100% approval. That kind of ideology is the mentality of a common tyrant, thinking he is above the common man and said tyrant instituting a single-party system. A bill legalizing same-sex marriage affects the entire society. The common straight male does, indeed, feel uncomfortable around homosexuals- not that he would express his uncomfortable status. I'm not stating the male's comfortable status being in jeopardy as my MAIN counter-argument, I'm just clarifying that the law would not ONLY affect the homosexuals.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not some Marxist dictatorship or National Socialist skin-head regime. Here in America, the PEOPLE rule. The PEOPLE decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. And if the PEOPLE ruled that gay marriage should not be allowed, that is the GRAND ruling.

My opponent concludes that gay marriage should become a Federal law, and that the voice of the People should be ignored. Gay Marriage infringes on the power of the majority of Americans, thus I urge you to vote CON
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by R.Trenbath 5 years ago
R.Trenbath
Sorry- that posted twice. Anyone know how to get rid of one?
Posted by R.Trenbath 5 years ago
R.Trenbath
nkastner-
You are right concerning the separation of church and state, but to consider that the only type of codified relationship available to a person is a religious one is to make the very mistake you warn of. Same-sex relationships should indeed be recognised by law, but NOT in the context of a religious relationship where it is against the codes of that religion. It is to force the state upon the church and is blurring that boundary you yourself made distinct. A same-sex relationship should be recognised by the state but not by the church under the auspcies of 'marriage'. In Britain they're called civil partnerships and are equal to marriage in law.. Not sure if you have them over in the USA..

I appreciate your primary concern for the welfare of people though :)

Aaronroy-
Marriage, as a Christian institution, has everything to do with religion. So I refute your attempt to separate the two as it unfairly unbalances the debate and falls prey to the mixing of church and state. For this reason also I am against gay marriage; if a religion sets itself up to hold absolute and universal moral codes given it by some omnipotent ancient being it shouldn't change those codes to appease modern society. That populism is to risk hypocracy and display an entire lack of integrity.

In regards the tyranny of the majority- it is unpopular minorities whom charters and bills of rights exist to protect. In almost any society the majority can look after itself. I also refute your central dependence on logic as a measure of morality, in particular regards the majority. The greatest pleasure for the greatest number (utilitarianism), as an aggregation of individual happiness where no personal interaction is required, may seem logical but does not amount to what is morally just. The Christians thrown to the lions example, where the spectator majority Romans derived an amount of pleasure greater than the Christians subsequent deadedness (not a word), comes usefully to mind...
Posted by R.Trenbath 5 years ago
R.Trenbath
nkastner-
You are right concerning the separation of church and state, but to consider that the only type of codified relationship available to a person is a religious one is to make the very mistake you warn of. Same-sex relationships should indeed be recognised by law, but NOT in the context of a religious relationship where it is against the codes of that religion. It is to force the state upon the church and is blurring that boundary you yourself made distinct. A same-sex relationship should be recognised by the state but not by the church under the auspcies of 'marriage'. In Britain they're called civil partnerships and are equal to marriage in law.. Not sure if you have them over in the USA..

I appreciate your primary concern for the welfare of people though :)

Aaronroy-
Marriage, as a Christian institution, has everything to do with religion. So I refute your attempt to separate the two as it unfairly unbalances the debate and itself falls prey to the mixing of church and state. For this reason also I am against gay marriage; if a religion sets itself up to hold absolute and universal moral codes given it by some omnipotent ancient being it shouldn't change those codes to appease modern society. That populism is to risk hypocracy and display an entire lack of integrity.

In regards the tyranny of the majority- it is unpopular minorities whom charters and bills of rights exist to protect. In almost any society the majority can look after itself. I also refute your central dependence on logic as a measure of morality, in particular regards the majority. The greatest pleasure for the greatest number (utilitarianism), as an aggregation of individual happiness where no personal interaction is required, may seem logical but does not amount to what is morally just. The Christians thrown to the lions example, where the spectator majority Romans derived an amount of pleasure greater than the Christians subsequent deadedness (not a word), comes usefully to
Posted by nkastner 5 years ago
nkastner
homosexuality has always been around....just because our forefathers didnt regonize it dosent mean anything.
Other countries dont have te hang up on humansexuality orientation and neither we should.
If it dosent affect the majority it shouldnt be up to them
I wish all the ignorant people could be born gay so they would know what it feels like to be ridiculed and hated, its not right to ridicule somebody because of their sexual preference and i firmly believe that
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
True, but I believe when the Constitution was written, the presence of homosexuals were absent and our forefathers most likely thought little of them. Thus, the Constitution would have to be amended to include homosexuals, then it would be a violation of human rights.
Posted by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
Unless of course the majority ruling is a. unconstituational.

I'm sure at one point in our history the majority rule was to keep slavery as well. Thankfully, President Abe Lincoln and other key people believed in giving all humans equal rights and fought for their beliefs. If slavery was to have been put up to a majority vote, we might still have slavery.

Homosexuality is another civil rights issue. A marriage equivalent should be offered by the US for homosexuals or it is a violation of human rights.
Posted by Aaronroy 5 years ago
Aaronroy
It doesn't matter if it affects my life or not.
The majority says no to gay marriage, and it's only logical to let the majority rule.
Posted by nkastner 5 years ago
nkastner
i would just like to ask how two gays legalizing their love affects you in ANY way. get out of their business and let them live their lives...they are not in your relationship business so why are you in theirs?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 5 years ago
MrCarroll
nkastnerAaronroyTied
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 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: Con wins
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
nkastnerAaronroyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not refute Con's argument to majority.
Vote Placed by abard124 5 years ago
abard124
nkastnerAaronroyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I would like to wholeheartedly and completely disagree with Con's arguments, because I am an elitist and a quarter of voters think the President was born in Kenya. However, his arguments are valid, and pro's arguments are, frankly, bad. She started out with some good ideas, but she never really refuted Con's arguments, and her grammatical errors made it difficult to follow. Sorry, but that's how it is.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
nkastnerAaronroyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Just because the majority believes something does not make it right. The supreme court does not go by a majority. However we all accept their rulings. I agree that gay marriage should be legalized but neither party makes convincing arguments for their position.