The Instigator
kstepinac
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Con (against)
Winning
12 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 20721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

kstepinac

Pro

I personally believe that everyone in this world has the right to be happy in life with whomever they so choose to be with. This could mean a man married to a woman, a man married to a man or a woman married to another woman. I don't discriminate based off of sexual orientation. I am of Baptist faith and I regularly attend church and am quite active in church. However, nowhere in the Bible do I see God directly saying that it is immoral or against his will to be married to the same sex. Nor does it say they will be punished for it. Therefore, I feel that homosexual couples should be granted the equal right as heterosexual couples to become married.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The Fool: This is going to be tricky; I might have even made a mistake.

Does a Fool have rights?

We throw the word Right around like we are sure of what they are, but to be honest, what they actually are has been highly debated. In this sense we may also that when we speak of right we may really have no ideas what we were talking about. We may speak of having Right as some sort of properties but these properties tend to be mystical.

A right as an object

If a Right is like an object which I possess, then it makes sense to say I could lose it or it could be taken away. This understanding is more compatible someone exercising/using their right. But again who could we use something which we can’t see. Or maybe it makes sense to say that asserting to other about thing I have. But how did I get this thing which I can’t demonstrate?

A right as humanly inherent:

This is tough one to support because in the past they were just Rights by law. And so people would just complain that they were man made. So why should we believe in someone’s opinions? To fix this problem the western governments late 1800 ish relabelled them as Human Rights, so when somebody challenged them they could say that it inherent in humanity. This was based on some philosophy from the age of enlightenment. But they were never conclusive in anyway it still depend on believe alone. So there is still the problem of who says what human nature which out being able to support it?

Secularism and religions:

A major push to separate church was made in the age of enlightenment. A time where science had begun to take off. The problem of church as part of state is that many church rules would contradiction basic rationality and it is was discriminatory of people who had other belief, or other religion. So they were ousted for good. But even Secularism was still major influence by religion but most of the people were Christian anyway. To problem with this is that Christian Idealism still affects the way we make rules, even if you are atheist. E.g. for many people who are not religious feel they have to get married right away if they have a baby. But these notions are Christian based. Even I who am agnostic, still have Christian based ideas, because most of our ideas especially when we are younger (pre 14) are made up of other people beliefs. Before that age we don’t challenge beliefs that much.

Age of revolutions/romantics

Because back then to be educated you have to be rich, and intelligent, got associated which rich, but this was a very small amount people compared to the majority of people. So we might call these people the elite. But the rest of the population got feed up of always being told what to do and want what the wealth of the others. So began, a revolution of France where they murdered the ruling class and the elites. Not too long after the three was the American Revolution against England and with all this a move away from reason and to focus on emotion. Thus putting more emphasis on simply acting, with less thinking the activist was born. But with the loss of reason come many problems

Right vs religious commandment:

The original Purpose of Secularism was to use reason to make law and rules and right. Because with move away, here we are with a set of right that have no more justification then a set of religious commandment. Why are they the same? Because they both faith base, we don’t even coherently know what a right is, and there no way to support them. But the whole point was to not be like commandment except now we have at least 37 commandments, and extra set only for woman.

So something went wrong somewhere, I think it has a lot to do with the not thinking but acting stage of humanity which we are still in. And now we talk of commandments which have no coherent definition. At least god had magic powers to make commandments true.

And now world religion has just been renamed secularism. A name is a name what is is,do not get fooled by labels. This religion of all religions and post-sovereignty’s (For they can no longer be called sovereignty’s) because there new masters, seeks world domination.

The fool: Did somebody say crusade? Ah I think it is just windy up here.

If all the places in the world which it does say it is in the bible open and directly, or you may have some modernize rewritten version. version 8.6

I admit I am not up to date on the latest version. Does this version have the Galileo and evolution update in it too. Is the Noah ark story still in it, or the guy living in fish still valid? When should we expect the next rapture? Does it mention the location where this one will be held, because some of use missed the last one? I know I was busy.

The Fool: but to say that you don’t see it in the bible therefore it should be okay. Is and appeal to ignorance. So it would fail as a good reason anyway. But I think I a reaching my limit of characters.

The Fool: Will you marry me? ;) we could live up on this hill here. It’s a pretty big drop through.. a little chilly, got a little shack though. I built it myself. Not much visitors though.

The expression of marriage has always referred to a man and a woman, even well before the big 3 religions were around. It is best argued for with the necessary condition of its existence. It not hard to imagine that if a man and woman promise to live a life together it would be beneficial for the survival of their prodigy, way back, possible even in the sub-species of human or further back. This coheres with pairing in 2’s because there is one of each. The specialness being that of two opposite getting together, to form new life, you may even argue that it is throw children the real mixing of souls takes place. For the children are mixtures of both. And this is not only metaphorical, that is the mind of the child will be of mixed traits of each person. That is it is objectively true. No matter if you believe it or not. For do people may say you are united but that is only that saying it, or of course having it believed base.

Sophist: if this is true why are so many gays still around?

The Fool: the answer is simple. Having a sexual preference does mean that you never mate with the opposite sex at all.

We only thing this because such special categories of being gay, bi, transgender. Are all false polychotomies (false categories) For example in ancient Greece a man and woman would be married with that of the opposite sex and raise their children, But it was often that they had lovers of the same sex. There was not such particularized orientation categories. A good example is in the movie Alexander. Where he is married and has sex with his wife occasionally but a man lover on the side. I avoid saying gay because it is these categories that cause the problem. What I am saying sex what was something you did not who you are. It was not even really called sex. This makes sense because if you are not making a baby then, we don’t even need to call it that and this circumvents the whole issue. It is usually only harsh religious sanctions that create these false categories. So when people are born today they are caught in an illusion that they have to pick one. But they don’t, we should get rid of such categories because they oppress are capacities, let it be variable.

The fool: If language was a human he/she would be a Sophist for sure. Master the language do not let it be your master.




Debate Round No. 1
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
kstepinac

Pro

kstepinac forfeited this round.
The_Fool_on_the_hill

Con

The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
you are assuming that I wasn't not preping for a finishing twist. in later rounds. but she responded to I never bothere.
Posted by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
Its funny how she pretty much won this debate and yet i won my debate against her with the same topic
Posted by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
Gay Marriage FTW!
Posted by RobertAnthonyLongo 4 years ago
RobertAnthonyLongo
You missed the point of what I was saying, I know that they are different, the point is you can use similar arguments based of the constitution, you can use some of the same sections. That was the point.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Slavery and homosexuality are very different. They both face discrimination. but gays simply could not show it in public. its not good but its not even close... so reall slaverly not metaphorical slavery.. don't get them confused.. lots of other groups use the word slavery for there cause but its metephorical version .. as a black .. sometime its insinser to relate it. It seems that other groups just use the association. So serve thier own selfitsh cause.. religion is bigited but good look telling something with faith that , they wil just turn on you.
Posted by RobertAnthonyLongo 4 years ago
RobertAnthonyLongo
@kstepinac you seem to be missing the point. It's not about whether it is in the bible or not. It's about if it is constitutional to ban gay marriage. I will use an example, I don't want you to be offended I am just using an argument that you should know, and if you are offended it's actually a good thing because then you can start putting yourself in a gay persons shows. Now you know that in the south they had segregation. They use to say we don't want any dirty nigg**s drinking from our water fountains, eating in our restaurants etc. Point is why was this wrong? If you learn why, you will realize what is wrong with the attitude toward gays. You seem like a very good person but you need to point out that it is your hateful, bigoted religion that is treating "fa*s" like they used to treat what they used to call "nigg**s"
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
why were you enjoying that one.? I might finisher up.
Posted by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
Seriously, someone stop forfeiting!
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
I agree, but it is left over from when church/state.. That part somehow stayed with state..
Posted by Neonix 4 years ago
Neonix
Myself? I do not support the legal union of anyone, really. I feel that it is a religious ceremony. Government should not make any laws concerning it. However, it is unavoidable these days. So I would say, we should not legalize gay marriage. 39 States already voted to adopt DOMA, 6 states had pre existing laws banning it...I think 3 states don't have any laws, and 3 states recognize it. (Well, Vermont and Mass recognize civil union. I know Vermont declared "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.)

So, I think the voters need to be respected.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
kstepinacThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better arguments and rebutted Pro's. Just look at the arguments! Pro forfeited first, so conduct to Con. Con had better grammar.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 4 years ago
DevonNetzley
kstepinacThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie breaker. ^.=.^
Vote Placed by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
kstepinacThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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: Everyone is voting bias, con wins
Vote Placed by breanadawnx3 4 years ago
breanadawnx3
kstepinacThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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: A fool has NOTHING to do with gay marriage.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
kstepinacThe_Fool_on_the_hillTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie. Neither side presented anything valid.