The Instigator
chanchilla
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Gay Marrigae should be legal and gays should not be discriminated against

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 924 times Debate No: 63027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

chanchilla

Pro

Homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals. They deserve the same rights. It should be as simple as that. We are spending time money and energy fighting love. It doesn't matter if you believe that it is right or wrong, it's still love.
People should not fear holding hands with the person they love, or kissing them in public. And everyone should be free to Marry the person that they love. This isn't gay rights, It's human rights.
1Credo

Con

1. Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I would note that I agree "gays should not be discriminated against". However, I do not think that they are discriminated against. As Con, I will be defending the idea that gay marriage should not be legal. I look forward to a good discussion!

2. Rebuttal

I will begin by addressing my opponents opening statement, then I will move on to my own argument as to why gay marriage should not be legal.

"Homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals."

I agree.

"They deserve the same rights."

Again, I agree. It seems to me that they have the same rights.

"We are spending time money and energy fighting love."

Who is "we"? I am certainly not spending any money or energy fighting love.

"It doesn't matter if you believe that it is right or wrong, it's still love."

I agree, though I fail to see why this is relevant.

"People should not fear holding hands with the person they love, or kissing them in public."

I don't see any reason why someone would hold this fear.

"This isn't gay rights, It's human rights."

How original. Please provide evidence to support your implicit claim that a certain group of people are having their "human rights" violated. I can't argue with a case that hasn't yet been made.

3. Argument

Before beginning my argument, it is essential to point out that my opponent is arguing in favor of "gay" marriage as opposed to "same-sex" marriage. There is a key difference, as we will see.

In 1996, the United States Supreme Court"s decision in the Romer v. Evans case prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a result of the finding that this sort of discrimination was unconstitutional, the United States government must be blind to sexual orientation (among other things) when enacting policy.

But the concept of "gay" marriage proposes to do just the opposite. In the case of traditional marriage, the law is blind to sexual orientation. A heterosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual woman, a homosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual women, a heterosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman, and a homosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman. In no way does the traditional idea of marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation. This traditional idea is consistent with the 1996 Supreme Court ruling.

In contrast, if "gay" marriage were to be enacted into law, it would mean that only homosexual (I'll use this term when referring to the orientation and the term "gay" when referring to the marriage idea) men and women would be allowed to be joined in a "gay" marriage with other homosexual men and women. This means that while a homosexual man would legally be able to marry a homosexual man, and a homosexual woman would legally be able to marry a homosexual woman, a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a heterosexual woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman. The orientation-based discrimination in this case is clear. The idea of "gay" marriage would unconstitutionally discriminate against a heterosexually-oriented individual"s right to the same type of marriage that would be given to a homosexually-oriented individual.

Thus, by its very definition, "gay marriage" is inherently discriminatory.

4. Summary

I agreed with the majority of what my opponent had to say in his/her opening statement, but I saw no arguments or evidence in favor of his/her position that gay marriage ought to be legal. In contrast, I provided an argument that shows "gay" marriage is inherently discriminatory, as it would prohibit heterosexual males from marrying other heterosexual males and would prohibit heterosexual females from marrying other heterosexual females. This is the very reason why no one would dare try to enact a "gay" marriage law; the battle is instead over the idea of "same-sex" marriage, which is not what my opponent has chosen to defend in this debate. Thus, it seems to me that we have no reason to accept the assertion that gay marriage should be legal, whereas we have ample reason to think that gay marriage is discriminatory, and, therefore, ought not be legal.

5. Sources
http://www.law.cornell.edu......

Debate Round No. 1
chanchilla

Pro

chanchilla forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

I do not have anything to add, as my opponent has forfeited their argument.
Debate Round No. 2
chanchilla

Pro

chanchilla forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@Benjaminimuffin

It's always entertaining to see those who are apparently without the capability to use argument and reason resort to slander.
Posted by benjaminimuffin 2 years ago
benjaminimuffin
Chancilla, come on! You can win this. 1Credo is being a d***
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They can marry all they want. It won't mean anything to me. One thing they cannot do is come into my home. Or influence mine.I will stay away from them, and thye can stay away from me. And I would appreciate it if they would not use my tax dollars to fix any problems they may accumulate because of their choices.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
I agree it's nothing important, which is why I'm not arguing in favor of it. I think the whole idea of people getting worked up about gay marriage is silly. The issue is boring and unimportant.
Posted by mortsdor 2 years ago
mortsdor
he's claiming that since Gay Marriage (being only for Gay people) would not allow a homosexual and a straight person of the same sex to marry.

like I said, Nothing important.
Posted by mortsdor 2 years ago
mortsdor
Nothing important.
Posted by benjaminimuffin 2 years ago
benjaminimuffin
What on earth is 1Credo saying
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
@Mortsdor

There is a clear demonstrable difference between the concepts of gay marriage and same-sex marriage. I would hardly call this difference "petty BS" as its implications are extreme. It's important not to lose sight of the true definitions of words and to not simply throw them around to fit one's own personal context. Gay marriage is by definition discriminatory, and it is for this very reason that you won't ever find a lawmaker propose legalizing such a concept.
Posted by mortsdor 2 years ago
mortsdor
Either that or I suppose he could instead opt to explain that Credo's arguments don't hold for the topic really at hand which is that Happy marriage should be legal, and that happy people should not be discriminated against.
Posted by mortsdor 2 years ago
mortsdor
Perhaps it might seem improper to comment while the debate's ongoing...

But,
lol @ credo's argument hinging on Gay marriage =/= same Sex marriage, so it's restrictive based on sexual preferences

it should addressed head on and called out for being duplicitous, petty, BS...
and Chanchilla should carry on feeling free to argue in support of Same-Sex marriage, which is in common usage a reasonable equivalent of "Gay Marriage".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
chanchilla1CredoTied
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: Forfeiture