The Instigator
hayhen13
Pro (for)
Tied
4 Points
The Contender
ObjectivityIsAMust
Con (against)
Tied
4 Points

Gay Rights

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 448 times Debate No: 65892
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

hayhen13

Pro

Any serious debaters that want to argue against gay marriage and gay rights are free to debate this topic
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Since morality can vary from culture to culture, we must debate this from the perspective of a sole nation so that our arguments remain consistent.

My Proposition: Gays should not have the right to marry in the United States.

1. Operational definition: A right is a legal entitlement.
2. Not all rights are morally correct.
3. A gay person refers to homosexual (this includes lesbians).
4. Marriage is a religious ritual since civil unions exist.
5. The government can pass legislature granting gays in civil union the same benefits as a married couple.
Debate Round No. 1
hayhen13

Pro

First of all, marriage is not a religious ritual. Anyone can just go to the Town Hall and sign a marriage proposal and get married. Plus why create a whole different system of civil union if they have the same benefits. People are fighting for gay rights so that they can have the same rights as everyone else; they are mainly fighting for equality. Why not let gays marry the person that they love most in their life? Why deny them the privilege of marrying the person they want to spend the rest of their life with. Gay people want equality, not a civil union with their partner. I am straight, but it is sick how people treat gays and after all the pain we have involved them in, why can"t we let them marry their lovers. If marriage has the same benefits of civil union then why have civil union? If it because of religious purposes, then the government is corrupt for favoring with a religion. If people think it is not right because only a man and a woman should be married, then they are wrong. You marry someone because you love them and you want to spend the rest of your life with someone you love. Love is too powerful to be limited to a gender, if you love someone, you should be able to marry them. Not civil union, marriage.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

Contradicting claim: "Anyone can just go to the Town Hall and sign a marriage proposal and get married."
-> Anyone includes gays, so if you premise is truth why are we even debating this issue?

Marriage has both legal and religious connotation while civil unions only has a legal one.
Considering that homosexuality is not accepted by Christian religious authorities as well as a large portion of Christians, why do homosexual feel the need to push for the right to marry if they can instead protest instead demand equal legal rights under civil union?
The answer is because the struggle for gays to have the right to marry was originally started by religious gay people.

"Why not let gays marry the person that they love most in their life?"
Because of the religious connotation that the word marriage carries and because they could be debating the right to legal equality under civil union status.

Why deny them the privilege of marrying the person they want to spend the rest of their life with?
I have not advocating against denying gay people the legal privileges of marriage, I am saying that they should only be denied marriage in name.

Dicto simpliciter (i.e. Generalization) -> Gay people want equality, not a civil union with their partner.
-> This is a fallacy as you make the assumption that there isn't a single gay person that wants to enter in a civil union.

Dicto simpliciter (i.e. Generalization) "If it because of religious purposes, then the government is corrupt for favoring with a religion." ->The US government is multitude of different organization who contain also a multitude sub division.
Therefore, claiming that the government is corrupt is inaccurate. In addition, many US states have legalized gay marriage and others are in the process of doing so. Therefore, the government is simply weight both sides of the issues and making decisions as a result.
Debate Round No. 2
hayhen13

Pro


I will state again that marriage is not a religious ritual. The celebration of the marriage, the marriage traditions, the pope saying the “you may kiss the bride” all can be religious. But what I meant to say was that what you said in round 1, Marriage is a religious ritual since civil unions exist.” Was untrue since any couple (that was not gay) could get legally married without religion. I was confused when you still denied this by saying, “Marriage has both legal and religious connotation while civil unions only has a legal one.” part of this is true because marriage can have both legal and religious connotation, but it can also have only legal, as I previously made clear. This statement is also untrue since civil unions can be religious. They can have a celebration, in a church with the pope and everything, bonding them together with a civil union. Now we have made clear that marriage and civil union are both legal, and they both can be religious. I noticed that this was the main point of your response by stating that marriage is a religious ritual and I have just classified that it isn’t.


You stated that “The government can pass legislature granting gays in civil union the same benefits as a married couple.” So if marriage and civil union can be the exact same, why are they both existent? Is it just to separate us from the gays so that they feel different? The main cause of gay rights is to get equality with everyone else and not feel different anymore. You are proposing that we give them civil union and that it should have exactly everything that marriage has except that it isn’t marriage. It’s like asking, “Can I have an apple?” and you reply with, “No, but you can have an opple, it is the exact same except a different name.” You must understand that this is just a metaphor to help you understand my position. I would like to hear a valid reason of why they can’t have an apple (marriage) but why they should have an opple (civil union.) Besides based on religion.


Also you stated that, “Therefore, claiming that the government is corrupt is inaccurate.”I was only speculating on the point of why the government hasn’t granted gay marriage. I was speculating that it may be because of religion as I mentioned just earlier. If it was then that would be incorrect of the government and corrupt of them to make a law based on a specific religious belief.


You stated, “I am saying that they should only be denied marriage in name.” I would like to hear a valid reason for denying gays marriage in name because you mention this many times but never give a logical reason for it.


“This is a fallacy as you make the assumption that there isn't a single gay person that wants to enter in a civil union.” I never said that gays don’t want a civil union but it is a fact that more than 10 million Americans want to get married. Gay and Lesbian Americans Tell Researchers They Plan To Get Married - Estimated 10 Million Want To Say 'I Do'” from the website: http://www.outnowconsulting.com...-'i-do'


I guess my conclusion for this response is why make civil union the exact same as marriage besides trying to make gays feel different? If they will be the exact same, why make them different besides being predjudice and discriminating against gays?


ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

My arguments:

I state that religious people deny gay people the right to marry because it carries religious connotation and that civil unions do not. And therefore granting gays the right to marry would infringe on the religious right of Christians as they do not support gay marriage.

I make the claim that one should not infringe another persons rights in order to grant another rights. Gays should fight for the right to enter civil unions that offer the same legal rights since there is no specific reason to demand marriage rights instead.

My opponent arguments:

First my opponent contradict himself:

His premise: "I will state again that marriage is not a religious ritual. "

-> His counter-argument to his premise : "The celebration of the marriage, the marriage traditions, the pope saying the "you may kiss the bride" all can be religious".

- He therefore admits that marriage is a ritual since it has traditions and it also shows that marriage carries religious connotations.

Then he claims that civil unions also carries religious connotations and centers all his arguments on it.

He starts by pointing out fallacy in my argument :"'Marriage is a religious ritual since civil unions exist.' Was untrue since any couple (that was not gay) could get legally married without religion."

- I will retort with the definition of the word ritual which is a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order.

This shows that it is marriage is a religious ritual of it on accord supporting my claim that marriage is a ritual but also showing that it is not because civil unions exist.

This inaccuracy, however, does not validate any of his argument since it was a retort to his inaccurate statement that "Marriage in not a religious ritual".

Therefore his argument is a moot point.

He then goes on to say : "This statement is also untrue since civil unions can be religious. They can have a celebration, in a church with the pope and everything, bonding them together with a civil union"

Just because civil unions can be done religiously does not mean that they have religious connotations since "civil unions" are not considered a religious traditions. In addition, the church does not yet support civil unions, although they do debate about the issue. This mean that no pope has sanctioned civil union.
Debate Round No. 3
hayhen13

Pro


"I will state again that marriage is not a religious ritual.” Anyone (except gays) can get married without religion at all. I was stating that the rituals and the celebrations in a marriage can be religious, but it is the couple’s choice. That’s what I meant by, “The celebration of the marriage, the marriage traditions, the pope saying the "you may kiss the bride" all can be religious". I then said that civil unions can be religious in their rituals and celebration. You then turned my words around and said, “Then he claims that civil unions also carries religious connotations and centers all his arguments on it.” This is incorrect since my main point was that both marriage and civil unions can be religious and they both cannot be religious.


“Just because civil unions can be done religiously does not mean that they have religious connotations since ‘civil unions’ are not considered a religious traditions. In addition, the church does not yet support civil unions, although they do debate about the issue. This means that no pope has sanctioned civil union.”


Does it matter if a pope agrees with civil union or not. Since this debate is about gay rights, I think we should keep religion to a minimum. Can you state who thinks that, “’civil unions’ are not considered a religious tradition” because saying that marriages are religious is a stereotype.


If I was gay and, my loved one and I wanted to get married and live the rest of our lives together, and finally feel the same as a regular couple. I wouldn’t want to be denied my rights because of a belief that people choose to believe in. “Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of parts of the bible that you choose to believe in?” Atheist republic.com. I don’t care whether some religion thinks civil unions are religious or not!


Why create another system of civil union if it will be the exact same as marriage? As you said, “The government can pass legislature granting gays in civil union the same benefits as a married couple.” The only reason you have given me for not letting gays get married is because the word marriage carries religious connotation. You think that marriage should strictly be a religious ritual. And that in one of a religion’s bible it says that it can’t happen. Or at least you say, “And therefore granting gays the right to marry would infringe on the religious right of Christians as they do not support gay marriage.” I again, don’t care whether a religion denies people rights, I don’t care about the religion; I care about humanity and morals. I will state this quote again since I believe it states exactly what I am trying to say, “Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of parts of the bible that you choose to believe in?” Atheist republic.com.


“Gays should fight for the right to enter civil unions that offer the same legal rights since there is no specific reason to demand marriage rights instead.” Again, why have civil unions if it is the same as marriage? You say, “there is no specific reason to demand marriage rights instead.” But there is also no specific reason to deny marriage rights besides what I mentioned earlier about religion.


This topic relates back to what I said in my last argument, It’s like asking, ‘Can I have an apple?’ and you reply with, ‘No, but you can have an opple, it is the exact same except a different name.’”


“He therefore admits that marriage is a ritual since it has traditions and it also shows that marriage carries religious connotations.” You twisted my words around here, because I said that marriage can be a ritual like I stated in the first paragraph.


Thank you, and I look forward to the next round.


ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

If he is not claiming that civil unions have religious connotation then his main point is irrelevant and simply distracting.

"Does it matter if a pope agrees with civil union or not."

He is the high earthly authority in the Church so yes is opinion matter from the perspective of religious rights.

"Can you state who thinks that, ""civil unions" are not considered a religious tradition" because saying that marriages are religious is a stereotype."

-> I have given you the definition of marriage which confirm that it has religious connotation.
I will now give you the definition of civil union: "a relationship between a couple that is legally recognized by a governmental authority and has many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage". This is it sole definition therefore it does not have religious implications.

"If I was gay and, my loved one and I wanted to get married and live the rest of our lives together, and finally feel the same as a regular couple. I wouldn"t want to be denied my rights because of a belief that people choose to believe in. "Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of parts of the bible that you choose to believe in?" Atheist republic.com. I don"t care whether some religion thinks civil unions are religious or not!"

-> Hypothetically, you would not want to be denied your legal right but would be fine with infringing the religious rights of others.
As long as there is an alternative that satisfies the rights of both parties, which is civil union with equal rights, then the debate on marriage equality is moot.

Unsupported claim: "You think that marriage should strictly be a religious ritual. And that in one of a religion"s bible it says that it can"t happen".

-> I have admitted that marriage also carries legal connotation. My argument is that one should not have the right to infringe another rights in order to gain rights themselves.

"I again, don"t care whether a religion denies people rights, I don"t care about the religion;"

-> This is not an argument, it is merely a selfish opinion.

Here, he is repeating an argument while ignoring the rebuttal: "Again, why have civil unions if it is the same as marriage?"

-> Again, marriage carries religious connotation while civil unions do not therefore they are not the same.
Debate Round No. 4
hayhen13

Pro

You are basing your whole debate on a religion. This topic is not about religion, it is about gays being able to marry. The only reason you say that they cant is because marriage is a relgious ritual. I wait for you to actually give a valid reason.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Con

I stated that there is such a thing as religious rights which my opponent did not challenge.

Therefore, my argument is that one should not be allowed to take the rights of another in order to gain rights themselves.
I also stated that there is an alternative that would satisfy both parties: civil union with the same legal rights.
Therefore, gays should be protesting for legal rights under civil union which makes the debate for marriage rights pointless.

So far my opponent has merely argued the implications marriage and civil union and therefore has given no arguments to support his position.

___________________________________________________________________________________________
The arguments stated in this debate are not necessarily the views of the debater.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
A debate is not about what is true or false but merely who had the better arguments. My opponent, despite a clear advantage. did not defend his point of view. Instead, he incessantly argued about the technical terms of marriage and civil union which was a very poor strategy.

And ultimately, he did not refute my points... so why should he win on such grounds? Simply because the anti-gay-marriage position is unpopular?

The issue should not matter. Only the arguments should be considered.

Personal, I am for gay marriage but that will not prevent me from playing the devils advocate.
I also an atheist yet I am still willing to debate in favor of the existence of God...
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
true
Posted by 1harderthanyouthink 2 years ago
1harderthanyouthink
This may be the worst voter on DDO.
Posted by hayhen13 2 years ago
hayhen13
k
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Although, I am currently ahead in the debate, since my opponent has not refute my position or supported his. I do believe that this is an overwhelmingly unfair debate.

Without the religious argument, the Con has no logical argument to stand on. It is like debating that someone should be denied their rights because they are too tall or too short or too fat or too skinny which are all characteristics that have no relation what so ever to human rights.

The only other possible way of the debating the issues would be to challenge the idea of entitled rights by stating that rights do not exist and are merely created by societies.

By using this, one could then claim that government was given the right by society to decide the rights of the society therefore protesting against them is an attack upon the very fabric of society and therefore goes against the whole concept of rights.

This, however, would quickly fall apart as one could argue that the current government is different from the past government and is therefore a corruption of the previous system making the previously stated principle no longer applicable.

In addition, arguing from this perspective would eliminate the argument of religion which ultimately would leave once again the Con without any argument.

It is worth noting, however, that despite the overwhelming advantage that my opponent possess, he has still manage to prove nothing and fail to refute my position.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
It seems like I am one the few, on this website, who might actually win a debate against gay marriage. It didn't seem possible, at first since, since this subject is so narrow-minded and there is so little to use to defend ones position.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
hayhen13ObjectivityIsAMustTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The only reason given against gay (rights) marriage, is the religious value behind marriage. Pro showed that marriages are not always religious with hetero-couples. Both agreed marriage is a ritual. Con showed rituals are religious OR solemn ceremonies, therefore showing how marriages do not have to be religious.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Jzyehoshua
hayhen13ObjectivityIsAMustTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments and rebuttals by Con; more careful logic. Con's argument that civil unions with the same rights as marriage should be preferred over infringing on the rights of the religious was never suitably debunked or really even addressed by Pro apart from denying it.