The Instigator
ProDeo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Gay Rights

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 4 votes the winner is...
Deathbeforedishonour
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 21780
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

ProDeo

Con

My name is Alexander, this is my first debate. I would like to tackle this issue. I welcome anyone to join. the first is an acceptance round. The second and third are in depth into the situation. and third is a closing statement.

First off, I would like to further introduce myself.

My name is Alexander Warnke. I am a current student of Oxford High School in Oakland County, Michigan. I am fifteen, and a freshman. I'm sure your thinking," What does this kid know, if anything." But bear with me. I'm not your typical stupid teenager(not to say all teenagers are stupid). For six years I have read up on quite a few things concerning: social issues, politics, and economics. I am a Christian, I go to church at Christ the King Church off of Drahner Rd.

The issue I'm bringing to the table is gay rights, gay marriage.("typical Christian" I'm sure your thinking that.) I've always been against it. That's my Opinion.
I await a response, I will take on anyone. I don't care if your gay, or bisexual, or straight(and that you are for it). All I am looking for is someone to debate.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
ProDeo

Con

Ok, first to answer my challenger's comment. This is about Gay Marriage, or Civil Union.
And I would also like to thank him for accepting my debate

I am not for gay rights, not just because I am a Christian, but because it's just morally wrong.
It's morally wrong because it's just detestable for any two people to have intercourse of the same gender. and more wrong to be married. You can make the argument that its just love. Love can be anything. But when it comes to gay marriage or civil union love is not a factor, its a perversion. Why else shouldn't gay marriage be allowed. It disrupts the idea of the "Nuclear Family". I would further like to show analysis using biblical texts.

In the book of Leviticus, one of the laws of marriage or sexual intercourse, it says, "do not lay with a man as one lies with a women." This applies to both men and women, as many people say that its alright only for women to be homosexual just because they believe the verse only applies to men and not women.

I submit my first debate.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Greetings, I thank my opponent for giving me a chance to debate this topic, and I also would like to thank the members of Debate.org for following this debate. I will be arguing that Gay Marriage should be legalized. I hope you all enjoy this debate.
Rebuttals

My opponent's entire argument is based on the biblical morality. However, our Constitution's 1st Amendment states that Church (or Religion) is Separated (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Therefore, his entire argument is centered around reasons that are not good enough for keeping millions of Americans receiving their Constitutional rights.

SSM is Constitutional!
My first point will be based on the fact that Same-Sex Marriage is Constitutional.
The closest parallel in our legal history to the debate over gay marriage has been the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s. These laws prevented interracial marriages between whites and blacks. Hannah Arendt, a journalist and intellectual of the ‘50’s and ‘60’s, is quoted by Andrew Sullivan in “Why a civil union isn't marriage [1]," argued against the miscegenation laws, saying:

“The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one's skin or color or race are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to `life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' ... and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.”

Sullivan, senior editor at the New Republic, goes on to say:

“Would any heterosexual in America believe he had a right to pursue happiness if he could not marry the person he loved? What would be more objectionable to most people — to be denied a vote in the next presidential election or to no longer have legal custody over their child or legal attachment to their wife or husband? Not a close call.”
This being said, can we deny that the right to marriage - to whomever one might choose - is constitutionally guaranteed?

Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union [2]:

“The law (against same-sex marriage) discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender.'
With this being said, I will like to point out that every government official swears an oath that begins with the words: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States' [3] And with this presented I will make it clear that the government has every reason to support the constitution that not only governs the people, but also the government itself. Since SSM is constitutional the government is intitled to support it and legalize it.

SSM would help state and federal governments economically.

This next point will be based on monitary gain that would help the state as a result of the legalization of SSM. It is estimated that the wedding industry would experience a windfall, and there would be an immediate gain in revenue of up to 17 billion dollars (it would also be good to know that the wedding industry is a 70 billion dollar a year industry) [4].

Also, the William's Institute released a report stating:

"Total spending on wedding arrangements and tourism by resident same-sex couples and their guests will add an $88-million boost to the Washington economy over the first three years. This spending is likely to generate $8 million in tax revenue for state and local governments.

The figures in the report draw upon data on average wedding expenditures in Washington and tourism reports from 2010, along with data regarding marriage expenses by same-sex couples in other states.
The report considers that couples in existing registered domestic partnerships might have different spending patterns from couples that do not have that status. Even if there was no new spending by the 7,518 couples currently in registered domestic partnerships, the state would see an estimated increase in spending of $18 million and a tax boost of $1.6 million." [5]

I don't know about anyone else here but 88 million dollars worth of economic boost to one state is a very good thing especially since the entire country is going through a bit of a financtial crises. If legalizing SSM would help Washington this much, certainly it would help out the rest of the states in our union.

Conclusion
In conclusion, My opponnet's argument hold no water since our Constitution garantees Separation of Church and State. I also would like to say again that it is the job of the state to defend the liberties of the American people, and since the basic humans rights of all people are that of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness and that by banning SSM the government would not be doing it's proper job, that means the state has a reason to legalize SSM. And the very fact that the state could make a great deal of financtial gain the state should legalize SSM.
Thank You for reading I will now await my opponents response.

~~Sources~~
Debate Round No. 2
ProDeo

Con

First off I apologize it took for a long time to respond.
Death before dishonor you are clearly the better
opponent . I submit my case. And I have nothing more to say. obviously I have some work to do on my debate skills. Thank you for providing an interesting experience. My position still does not change on gay marriage. But thank you anyways. I forfeit.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

My opponent has given up. I clearly win.
Debate Round No. 3
ProDeo

Con

ProDeo forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Pro

Vote Pro, because I am awsome enough to actually read our F*** Constitution. xP
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mariahjane 4 years ago
mariahjane
The purpose in marriage isn't sex for all people so that's an invalid argument. Plus the fact it's "unnatural" would be defined by the person doing it. I'd say it's more unnatural for a guy and a girl or a guy and a guy just because that's not my preference. That doesn't mean I can deny/create rights so lesbians have more rights. Love is natural and how your body feels towards others is natural. That argument cannot be made unless you have felt all possibilities (you'd have to be transgender and bi). In the case you have felt all possibilities, you will no longer be making ignorant arguments.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Ahh really? I want to see proof oh this study :P
Posted by hunnydew 4 years ago
hunnydew
no point it has been proved. I would love to debate only if it was an opinion. But they did this study at auburn U and many other collages. Biologist have been looking into this for years they still have failed to prove that being gay is a natuaing, its A CHOICE ! They proved it. Im takeing Bio 105 my profeser hates the fact that people still think that gay is good and natual
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Hey hunnydew would you like to debate on whether homosexuality is natural or not?
Posted by hunnydew 4 years ago
hunnydew
I'm not a Christian. This is one of the things I agree with them. Every gay person is gay just to be different. it is a fact that you cant be born gay. you just have sexual thoughts about men and think that's how you should be different. I can ask any bio professor at auburn U that are people born gay they will say no. One thing is that you defeating the definition of Marriage- Is MAN AND WIFE! so gay people should call it something els. Vary few gays are actually collage educated.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Sorry I don't speak fascist can you translate to English?
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
Ignoratio elenchi
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Actually if one takes away the liberty of others then he is subject to the same treatment.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
I'm pretty sure our Founding Fathers didn't support gay marriage.

Anyways, if the Constitution really does grant unlimited liberty, which is the freedom from external sources, then logic follows that prisons are unconstitutional.

Unless we don't have unlimited liberty in which case your case if only valid if you can prove that gay marriage falls into the line of permitted liberty.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Wait error! Correction: Prisons are actually constitutional
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
ProDeoDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
ProDeoDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ProDeoDeathbeforedishonourTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
ProDeoDeathbeforedishonourTied
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: Obvious.