The Instigator
freckles14
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points

Gay marraige.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,694 times Debate No: 678
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (19)
Votes (22)

 

freckles14

Pro

It doesn't matter what or who you marry, and it is really no one else's business if you love someone in a special way. If it's not hurting anyone, why is should it be illegal? I am (very) straight, but my mom isn't, and she has taught me from when I was, like, two that we should respect others for who they are, and not care if they want to be (or just are) something different than what you are.
I'm for love, no matter what shape or form it's in, because with all this hate that is happening, how could a little love hurt anyone? It's ridiculous that people refuse to tolerate or at least appreciate gay love when gay people could just as easily write us straight people off as freaks.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I believe that discriminating against people who love differently than you is invalid and superfluous.
Tatarize

Con

Thank you for offering this debate topic.

You say that it doesn't matter "what" you marry? So are you okay with the argument that Gay marriage will lead to human-pig marriages? Certainly recognizing my marriage to my pet pot-belly pig will hurt nobody. It is nobody's business and you should respect my decisions. I cannot help what I love. That tail is adorable!

How could my love hurt anybody? Certainly it can't and there's nothing wrong with me loving my pig. Tolerance might be an issue but certainly there's always growing pains when pushing society's taboos. My different kind of love is clearly just as acceptable as the love felt between men and women, and isn't in the least creepy. Should I be allowed to marry clouds next? If the cloud evaporates should I get widower benefits?

Conclusion: There is a line, and it's already been drawn, you're on the other side of it.

Seriously though, what about polygamy? You aren't harming anybody, least of all your spouses who love you. Why should I be limited to marrying only one woman or man? Where does it stop?

What about the sanctity of marriage? How long until we just start declaring people married after they've dated for a couple months. Start dating, get your marriage recognized, sign a prenup, and be "married" until you break up.

There's a reason people view Gay marriage as a slippery-slope to the next leg being knocked out from under the institution. It's true! Marriage is becoming a joke. A bit of legal nonsense to convey this or that. We might as well start grabbing people off the street and declaring them married at this rate.

Conclusion: Legalizing Gay marriage is a slippery slope.

You argue that gay marriage should be allowed because it doesn't harm other people.

Really, who would it harm? And the reason you want to push Gay marriage on to society is on the basis that it doesn't harm other people? So should I be allowed to engage in prostitution? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to inject heroin into my eye? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to slit my wrists? It doesn't harm other people? Should I be allowed to have sex with my brothers and sisters? It doesn't harm other people? What business is it of theirs? Really, if I want to engage my sister as a prostitute while high on drugs, slowly bleeding to death, nobody should object in the least! Who are they to judge me? How do such things hurt them?

Conclusion: You cannot judge something acceptable based on harm.

God established marriage to be between a man and a woman. To attempt to just redefine what God established is a little odd, to say the least. What next, baptism with milk? Move the Sabbath's to Saturday? Worship Judas? You cannot take a religious institution and just change its core values. That's moral relativism at the best.

Conclusion: Desecration of religious institutions.

Why not civil unions? Can't express your love in a civil union? There are some rights conveyed by a marriage and as tax paying citizens, homosexuals should be entitled to those rights. The state should make those right available to all people. But, those taxes are paid to the state and the state has no right to redefine a religious institution. I understand the need for equality. But you can have equality without spitting in Christ's face!

Conclusion: Why does it have to be marriage? It doesn't!

To quickly recap my arguments.

1) There is a line, and it's already been drawn, you're on the other side of it.

In the presentation of your argument you put forward claims that reasonable people would clearly reject. Usually it's a stretch to offer that allowing gay marriage will lead to human-pig marriage, but you appear to already endorse that.

2) Legalizing Gay marriage is a slippery slope.

Why does marriage need to exist at all? At the rate it's picked at, you will be able to get married at McDonalds after ordering some fries. Then get a divorce at Starbucks.

3) Desecration of religious institutions.

Marriage is a religious institution. It is meant to help and foster the growth of children. I understand that you yourself are the child of a lesbian mother. And I'm sorry for that. Marriages allow for stable two-parent homes. They have worked and worked well for thousands of years. Why do you want to end them now? What right do you or the state have to deem an acceptable religious institution? What next? Are you going to have the courts demand an ex-communicated individual receive communion? This is certainly a disturbing trend, especially during a state of war.

4) Why does it have to be marriage? It doesn't!

I understand that rights are conveyed, and I feel for you in this respect. However, rights are a state issue whereas marriage is a religious point. Why couldn't we simply settle on a civil union. Convey all the rights of marriage without the government redefining what a marriage is? Why must homosexuals get special rights?

Thank you, and I eagerly await your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
freckles14

Pro

Sorry about that first argument- I accidentally posted my first draft...

I never meant to say "what". Marrying your pig would be...*shudders*. No. I understand the line, and what makes marriage special. Sorry for the slip-up.

What I DID mean to say is that marrying who you want is the basic right of a free American. Love is love is love. You don't have the right or authority to determine what kind of love is right- and which one is wrong. Whatever people do in their own bedrooms is THEIR BUSINESS, and, like I said before, you (or God [like there is one]) do not have the authority to determine what it is.

Marriage is a sacred institution- you marry who you love. Is a gay person supposed to just be *partners* with their lovers until they grow old? It's exactly like a gay person saying "Straight people shouldn't marry someone of the opposite sex because that would defeat the purpose of a marriage- it's the wrong kind of love."

...Right?

You do not need to apologize for my mother- she is actually bisexual, thank you very much. I have a father and a mother, a step mom, and I have *way* more love in my life than you, if you don't mind me saying, and also not to brag. And my parents are divorced, it's not a polygamy/gay relationship. My life is perfectly functional- I am a star on crew, lost over 30 lb. since the beginning of September, am on my school's debate team, am a runner, and can clean-and-press 100 lb.. My mom's sexual preference does not, and has not ever affected my life to the negative, though it HAS affected my passion in this debate.

In summary, no one has the authority to tell someone that they love "wrong", and my mom's sexual preference has never affected my life negatively.
Tatarize

Con

I'm glad you understand what makes marriage special. And that you acknowledge that marriage is a sacred institution. However, you are still advocating pecking away what makes it special and making it just a sheet of paper? Let me point out that you did not address any of my points. What about polygamy? If I love many people what right do you have to prevent this? Why can't I actually marry my pig? Other than shuttering, you never one suggested WHY this argument fails. The logic is pointing out that your same argument can be applied much broader than you acknowledge (why does the logic you use fail for my pig). Which brings us to another argument I made, which you didn't address at all, redefining marriage is a slippery slope. If you can redefine it with respect to love, then you can expand it to include multiple partners as well as anything you "love". Why should we redefine marriage?

Slip-ups are fine. Everybody makes mistakes. But where's the beef? Where's the argument. Love is love. Yeah. What does that have to do with this argument? Stay out of people's bedrooms. Okay, I wasn't going in their bedrooms. I was simply pointing that gutting a sacred institution on weak grounds is a bad idea and the only response you have is sorry for the slip up? You say that marriage is a basic right? There's nothing basic about it. And you have a basic right to a sacred institution? Really? The communion is a sacred institution too, can I barge into a Catholic Church and demand to receive communion even though I'm not Catholic?

I have no interest in stopping people from doing "their business" in "their own bedrooms" -- I am interested in protecting marriage from being gutted by confused arguments about how everybody has a right to religious institutions. And finally, another argument you never addressed, what about civil unions? There are clearly rights being conveyed here. And those rights need to be distributed evenly, but why as a marriage? What is wrong with a civil union? Why can't people do their business, have their rights, and not bother anybody? Why does this need to be foisted into a marriage. If I am to hold your arguments valid, I should hold the same argument for polygamy or random walk up marriages between strangers? Civil unions would convey those rights you seem so clearly in favor of, they need not "just" be anything. I'm not defining their relationship, and you can't define what marriage means.

You seemed to have dodged my arguments, failed to address them, and respond with arguments I already covered. I don't care what people do in their lives, I think they should be given rights. I don't however think you should weigh down the sacred institution of marriage with all of *YOUR* baggage. Let the state convey them rights. Let us stay out of their way. Let us do a number of things. However, let us not have one of those things involve tossing a several thousand of year old institution out the window because you want to dictate what kinds of unions God should respect. Let us not force on religious institutions our moral ideas about what is right and wrong. Let us not redefine marriage when we can easily rectify any wrongs being done by the state without doing wrongs upon the religion! How about that? We don't hinder homosexuals' rights AND we don't hinder religious rights? Equality and tolerance, who'd of thunk it possible?

Where do you get off saying you have "*way* more love in my life than you" -- you don't even know me or how much love I have in my life.

Your summary is accurate to your statements, insofar as it misses the entire point. How does protecting a sacred institution suggest your mother is somehow negative? I am not saying that anybody's love is wrong: not the man with three wives, not the gay couple from Soho, not the man with his pig (these may be wrong, I'm just not saying it). I am saying that you cannot just blow the gates open and say everybody/thing can be married now. There are certain things people shouldn't trample. And as you said, you understand what makes marriage special, and yet you want to make it not special? -- Odd.

How about we respect the rights of people and religion. Civil unions are fine if rights must be conveyed. You don't need to undermine marriage to live and let live. You don't need to undermine marriage to convey rights. You simply, do not need to undermine marriage at all.

Thank you for the debate. I do wish you would have responded to my points. I made a considerable effort to make them clear and understandable and yet you still didn't address them. You spent a lot more time talking about your mother than you did on why I should accept redefinition of a sacred institution on your say so. Considering I'm arguing for the status quo you should need to present some case for your side of the argument. You, not only, didn't give much of an argument, you didn't address mine. I should need to address your argument, rather than you failing utterly to address mine.

Though, again, thanks for the debate.

Tatarize.
Debate Round No. 2
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
The latest version of firefox auto-spellchecks. I get little red underline bits for whatever I type in this box which fails a dictionary lookup.
Posted by freckles14 9 years ago
freckles14
Tatarize- Thanks for debating me! I hope we can work out a good topic that we don't agree on. Thanks again, and I'll keep an eye on our votes.
-Kate (aka Freckles)
Posted by freckles14 9 years ago
freckles14
I mean really- if someone cares enough about a debate to make a comment, they should proofread! I'm in middle school, and *I* know that...
Countrylover, this is to you: I couldn't understand a damn thing you said- I was too busy editing your writing. Try to open a dictionary before making a comment next time, eh?
Posted by freckles14 9 years ago
freckles14
i should start a debate on how people on Debate.org should learn how to spell....
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
My guess is individuals like Freckles want the standards of society to sink to the level where everybody has the same rights and there aren't any special privileges for being straight, male, white, or Christian. None! Not even one special privilege will remain when these liberals get done! One person, might as well be another person as far as the law will be concerned. So even if your a white male Christian happily married to a Christian woman, people like freckles want that to be as acceptable as being black female Wiccan married to a atheist woman.

It makes me ill! Or at the very least sardonic enough to mock you for your silly intolerant comments.

I cannot fathom how anybody thinks marriage to be a sacred institution. It magically means something more to your religion? Whoop-di-do, it means very specific things to the government and those are entirely secular. Finally, dumbass, homosexuality is legal. Allowing homosexuals the same rights as other people, without separate but equal Civil Union nonsense, doesn't legalize gay make out sessions in public parks... those are already legal. Also, a hotel room? Gay makeout sessions need to be staged in a seedy hotel (places for seedy affairs and vile sins of all nature)? Gays can't have apartments or bring their boyfriends home?

They say that one's man's trash is another man's treasure. Apparently, one man's mind pollution is another man's man. I love how it's clearly "Bad" but you can't articulate anything other than bigotry and moral judgments sans moral theory.
Posted by countrylover 9 years ago
countrylover
"thats my bussines"...would be the words said from someone who suports gay marraige....its not "your bussines" if its destroying society...cause if this couple is able to do so..then the next couple would have to be able to do so also...and then...just like now...peaple will see no difference in 2 peaple of the same sex together then they would 2 of the opposite sex together and thats Bad!!....if 2 peaple of the same sex want to be together or make out...there is a hotel room...but dont polute the minds of others by making it legil....how low are are standerds going to go?
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
1) Gay marriage would destroy the sacred institution of marriage.
2) Allowing for Gay marriage would create a slippery slope, allowing for polygamy.
3) Gay marriage is unnecessary. Civil unions would suffice.
4) My opponent has not established a valid case.
Posted by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Your arguments barely made sense in cohersion with the topic at hand.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
*sigh*

The human-pig comments are just to show that she's made no distinction that disallows for this argument. My position there is actually far more nuanced than need be. Probably should have avoided it. But, I rightly point out repeatedly that she didn't actually provide any good distinction.

*sigh*

None of my arguments got addressed. Few points on her side and I'm losing?

The profile reason for the argument are moot with regard to this debate.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
The Debate.org profile says "Couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE."

Because of the last four words, I am "against" gay marriage. But by that same token, I am also against heterosexual marriage. In reality, I am all for any kind of voluntary arrangement. But marriage should be separate from the state. That's the CON argument I would have made. But regardless, I could have voted for a homophobic Con if his logic was better than the gay-statist Pro.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by dura_to_the_max 8 years ago
dura_to_the_max
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 9 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
freckles14TatarizeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
freckles14TatarizeTied
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