The Instigator
pitteas
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
Renzzy
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable.

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: 4/23/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,385 times Debate No: 3755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (19)

 

pitteas

Pro

If there is one social issue that defines our times, it is certainly the issue of gay marriage. Stunning as it might seem, in the few decades after Stonewall the gay rights movement has finally gained enough momentum to not only raise the issue of marriage equality, but also win the debate in various countries, states, and cities around the globe. Centuries of progress after the Age of Enlightenment in Europe have brought us the most sophisticated, fair and free social structure of all times - democracy, as we know it today. If we are to look at the social trends in the past few centuries, then gay marriage seems to be the next logical development. Here is why.

Today marriage in our society is very different from what it used to be in the past. Long gone are the days when marriage was the only acceptable way for two people to enter into sexual relationships. Marriage is also rarely a tool used by dominating parents to gauge the future of their children. Marriage no longer constitutes the end of the woman's right to make decisions, nor does it give the full and unchecked authority to the husband over his wife's body, lifestyle, or property. What marriage has become in the 21st century America is a voluntary contract between a man and a woman with no assigned roles and no pre-designated gender-specific responsibilities. And that is, by the way, the legal side of it.

The broader, social understanding of marriage is in fact not that much different. It includes the perception that the spouses love each other, and at least plan to enter into a marriage for life. In either case, however, marriage has already evolved to such a level of equality between the participants in it, that the gender of the partners, in practical terms, matter only to themselves, since their gender assigns to them no specific, mandatory role or responsibility. Having this in mind, the ultimate manifestation of such equality between the genders, will be the inclusion of homosexual couples within marriage. After all, it is the very nature of marriage today, which allows gay couples to claim it as a right.

A second crucial aspect of the issue is the need of gay marriage. On one hand, there are voices even within the gay community that reject the notion that gay marriage is necessary. On the other hand, committed gay couples feel deprived of a basic right that their heterosexual neighbors and colleagues take for granted. Still, some pose the question - "Do they need it?" The answer to that is quite simple - yes. They need the legal and social recognition of their committed relationships just as much as my own parents need their relationship recognized. The fact that millions of couples around the country spend so much time, energy and money on planning, organizing and performing a wedding ceremony and reception, can only attest to the great emotional value of this ritual. After all, gay couples want to have a magical day of their own, just as straight couples do. In addition, they deserve the over 1000 federal, and 400 state tax and other benefits that the government awards such committed couples (religioustolerance.org). Gay couples also strive for the respect that the institution of marriage inevitably brings. In fact, the socio-psychological impact of gay marriage and its consequences to the social perception of gay people as a whole, is the most important and crucial element toward acceptance of this minority.

Fifty years from now, we will be still arguing over issues such as abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and gun control. These are all controversial issues that involve a degree of suffering and victimization on one side of it. Gay marriage, however, will be the long established norm by then, since it is an issue of acceptance, equality and freedom. The only harm it can cause is to the conservative and religious authorities, that desperately try to hold on to an antiquated system of morals in order to keep the flock in order, and to rally it for various financial and political reasons when necessary.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa have already cleared the way for a massive wave of change in attitudes toward same-sex marriage across the globe, including the US. Having these precedents is critical, and as evidence pile up, people will soon realize that allowing a loving couple to marry should and must be the moral ground that one needs to stand on.

For millennia of civilization, individuals that varied from the norm were excluded, prosecuted and in some cases lynched and executed. We are living in different times, however. We have abandoned a tradition that was as old as civilization itself - slavery. We have recognized the rights of a woman to participate in the government. We have discredited the idea that humans with different skin colors should be "naturally" separated. In fact, through a series of hard fought, controversial and brave steps forward, we have achieved a state of society unheard of in history. And if we are to believe that we can achieve an even higher state of equality and freedom, then gay marriage is certainly the next natural, necessary and inevitable step forward.
Renzzy

Con

"If we are to look at the social trends in the past few centuries, then gay marriage seems to be the next logical development."

Ok, and I believe that light speed is cannot be reached, and that the world is round while we are stating oppinions that have no bearing on the topic stated. Allow me to remind you what your thesis stated...

"Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable."

All you seem to be saying is that "lots of people are accepting gays as natural; we should too." As soon as you present me with evidence to refute, then let the debate begin.

"Gay marraige is natural..."

well, if you mean that people are born that way, then I guess we agree. In your profile you say nothing about being Christian, so I will not bring religion into the debate at this point, however if you do claim to be Christian I have several scriptural references that should change your mind on how "natural" homosexuality is. At this point we will leave it as it is, though, given the fact that we agree that some people are born homosexual.

"...necessary..."

I fail to see how homosexuality/gay marraige is necessary. Give me one example of a cvilization that collapsed due to a lack of gay people and I will deal further with the claim. You say...

"In fact, the socio-psychological impact of gay marriage and its consequences to the social perception of gay people as a whole, is the most important and crucial element toward acceptance of this minority."

Ok, so, gay marraige is necessary for helping gay people? Isn't that circular reasoning? homosexual marraige has no necessary role in society, nor does heterosexual marraige.

"...if we are to believe that we can achieve an even higher state of equality and freedom, then gay marriage is certainly the next natural, necessary and inevitable step forward."

For me, equality is not an issue. I see homosexuals as equal people to myself, and that, I believe, is that way it should be. It seems, then, that freedom is the only issue in question.

So you believe that homosexual marriage is necessary step towards greater freedom. Well, that sounds great, but there is one problem with this argument, and that is the fact that THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON BIBLICAL STANDARDS. Homosexual marriage is NOT a freedom in the Bible, nor is it in any way acceptable. If this country was founded on Biblical morals, then it follows that gay marriage should be unacceptable. If you don't like it, talk to God.

"...and inevitable."

Really? Last I looked there are many acounts of people changing their sexual orrientation. I'm not saying tha homosexual marraige is going to come to a screeching hault, but it is by no means inevitable. If people don't wanna to be gay, thay can, with help, change their sexual orrientation.

"The Director of the New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training, no doubt aware such changes occur, remarked on the "misinformation spread by certain circles that homosexuality is untreatable," saying it did "incalculable harm to thousands."4

Dr. Irving Bieber concluded (after treating more than a hundred homosexuals) that "a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change."5"
(http://www.family.org...)

If two gays want to get married, first they will have to find some place where it is legal, and then they can decide wether or not they really want to get married. There is nothing forcing them to be married, and therefore gay marraige is not inevitable.

I applaud you speaking ability, and can honestly say I am impressed. You fail, however, to say anything in relation to your own topic that can act as suitable evidence for your side. All you talk about is what marraige was, is, and will probably become. I need facts to refute, not theories.

Let me go over your thesis one more time...

"Gay marrige is natural..."

Born gay, yes. Either we take this one to the Bible, or throw it out.

"...necessary..."

As I showed you, it would only be necessary for greater freedoms. These freedoms, however, would contradict the laws that this country was founded on; that is, Biblical laws.

"...and inevitable."

Like I said, nobody is forcing any gay person into marraige, so it is therefore NOT inevitable. On a side note, sexual orrientation is in fact reversable.

Now to my arguments.

Leaving out the first point, which I will assume we agree on, I will move on down to its necessity.

My argument against this is simple: It is not necessary because it does not meet the definition of "necessary". Allow me to define the word.

"Necessary: absolutely essential"

Food is necessary. Shelter is necessary. Water is necessary. Allowing gay people to marry...I don't think so.

Moving on down to "inevitable"...

Why is gay marraige not inevitable? I have already stated this, but I will reitirate. It is not inevitable because, just as heterosexuals can cancel a marriage, so can homosexuals.

"Inevitable: incapable of being avoided or prevented; an unavoidable event."

An ecplips is inevitable. Death is inevitable. Gravity is inevitable. Gay people getting married? I don't think so.

This should be enough to conclude my first argument.

Thanks,

Rnzzy
Debate Round No. 1
pitteas

Pro

I am glad that you take this topic to heart (just as I do) and you took the time to address my main arguments one by one.

I firmly stand behind my thesis: that Gay marriage is NATURAL, NECESSARY and INEVITABLE.

The main discrepancy I am noticing between my arguments and yours is that we are almost talking about different things, different principles. And I think that I should spend some time clarifying what I mean by natural, necessary, and inevitable so that you can better address my points.

By saying that gay marriage is natural I mean that allowing gay couples to wed is in accordance with 1. Our understanding of marriage today (e.g. gay marriage will be a natural inclusion); and 2. (most importantly) being gay and falling in love with a partner from the same sex is part of the usual course of nature (dictionary definition of natural: in accordance with the usual course of nature).

Let me elaborate.

I spent quite a bit of time already proving the first point here – that our marriage today essentially does not assign any roles that are gender specific, at all. This is beyond doubt in my mind – considering that we allow sick individuals who can't reproduce to marry, we allow older folks to marry, and we require no specific responsibilities from either side that are gender specific. (Please do not waste your time talking about tradition, because, as my argument makes clear, we are looking forward, from this point on). So on this first point then, you should agree that gay couples and their committed relationships fit perfectly into our marriage institution, they fit "naturally" in other words.

On the second point, and I'm sorry if I didn't really talk about this one more in my main argument, homosexual behavior and homosexual relationships among mammals are very well documented, and ALL reputable medical organizations agree that it is no perversion, or a disease, or any sort of anomaly for two humans from the same genital group (as a comedian so brilliantly put) to engage in an intimate relationship and sexual acts. In an official statement from the American Medical Association on the subject: "AMA opposes, the use of "reparative" or "conversion" therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation". This may sharply contradict some of what you may take for granted, but we are all here to learn aren't we? (I am not spending time rebuffing the few individual "experts" you quote, who had not been able to make the case for themselves, under the scrutiny of the Medical community as a whole)

If we are to look beyond our preconceived notions of homosexuality and gay sex, it is very easy to accept that homosexuality is indeed part of the biodiversity that we are all witnessing everyday around us. If we still don't know for a fact what causes one to be gay or straight, we do know with a very high degree of certainty that being gay does not mean being mentally unstable, it does not mean being less educated, less talented, less intellectually capable, or lesser of a citizen all around. We have plenty of examples from history of gay men and women making great contributions to humanity. At this point, based on facts rather than personal biases, we MUST recognize and accept these individuals as equal in ALL RESPECTS. And we know that for two individuals who love each other, in our society, there is no greater recognition from family and society as a whole, than the recognition of marriage. It is NATURAL to sanction love between two intimately committed individuals with marriage.

Moving on…

Necessary. You give me a definition I've never seen before: "Necessary: absolutely essential". This definition caries a higher degree of urgency, than I initially envisioned. But I can argue that, yes, gay marriage is absolutely essential. It is essential to the individuals who are being denied inheritance benefits, tax benefits, and child custody benefits, and so many other benefits, that married straight couples take for granted. But it is also absolutely essential for our society's progress forward. We would not have "collapsed" had we not abolished slavery. We would not have collapsed had we not separated church from state. We would not have collapsed had we not given the women rights to vote. Yet, I argue that these things were absolutely essential for our society to move forward from the Dark Ages (in the case of Church-State separation), and from the times of total despotism of slave-owners, and times of gender inequality. When I state that gay marriage is necessary, I never said that it is necessary to the survival of the species, or the survival of the country. I did not specify. I hope that now it is cleared – it is NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS.

Moving on…

Inevitable. I never argued that being gay is inevitable. Your arguments seem to imply that. While I may actually agree with that statement (just as will 99% of the MD doctors in this country), my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable. Why?

I argue that this is primarily because of the concept of an upward moving spiral of evolution – in species, but also in societies. While there are obstacles on the way there, we are bound to eventually reach the cognitive and moral levels required to recognize the rights and dignity of individuals who have been historically (and in many places still currently) oppressed, prosecuted, and murdered. As mentioned above, all facts (and I mean facts that are provable, testable, and documented) show that LGBT individuals are innately such.

The fact that many countries are already adopting gay marriage as the norm only speaks of the timing of this next step forward. If I were living in the 15th century I wouldn't have dreamed of such thing as gay marriage. Few people have the ability to look that far into the future. I am a simple man, and I can already see the next step upward in our evolutionary spiral. It is coming and you better get ready for it.

On a final note, you made a number of references to the Bible and more significantly to the Biblical foundations of this country. This is one of the most absurd statements that I have ever heard, if it wasn't for the fact that I've heard it a thousand times already. Yet, I believe that a lie told a thousand times is still the same old, fat lie.

Equality, liberty, justice for all... WHere are these words mentioned in the Bible. How about free speech. The core principles of this nation were derived from the great thinkers and philosophers of that time in Europe. Humanism and the revolt against tradition and religious despotism were the driving forces behind the birth of the USA.
It is no coincidence that the Bible is mentioned zero times in the declaration of independence or the constitution. The only mention of religion in the constitution says: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The founding fathers were in their great majority OPPOSED to organized religion. And to leave you with a tangible undeniable proof of that, which you can easily verify – here is the opening of the first international agreement of the US. The treaty with Tripoli drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797 states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen…"
We can take this into a whole new debate, but I hope that references to the "biblical foundation" of this nation will be dropped from this discussion for the time being.

I look forward to your rebuttals!
Renzzy

Con

"I firmly stand behind my thesis: that Gay marriage is NATURAL, NECESSARY and INEVITABLE."

Then debate it. What you are not understanding is the fact that your thesis says what it say. If you wanted to debate gay marriages effects on equality and freedom, you should have included that in your thesis. The thesis simply claims that gay marriage in and of itself is natural, necessary, and inevitable, and is technically all I have to debate.

Now back to the debate.

"Natural."

I agree with everything you said. The problem come in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian. Yes, homosexuality is now a natural pert of this world, but I believe that it is not how God created us, so I therefore argue that it is UNNATURAL. In the fallen and sinful state that I believe man is in, homosexuality is natural. Since you go no deeper then our culture, I agree with everything you say, which makes it a moot point.

"Necessary."

You say...

"I can argue that, yes, gay marriage is absolutely essential. It is essential to the individuals who are being denied inheritance benefits, tax benefits, and child custody benefits, and so many other benefits, that married straight couples take for granted."

Lets look at a definition of "essential".

"Essential: Basic or indispensable."

Will homosexuals die if they cannot marry? No. Will heterosexuals die if they cannot marry? Nope. Then marraige is not "essential". Besides, increasing numbers of people, homosexual and heterosexual alike, do not even bother with marriage. People can live without marriage, so it cannot be said that marriage is "essential".

"I argue that these things were absolutely essential for our society to move forward from the Dark Ages (in the case of Church-State separation), and from the times of total despotism of slave-owners, and times of gender inequality...it is NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS."

Wait, wait... Where is this coming from? I don't see any of this stated in your thesis. The way I read it, you thesis says "Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable", and has nothing to do with the progression of our society. Debate your thesis, please.

"Inevitable."

You say...

"...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable."

This, unfortunately, has nothing to do with you thesis. Your thesis claims that gay marriage is inevitable, and that is what you should be arguing. I am, by default, arguing that gay marriage is not inevitable; inevitable AS IT IS DEFINED. Let me define the word in question...

"Inevitable: bound to happen; unavoidable."

Everyone knows that homosexuals marrying is completely avoidable. They could cancle the marriage, one of them could not show up at the alter, one of the could die...the possibilities are endless.

Because you have not argued according to your thesis, I have nothing to rebutle, however I would like to say something concerning your comment on our country's origin.

You say...

"This is one of the most absurd statements that I have ever heard, if it wasn't for the fact that I've heard it a thousand times already. Yet, I believe that a lie told a thousand times is still the same old, fat lie."

Forgive me for bringing your appearant ignorance to light, but I cannot believe what I am reading. Please READ the following...

(http://forerunner.com...)
(http://www.ankerberg.org...)
(http://www.afn.org...)
(http://www.believersweb.org...)

I could continue referencing sites, but I find that deciding wether or not ths nation was founded a Christian nation rather irrelivent to the topic at hand. This is for a different debate. For now, I will await your reply.

Thanks,

Renzzy.
Debate Round No. 2
pitteas

Pro

Your approach to this argument so far has been to avoid the issue at stake. I am disappointed that after so much that I said, you couldn't still see what the argument is about. Instead, you decided to dissect the wording of the title of the argument, post some definitions, and stick to a few irrelevant claims that are not even being questioned. ("Will homosexuals die if they cannot marry? No. ")

First off, when I started the debate, I needed to keep the title short enough to fit into that box, yet complete enough to make sense and summarize the idea. "Gay marriage is natural, necessary, and inevitable" seemed to do the job best. The opening argument in its entirety is there, to clarify any uncertainties as to what the thesis statement may or may not mean. This doesn't mean that I am backing off of my initial thesis, not at all.

The reason I have to say this now, is because you obviously have not spend the time to understand the issue you are arguing about. I made my thesis clear enough in the beginning argument, which does not contradict the title, it only clarifies and complements it. In short, a more complete summary of my thesis (which is developed in my opening arguments) is that: gay marriage will not go against any natural, inherent, universal laws of biology, or social structure; that gay marriage is indeed needed, and is needed very much so for the LGBT minority as well as for the betterment of society as a whole; and that gay marriage is going to be the norm sooner or later – and the question is really not if but when are we going to stop arguing over it.

I hope that now you can see how weak your two arguments really are, since they don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. You simply missed the point.

You have been eager to set up a straw man argument and easily refute it. But for any critical thinker it is easy to see through that. It is a waste of your time, and it is frustrating on this side, since I was hoping to hear some real objections or rebuttals of my actual arguments.

NATURAL

I do have to give you credit for one thing though – you actually agreed that gay marriage is indeed natural. Of course, I said that leaving our personal biases, and preconceived notions about homosexuality aside, we can all agree that gay marriage is natural. Still, you come back to say:

"I agree with everything you said. The problem comes in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian".

But that is exactly the type of thing I was saying needs to be put aside – preconceived notions, personal biases. Religion's set of morals are based on tradition, not on some universally accepted principles. We can argue all day long and never agree on anything, if we debate these social issues basing our arguments on religious convictions. Therefore, I dismiss your Christian objective, as an argument of no value at all.

NECESSARY

My statement from my previous argument: GAY MARRIAGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS, summarizes it best. You have not read my thesis AND my opening arguments well enough to understand that this was my point from the very beginning. Do you really think that I am an idiot and I believe that gay marriage is essential to the survival of gay people, or the survival of society? Where did you come up with that? Even your own definition does not include anything about living and dying. Is gay marriage, however, essential for the progress of our society (which we all agree should be pursued), and the dignity of every citizen – I say Yes, it is necessary. Please, try to understand the debate that you are taking part of.

INEVITABLE …

You said it best: "Inevitable: bound to happen; unavoidable."

I stand by my words that you quoted: "...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable.", because they are part of the bigger argument that gay marriage is coming and it is coming with or without your consent. Of course we as a society have to decide to accept gay marriage. What my arguments make clear is that in the grander scheme of things, our society is bound to do so (and in a very short time, most likely). Therefore, my thesis – gay marriage is inevitable was already proven (if you actually read my previous arguments). But you instead decided to argue anyways without reading them. You say:

"Everyone knows that homosexuals marrying is completely avoidable. They could cancel the marriage, one of them could not show up at the alter, one of the could die...the possibilities are endless."

Wow, you really missed the point here, didn't you? If you planned to play games with words, than I guess you are doing a good job. I came into this to argue an issue. When one says that gay marriage is inevitable, you can reasonably assume that they mean that the institution of gay marriage is bound to be accepted in our society. If you disagree with this basic premise (that I took for granted, since it's so obvious), then we have wasted our time debating different things – social issues vs. technicality of wording one's title.

On a lighter note, since I feel no need to elaborate any further on the things I so clearly explained in my previous arguments already, I want to thank you for the links that you provided to read on the subject of the origins of this country. While all of them were from sources with questionable agendas (to say the least), they all seemed to have some good evidence leading one to believe that Christianity was indeed the basis of this country. Yet, they all fail to address the major issue at stake – the foundation of this country lays with the principles of democracy, equality, and personal freedoms – not with the foundations of the colonies that were put together by relatively simple men who, at the time, were obviously religious.

It is critical to realize that the founding fathers of the NATION were inspired by free thinkers of the time (most of them were challenging organized religion; check Spinoza, John Locke, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant). And one needs to simply compare biblical verses: " Do not have any other gods before me" with the constitution to see how diametrically different they really are.

If you want to talk about a society based on the Bible, you'll need to go 5 centuries back to Spain in the times of Inquisition- that was the true rule of the Lord. Those were the good old times I guess, when homosexuality along with other "sins" was punished righteously. You stated: "In the fallen and sinful state that I believe man is in, homosexuality is natural". Well the founding fathers of this country said it best – liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness.

You will either have to agree with me, or you will have to accept that you are going against the core principles that this country was founded on.

To leave this on a lighter note, here is one of the best and most entertaining clips on this subject, courtesy from comedy central (2 parts).

http://www.thedailyshow.com...

http://www.thedailyshow.com...
Renzzy

Con

"Your approach to this argument so far has been to avoid the issue at stake. I am disappointed that after so much that I said, you couldn't still see what the argument is about."

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I am going to take a wild guess and say that you have probably never debated before. I debate technically, and according to the technical laws of debate, I have not avoided the issue, but YOU HAVE GONE OFF ON A TANGENT. You are debating the effects of homosexual marriage on society, but YOU DID NOT INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR THESIS. I do not need to refute any of your "evidence" because TECHNICALLY it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. The fault was, and is NOT mine, nor was or is it yours. You were ambiguous in your title, and I, admittedly, am taking advantage of that. There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that. It is TECHNICALLY a right that I have.

"I needed to keep the title short enough to fit into that box, yet complete enough to make sense and summarize the idea."

I am sorry, but you did not sumarize the topic you wanted to debate sufficiantly. I read your title EXACTLY as it was, and debated accordingly. I, therefore, have not avoided your issue, but you have created an issue that was not anywhere in the title.

"I hope that now you can see how weak your two arguments really are, since they don't even scratch the surface of the issue at hand. You simply missed the point."

Once again, I am sorry, but you are wrong. My defining of the terms was all that needed be done, because the terms made little to no sense the way you used them. Gay marriage is, as we have AGREED, natural to man. It is NOT, however, necessary or inevitable. If you define the words, they make no sense when applied to gay marriage. If you want to apply them to its affects on society, them include that crucial piece of information in your title.

Your title said "Gay marriage is natural, necessary and inevitable." and I do not need, nor do I want to debate otherwise. Natural? Agreed. Necessary? No. Inevitable? No.

"Still, you come back to say: 'I agree with everything you said. The problem comes in when we take into account the fact that I am a Christian'."

Yes, but I am leaving my Christian beliefes out of this debate for your benefit. Suffice it to say that I agree with you.

"My statement from my previous argument: GAY MARRIAGE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROGRESS OF OUR SOCIETY, AND FOR THE DIGNITY OF ITS CITIZENS, summarizes it best."

Summarizes your tangent best maybe. Your tangent, however, bears no wieght in the actual debate, and therefore means nothing.

"Is gay marriage, however, essential for the progress of our society (which we all agree should be pursued), and the dignity of every citizen – I say Yes, it is necessary."

Thats great! I believe that blue is better then pink and that nursing homes are torture for our seniors while we are stating random opinions. The fact of the matter is, society and equality had NOTHING to do with the debate, because they were not included in the title. Please, try to understand the debate that you created.

"I stand by my words that you quoted: "...my argument is that the acceptance of gay marriage in our society is inevitable.", because they are part of the bigger argument that gay marriage is coming and it is coming with or without your consent."

The bigger argument? Whats the "bigger argument"? You mean that tangent tnat you created? I am sorry, but I chose not to debate your "bigger argument", but rather stick to the topic stated in the title. Therefore standing by your words is choosing to stand by arguments that bear no weight.

"Therefore, my thesis – gay marriage is inevitable was already proven (if you actually read my previous arguments). But you instead decided to argue anyways without reading them."

Now you accuse me of not reading your arguments? I did read your arguments, but found next to nothing that had to do with the debate at hand. Do not be so quick to dish out judgement.

"Wow, you really missed the point here, didn't you? If you planned to play games with words, than I guess you are doing a good job. I came into this to argue an issue."

No, I did not miss the issue, I agrued it soundly. No, I did not play games with words, but defined them as was necessary to make my arguments. If you came to argue an issue, you should have made that issue clear in your title.

"If you disagree with this basic premise (that I took for granted, since it's so obvious), then we have wasted our time debating different things – social issues vs. technicality of wording one's title."

Your taking the title for granted was not wise. If you want to debate a certain issue, STATE THAT ISSUE CLEARLY IN YOUR TITLE.

The technical wording of your title is VERY IMPORTANT. You did not word it correctly, and therefore invited a whole new issue to be debated. This was, ans is NOT MY PROBLEM.

In referance to what you said about the origins of our country, I have little to say, because it has nothing to do with the debate. I think you are wrong, but I need not, I will not, and have no desire to elaborate on my position.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS...

My arguments were clear and concise:

"Gay marrige is natural..."

Agreed.

"...necessary..."

The marriage of gay people is not necessary for anything at all, accept, in your opinion, the progression of out society. This is not relevant though. We have gone over this.

"...and inevitable."

Like I said, nobody is forcing any gay person into marraige, so it is therefore NOT inevitable. On a side note, sexual orrientation is in fact reversable.

I have defined the words for you, and they do not apply to gay marriage. I am sorry, but you did not debate the issue, and therefore lost the debate. I cannot say about the votes, but I believe that you will win the votes simply because of biased voters. You will find that if you have the politically incorrect argument, or the less popular argument, you have very little chance of winning the votes. My possition is but politically incorrect and least popular, so I do not expect to win the votes.

Thank you for the lively debate!

Renzzy
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by phatso86 8 years ago
phatso86
to the poster, "pitteas"

you are fooling yourself. i have only read your first post and it is clear that you will bring nothing meaningful to this debate.

first of all straight sexuality was NOT the only acceptable form in past times as you have stated.
In reality is was quite the opposite. In athens, one of the most intellectual societies in ancient times, a man having sex with a pre-pubescent boy was "normal." Another fact was that a diverse forms of perversions in ancient times were quite prevelant.
Giving rise to homosexual marraiges is only taking one step backwards. Pretty soon having sex with farm animals will be considered a "civil right" and nay-sayer will be considered a bigot.
Posted by realistic 9 years ago
realistic
homosexuality is not the issue. that's another topic entirely. homosexuality has been and always will be a part of humanity. it is not wrong to be gay. marriage is either religious or political. since many bibles condemn the behavior its difficult to see how one might be blessed in sin. toss that one out.
political is all that's left. show me how it benefits a society to allow gay marriage. not just the individual.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
repete21,

Sorry, my bad! lOL! You're right, and I will change it!
Posted by pitteas 9 years ago
pitteas
To Realist's comment:
Rome's demise also coincided with the adoption of Christianity. Maybe that had something to do with it? Homosexuality was widely accepted in many societies in their best years, and their worst. To claim that homosexuality has been a reason for the demise of any civilization, you'll need to actually provide evidence that the two were directly related.
On the other note, marriage (as you should know) is awarded to all heterosexual couples - no matter how old, what their health condition is, or if they are infertile or not. What you studied in 10th grade was obviously a very simplified description of what marriage is. And since when are we worried about not having enough population growth?
Posted by repete21 9 years ago
repete21
Renzzy if you are going to quote Patton take the time to get the quote right...

No bas**** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bas**** die for his country.
Posted by realistic 9 years ago
realistic
Eliminate religion and personal preference and take a look at the effects of homosexuality and sexual freedom on a macro scale in history. Sparta, Rome and others upon becoming civilized eventually followed this standard. In that way we are following the natural, inevitable progression of previous powerful civilizations. In my college years, one consistent teaching was that at least part of the blame for the downfall of these civilizations was a rapidly declining birth rate as heterosexual sex declined in popularity. Also, it has been said that the benefits given to married couples is given in order to stimulate growth and procreation in order to benefit the society by increasing the birth rate (tenth grade social studies). If/when a gay couple can/does produce offspring (thereby repaying their society for their ss benefits and for bringing the evolutionary ladder far enough along for them to drop the ball) then let them marry.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Unfortunately for you, when you are debating, on this site especially, it is. From now on, I suggest you make your title, and expect to debate EXACTLY what it says.
Posted by pitteas 9 years ago
pitteas
Renzzy,
a thesis is not limited to the title of the argument. Rather it is elaborated in its opening argument. Too bad you never argued on the thesis as explained by the title and the opening argument.
Posted by 82978 9 years ago
82978
i only read a bit, which included this...

"THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON BIBLICAL STANDARDS. Homosexual marriage is NOT a freedom in the Bible,"

Just because America was founded on biblical standards, it does not mean that the country has to rely on biblical standards centuries later.

Admittedly, being an atheist i don't know much about the bible, but wasn't it first written a thousand years ago or something? If so it can hardly be something to rely on now, in the twenty-first century.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rcod09 7 years ago
rcod09
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 CHS 8 years ago
CHS
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 Supernova 8 years ago
Supernova
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 evilkillerfiggin 9 years ago
evilkillerfiggin
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 Im_always_right 9 years ago
Im_always_right
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 elizabeth_ya 9 years ago
elizabeth_ya
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 HazyKitten 9 years ago
HazyKitten
pitteasRenzzyTied
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 midgetman2 9 years ago
midgetman2
pitteasRenzzyTied
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