The Instigator
xxHellogoodbyexx
Pro (for)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

Gay marriage should be allowed

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: 4/6/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,757 times Debate No: 3540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (27)

 

xxHellogoodbyexx

Pro

People should be able to be who they want to be and should be allowed to marry who they want to marry. Why are they any different then straight people? Why should they be shut out?!
littlelacroix

Con

I want to first start off by saying that I'm am not opposed to homosexuality, I'm just opposed to the word marriage in this debate. Merriam-Webster Online defines a marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Similar definitions can be found across the Internet and in many books, such as the Bible. Now, I'm a fairly religious person, and as such, I do not feel that the sacrament of marriage should be changed just because some people are different. That's just like saying a person is going to go to a movie theater, go into a movie and just because they don't like what they see, they go get the manager to put a different movie on. Other people came to see that movie. And those who are trying to change the movie, forgot what a movie really means, being together as friends, significant others, and family.

The reason for marriages is so that a man and a woman could be together for the rest of their lives as they live and love together. As long as homosexuality is legal, two men or two women can live and love together, the government has even gone so far as to institute the idea of civil unions to unite two homosexuals, but still, people continue to make a fuss when what is truly important is being left behind. So, I'm curious to hear, why is it such a fuss for the terminology "to be together?"

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
xxHellogoodbyexx

Pro

i dont see why it shouldnt change? why not? why shouldn't gay couples be included in that catatgory? Our economy is based on being straight and being the way " were supposed to be" why should gay couples be cut out of the definition of marriage? Sure there will always be people who disagree about the matter.... but why does that make it any different? It's the same choice as the right to sit where you want at a movie theatre, stay at any hotel etc. you should be able to have the right to be or be with whoever you want.. regardless what people think

Best regards!
littlelacroix

Con

The only real argument you have is why shouldn't it change. But you still have yet to answer my question, why should it change? Two homosexuals can be together under a civil union, the same basic thing as a marriage, but not changing it because a few people want it to. Go back to my movie theater example. I also have a better example. Person doesn't agree with the layout of a building, but he's the only one. The structure has been there for several years, should they destroy the whole building and start from scratch just because of that one person. No, the building is functional and the extra costs and labor would be all just to satisfy a single person.

Also, we wouldn't be cutting homosexuals out of the term "marriage," because they were never there to begin with. Furthermore, you still have yet to respond to the fact that this whole fued between civil unions and marriage is quite pointless, when people should be concerned about being together. Homosexuality is legal, right? So then what is the big argument. Society has become more accepting of the homosexual population, but this is a sacrament of religion between a man and a woman. The only reason that the government recognizes this entity is for tax purposes, exactly what a civil union does.

*I'm not entirely sure where you were going with the economy argument.

I hope that anyone viewing this debate can see that my opponent is just using vague arguments and evading my direct arguments. I believe that it is okay for two homosexuals to be together, I just don't think it is okay to change a sacrament of religion that is among the most important for a few people. Civil unions still allow two homosexuals to be together, so what's the problem with that?

And with that I highly anticipate your final speech. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
xxHellogoodbyexx

Pro

No further arguments.... thank you to my opponent for participating I still believe gay couple should be allowed to be legally " together" or wed, and hope that will change in the soon future.

Thank you!, best of luck with future arguments!
littlelacroix

Con

I want to thank my opponent for this debate; however, I want to mention to anyone who votes on this debate, that my opponent hasn't really refuted any of my points. The idea of marriage is for two people to be together. The same can be said for civil unions, so what's the big deal?

Again, thanks for this debate and good luck in future debates :-)
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by xxHellogoodbyexx 8 years ago
xxHellogoodbyexx
If i was going to ask you to give me the definiton of marriage i would have asked it in the question, i dont see how this has to do with anything
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Jesus Christ, littlelacroix is NATURALLY basing his anti-gay rants on bible thumping holier than thou morality. Why is it that conservanazis always, always think that they can project their own moral shortcomings and veiled racist/sexist/homophobic/divisionary/reactionary angers and hatreds onto other people under the guise of religion and "god's will"?

It is so old and pathetic. And such incredibly fallacy...zero logic whatsoever. It amuses me (and most people with a sense of reality) to no end.
Posted by svi.generis 8 years ago
svi.generis
littlelacroix, I have to admit first off that I'm doing no research what so ever and whatever I'm saying is simply out of my head.

My question/point is about whether or not marriage is actually a religious bond or simple a legal document.

While I recognize that Wikapedia is not necessarily the most reliable source for information, it was the easiest to search on...

"Marriage or wedlock is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. It is often created by a contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution."

So in all reality, since marriage is not strictly a religious bond, why exactly is the issue of gay marriage so religiously based?

Just thoughts...
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
I didn't know we're now basing our moral decisions based on webster's dictionary
Posted by DaltonDem 8 years ago
DaltonDem
What really should be done is the government getting out of marriages all together. The separation between church and state shouldn't even allow for ANY marriages. So everyone has to get a civil union. Its the most fair thing.
Posted by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
First of all svi.generis, I want to thank you for your constructive criticism, unlike HoosierPapi.

I did forget to mention this in the debate, but since it's over, it shouldn't really make a difference. I believe that, in the eyes of the government, civil unions should have the same rights as a married couple. And you are absolutely right on your first arguments.

As far as your second argument goes, it doesn't specifically state in the Bible that a marriage is union of a man and a woman, but it does say with the introduction of Adam and Eve that he created Eve as the perfect opposite of Adam. As childish as it may sound, Chadkenichi is right when he says that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If God wished for marriage to be a union of a man and a man, then he would've created a Steve to stand next to Adam. Furthermore, God wouldn't have said in the Ten Commandments, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, rather would've said, thou shall not covet thy neighbor's significant other. Since God doesn't mess with free will, that is the root of homosexuality, but it was not his intention. Granted, as cheesy it may sound, he still loves all of his creations equally, no matter the path that he chooses.

As far as loveless marriages go between heterosexuals, that too was not his intention, but does that mean that we should change his true intentions for mankind?
Posted by svi.generis 8 years ago
svi.generis
As far as I know, and I know a lot about the subject, Civil Unions are not at all the same thing as marriage, legally speaking. If someone has proof otherwise, I'd be happy to read what you have to say.

But marriage allows legal rights to the couple that a civil union would not. That is, to me, a large part of the issue. When a spouse (by marriage) is in the hospital, you are allowed the right to see him or her. Then are many other cases in which the legality of a marriage trumps the legality of a civil union. I may be wrong about that, I'm not positive.

And I have to throw this in:
Marriage is supposed to be about love, is it not? and does it ANYWHERE in the Bible spell out the marriage is to be ONLY between a man and a woman? If you want to say that marriage is a religious ceremony and 'bond', tell me that? Not to mention the fact the marriage is NOT, strictly speaking, a religious BOND.

Any heterosexual couple can run down to city hall and 'get married'...nothing remotely religious about it.

Think about that.
Posted by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
Idiotically, typically homophobic stance by con in this deabate. ANyone who has to preface their remakrs by saying "I am not against ____ but..." or "I do not hate ____, however..." clearly do disapprove and/or hate on whatever subject/group they are discussing.

Simple answer to this "debate": civil unions are not equal to marriage. And there is no reason why gay people shouldn't have the exact same rights that hetero people have. Separate does not mean euqal, as any student of constitutional law can tell you...no matter how many ways conservatives attempt to construe it.

ROFL, pathetic.
Posted by leethal 8 years ago
leethal
Err, yeah good one Chadkenichi. Never heard that one before. Now, can you come up with one GOOD reason why homosexuality is a bad thing? And don't bring your imaginary friend God into this one please.
Posted by Chadkenichi 8 years ago
Chadkenichi
God made Adam and Eve , not Adam and Steve.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 smartboy101 8 years ago
smartboy101
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 DemosthenesC 8 years ago
DemosthenesC
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 huntertracker6 8 years ago
huntertracker6
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 jvbt1 8 years ago
jvbt1
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 dfhahadfh 8 years ago
dfhahadfh
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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 Insene 8 years ago
Insene
xxHellogoodbyexxlittlelacroixTied
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