The Instigator
michigainman56
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Daboss_McSwag
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Daboss_McSwag
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 742 times Debate No: 75673
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

michigainman56

Pro

Hello, and welcome to the debate! I will be arguing as a pro that gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. You will be arguing that it shouldn't. 1ST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY. If you want to ask any questions please put them in them in the comments. I will never extend the debate. Good luck to you! Have a wonderful day!
Daboss_McSwag

Con

I accept the challenge, good luck to you. I'd like to clarify one thing and that's is the fact I do not intend to include my theological ideals on the morality of gay marriage in this debate, but rather my opinion on why it shouldn't be put into law. This statement will make more sense when I post my first actually argument.
Debate Round No. 1
michigainman56

Pro

Thank you very much for joining my debate. Sorry my post is so late but this is a holiday weekend. I think Gay marriage should be a right for everyone I think you should live your life how you want to live it as long as it doesn't harm anybody. How does somebody Else's marriage affect you?

Back then almost everybody didn't accept gay marriage it has changed today. People are realizing that gay couples are doing no harm and deserve the right to be married. If you love someone don't you have the right to marry them? Many people think that gay marriage is untraditional but actually in the B.C era gay marriages would sometimes happen. Why have we grown into this nature? What is bothering you about these marriages a growing number of Americans are accepting it. Even some people who are religious are realizing today is different then back then everybody has their different likes and beliefs if someone's sexuality bothers you then you have a problem. Why do we keep these people from not having the chance to marry? We were born on this earth in control of our own bodies we can live our life how we think its the right way. For some its different than others. I am excited to continue this debate this round is opening arguments.
Daboss_McSwag

Con

I'm equally excited, I think this is an important issue; now to the debate.

You're right in saying gay marriage tends to be unjustly prejudiced over poor moral awareness, but the law isn't based off of morals alone, it's meant to be as fair as possible to the most people. No law has ever been unanimously agreed on by every single American ever. It's truly unfortunate, but the morality of gay marriage is often frowned upon by several religions. Again, please do not misinterpret my statements here, I am not under any circumstance agreeing with these views. The fact is, the Catholic and many Protestant religions, however divided, have a large portion believing that gay marriage is a sin. If gay marriage were made legal, the constitutional rights of these members would be widely considered violated as it would be seen as prejudice based off of religion. The gay community; however, could counter argue denial of marriage rights is a violation of their constitutional rights. The law cannot satisfy both of these communities, so it must do one of two things, side with the larger community (the religious one) or reach a compromise. I believe in compromise. While gay marriage would not be able to be reached fairly, I believe a very good deal of the religious community could be satisfied if the rights of marriage were granted upon a gay couple if not officially married. The religious community that is against gay marriage has a very large portion against the act of marriage, not the lawful rights granted. A gay couple could be happy together and live a life identical to married life while not offending most of the anti-homosexual religious community. There will of course, be those who want he entire law to lean towards his/her side but this kind of compromise could very easily satisfy the most people. I also believe this to be very fair to both parties. So gay marriage should not be legalized, rather a compromise should be reached to be fair and satisfy the most people of America.
Debate Round No. 2
michigainman56

Pro

Thanks for responding this will be the argument section. Now your saying that it will offend some people who are religious but Catholics are against abortion but abortion is legal. Why would gay marriage offend them? Catholic and very conservative Ireland voted in favor of gay marriage, Catholics are changing their mind on this topic they now realize that it was different back then look at how many celebrities are gay. Anderson Cooper, Ellen. As far as I know this doesn't offend anyone. I think it should put in law because you have the freedom to think what you want to think and make your own sexual decisions. Not legalizing gay marriage takes away these rights. And the government and religion shouldn't intertwine. We have the choice sure it may offend some people but we should give the LGBT community a chance. We shouldn't just leave them take a walk in there shoes and you will know what I am talking about. Think about how it feels for them always getting teased abused. Everyone deserves their right to try to make there life the best it can be.

Why do we make the choice its their body.
Daboss_McSwag

Con

You have a legitimate point, but the problem holding back the legalization of gay marriage is the nature of US law. Yes the religious community is opening their eyes to being fair to the homosexual community but the anti-homosexual community is still very large and prominent in society, regardless of the reduction of its members. Their counter argument to your statement about marriage not being their business would be something along the lines of "ISIS doesn't have our bodies, but we fight them because what they are doing is wrong". To the anti-homosexual community the act of gay marriage is wrong and against human nature. However one may feel, this is a valid and well supported argument from a theological point of view, coming from a large group of people in the eyes of the law. It is not considered blind prejudice because there is a clear possibility they are right. The gay community does; however, still pose a legitimate argument themselves. One's love should not be judged and condemned in such a way, that is also a clearly morally valid statement. Therefore if one is to look at the big picture from the US government's point of view there are two equally valid and backed moral opinions with conflicting goals trying to have their interests put into law. The nature of US law is to have both these large populations of America walk away satisfied with a law that can meet both parties' needs to the best of its ability. Legalizing gay marriage cannot do this, it leans too much towards the homosexual community, and it therefore shouldn't be put into law. Something along the lines of the compromise I listed in my previous argument can and that kind of thinking should be what is made law. Am I saying I'm the supreme judge of this? Of course not, but I believe in the concept of bringing both parties to a common ground and having them both walk away mostly satisfied. Gay marriage doesn't do this, so it shouldn't be legalized at this point in time.
Debate Round No. 3
michigainman56

Pro

Thank you for posting your 3rd round debate I wish you luck in this final round. You state the nature of US law is to have both large populations of America walk away that can meet both parties needs" First of all there are many laws that the religious community doesn't believe with. For example, abortion for which I have mentioned before. But, you seemed to ignore that. Do you think abortion meets both of the needs of both parties? No, but it is the ethical thing to do to give women their freedom I don't agree with abortion I am using this as a example. It may not meet both parties needs but its the freedom of choice. That goes the same for gay marriage both parties may not agree with it but it is the ethical thing to do. Like welfare people who don't receive it don't agree with it but people who do receive it usually do agree with it. The people who are religious don't usually agree with gay marriage but the people who are non religious or gay or religious do. Over 65% of Americans agree with gay marriage what are you talking about that it doesn't fit the larger parties needs? The religious community is starting to agree with this concept of gay marriage and how it is a universal right to love who you want to love and marry who you want to marry. What do you mean not in this point of time? You are basically agreeing with gay marriage but saying "not now". Why are we not giving the gay community of what the deserve? Why should they be affected by the religious community they should have the right to make their own decisions. Your reasoning doesn't make sense there always won't be a law that will meet both sides of the issue but sometimes its the right thing to do. Also American law makers shouldn't be affected by the religious community. And, religion and the government shouldn't intertwine. As I said before many times there will never be a law that leaves both sides satisfied but for the freedom of everyone it is the right thing. How does there marriage affect others who are not gay? Thank you for joining this debate. To the voters I hope you vote pro for the freedom of some Americans. Have a great day everyone!
Daboss_McSwag

Con

I apologize for not addressing your abortion statement; I had some personal things going on and had 15 minutes to post a rebuttal. On the topic of abortion that is an example of the other thing US law will do, side with the larger party in this case, the pro choice party. I mentioned this earlier. I do not support simply siding with the larger party on an issue so evenly divided, and this is why I so strongly support a compromise instead. I do not support gay marriage, not because of my theological views on it, but because it just isn't in accord with US law. The poles I've seen are extremely varied many saying most of America is against it and many saying America is for it. I will; however, give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the homosexual population is now bigger than the anti-homosexual one. That being said, I'll also assume that if a compromise can't be reached than the law will side with the homosexual community instead of the anti-homosexual community. I still don't believe that route to be fair and while we are assuming the gay community to be bigger, this issue is still far too evenly divided to be instantly assuming we should side with it over sheer numbers. I said this when assuming the anti-homosexual community was bigger too. Siding with the gay community leans too far to one side, this is not fair. Now, you've given quite the argument over why gay marriage is morally acceptable but the anti-homosexual community has just as reasonable a stance. You also claim religion and government shouldn't intertwine and yet you are campaigning for a law that goes against the theological beliefs of a huge amount of people. Furthermore, you say they should not be allowed to have a say in the matter because they are coming from a religious point of view? That is neither fair nor constitutional. This does affect them because their faith is being violated. A gay couple has just as many rights and shouldn't be prevented from being happy together but blatant marriage is just not the answer. Again, I say compromise to make the most people happy and to not have anyone's rights or beliefs taken away in the US law. You said it yourself, not everyone will be satisfied but that is the closest they will get and the most fair we can be to all who are proud to be US citizens. Be fair and just to all everyone, and don't just side with one person if they are both equal in opinions and reasoning. We all deserve our rights, vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Daboss_McSwag 1 year ago
Daboss_McSwag
Oh and I forgot to say good luck to you in the last round, sorry about that. May the best debator win.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
Thank you Deathbydefault I hope you pick the best man!
Posted by Deathbydefault 1 year ago
Deathbydefault
That is a very good counter argument. I can truly appreciate that you didn't just come here to say you hate gay people because your theology (assuming you have one) told you to hate gay people. I hope for the best of this argument, it's not the first time I've seen one of it's nature. It's an either one could win situation due to pro gay marriage having the moral advantage, and con gay marriage having the political advantage.

Best of luck to you both!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
michigainman56Daboss_McSwagTied
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 does a good job pushing theological people's rights over homosexuals' rights, and also shows that pro contradicts himself with religion separate from government, when homosexual marriage goes against the religious people's beliefs. Pro should have pointed out that more religions support gay marriage than abhor it.