Gay marriage shouldn't be legal
Debate Rounds (3)
Most gays don't stay married when they get married anyway. Equal rights shouldn't be the case in every case. Especially with a sacred institution like marriage.
Marriage is not an institution with Christian roots, as my opponent falsely claims. The institution of marriage predates Christianity. Many marriages happened in Ancient Greece and Rome, for example . Additionally, religion need not play a huge factor in marriage. The crux of my opponent's argument rests on marriage sharing an eternal bond with Christianity. I have already removed the foundation for this bond. Additionally, if marriage was solely a Christian institution, how do Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and other members of other religions get married? And if marriage was only a religious institution, why are atheists allowed to marry? All of this debunks the association my opponent claims exists between the Church and marriage.
Even if this connection did exist, something I have disproven, the US is not a theocracy. No Westernized country is a theocracy. Decisions are not made based on religion. Indeed, the US actively prevents this, establishing with the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (common knowledge).
To deny gays the right to marriage while allowing it for straights is, in the US, a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In the Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia, the Court established that "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man" . Thus we may indeed treat marriage as a right granted to one group of people (heterosexuals) but denied to another (homosexuals).
Lastly, my opponent claims that most gays who get married can't stay married. He fails to provide even an ounce of evidence to support this claim, and thus I dismiss it entirely.
I look forward to seeing what my opponent says in the next round!
Marriage may have origins back in Ancient Greece and in ancient nations, but an ordained minister is required to be at every wedding. The religious tie-ins are evident throughout a marriage while they give their sacred vows. A person doesn't specifically need to be a Christian or religious to get married, but I'm arguing that the institution of marriage is sanctified and tied in to religion inseparably.
There has to be a point where we draw the line for equality. Why not allow for incestual marriages? Or marriage between a man and his horse? It's a slippery slope to say that "everyone has the right to (x)." A vagina is obviously meant for a penis and how we naturally procreate.
I was trying to find the article I was reading yesterday but I can't find it. It was a statistic showing that gay people tended not to stay married as long and as often as straight couples do and it was in a state where gay marriage is legal. I'll keep searching and provide it to the debate if I find it.
My opponent now claims that an ordained minister is required at every wedding. This is not true. There are many civil or public weddings, which are presided over by a state official/civil servant, such as a Justice of the Peace . If religion was tied inseparably into marriage, there wouldn't be these public weddings.
Additionally, if marriage belonged to the Church, why would they allow atheists to get married but not gays?
Furthermore, many churches support gay marriage [2,3].
My opponent now brings up the slippery slope fallacy and even acknowledges it as the slippery slope fallacy. His argument is thus erroneous, and I don't have to respond to it. However, I will.
Heterosexual Marriage: Two consenting adults
Homosexual Marriage: Two consenting adults
Bestiality: One adult and one animal; the animal is incapable of informed consent. An animal can never wed a human.
Many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex, oral sex, etc, so claiming a vagina is meant for a penis doesn't hold much water. Furthermore, marriage is not about procreation either. If it were, why do we allow infertile/sterile, elderly, and people who plan to be childless to marry?
My opponent completely drops my argument about the US not being a theocracy and not making laws based on religion. Please extend this point.
My opponent says he cannot find the article, so I see no need to refute this unsubstantiated point further. However, I will add this - the Huffington Post found that states that have allowed gay marriage have lower divorce rates than states that do not .
I look forward to my opponent's case in the final round!
(To open up the last source, delete the semi-colon at the end).
Churches vary, but each religion is based on some doctrine. That doctrine doesn't approve of gay relationships and it follows that weddings wouldn't be approved of either.
You dropped my argument about two consenting incestual adults. If they both consent, why can't they be married? Also, a slippery slope is different from the slippery slope fallacy. I didn't conclude that gay marriage would result in marriage of bestiality but stated the obvious that this would result from the same liberalization on who can be married.
My point is that marriage is natural considering the biological purpose that males are anatomically matched to be compatable with females.
The US is not a theocracy but the institution of marriage has religious tie-ins. The governmental benefits of marriage are separate from the sanctity of marriage. This sanctity should be preserved.
Also I'm unable to find the source I've read but it could've been concerning the population of gays who choose to me married in states that are legalized vs. states that don't legalize gay marriage.
Gay marriage should not be allowed because the institution of marriage is sanctified through religion. It's also a slippery slope of liberalizing who can and cannot be married. It's biologically natural for a man to be with a woman the same way marriage is natural for marriage to be between a man and a woman.
An ordained minister is required for Christian church weddings only. Not for non-Christian weddings. Since the resolution deals with legality, we are looking at what power the state has. The state presides over public weddings via public officials/civil servants. The church does not. The placement of Christian ministers has no bearing on the resolution.
My opponent claims that "Churches vary, but each religion is based on some doctrine. That doctrine doesn't approve of gay relationships and it follows that weddings wouldn't be approved of either." I have demonstrated that some churches do approve of homosexual marriage. Additionally, there are many Scriptual interpretations of the Bible claiming that the Bible does not disapprove of homosexuality. Jesus himself never spoke about homosexuals. Becuase of the Bible's many translations over the years, it is impossible to make any absolute interpretations. The Bible cannot be considered an authoritative source on the subject. Other religious doctrines are equally mixed. Some say nothing about homosexuality.
"You dropped my argument about two consenting incestual adults. If they both consent, why can't they be married? Also, a slippery slope is different from the slippery slope fallacy. I didn't conclude that gay marriage would result in marriage of bestiality but stated the obvious that this would result from the same liberalization on who can be married. "
I did not drop this argument. The incestual example was a pillar of the overall argument my opponent was making, not an argument on its own. I addressed this argument. My opponent claims it a difference between a slippery slope and a slippery slope fallacy; however, the argument he makes is a slippery slope fallacy:
If we allow gay marriage, then we will be letting people marry animals!" This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because action A is permitted does not mean action B will ensue.
The argument against allowing incestual couples to marry is a different one and not relevant to the resolution at hand. Biological evidence (as this is the last round, I wil lrefrain from introducing new sources) that children produced by such unions suffer genetic defects. Outside of this, however, there is little reason to make incestual marriages illegal.
"My point is that marriage is natural considering the biological purpose that males are anatomically matched to be compatable with females."
My opponent again reasserts that marriage is meant for procreation. I have already addressed this point - something my opponent dropped. Why do we then allow infertile/sterile, elderly, and couples who plan to be childless to marry? Furthermore, if marriage is about procreation, why marry at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to procreate with as many people as possible rather than be shackled to one?
"The US is not a theocracy but the institution of marriage has religious tie-ins. The governmental benefits of marriage are separate from the sanctity of marriage. This sanctity should be preserved."
Based on this point alone, my opponent cannot win this debate. He concedes that the US is not a theocracy. The US does not make laws based upon religion. The US has a separation of church and state. Laws are therefore secular in nature. The resolution deals with gay marriage being legal. What is legal is not cotingent upon what is religious. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be made illegal because of religion.
My opponent cannot find his source despite having two rounds (three, if we count the original claim) to do so. There is no evidence to support his claim. Even if there was, his claim has no bearing on the legality of gay marriage. Many, many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, yet my opponent is not claiming that heterosexual marriage should be illegal.
I believe I have succesfully discredited the resolution. I have demonstrated that the US, with its separation of church and state, cannot make religious laws. Laws cannot be used to carry out religious ends, and questionable religious ends at that, as there is no consensus on Biblical interpretations, and many churches support LGBT equality and gay marriage. The resolution deals with the legality of gay marriage - "Gay marriage shouldn't be legal." Many of my opponent's arguments stemmed from religion and thus cannot justify making gay marriage illegal. I have refuted each of these points.
I would like to thank my opponent for providing this chance to debate, and I urge the voters to vote CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has no sources. And E.R. has a better case. Very good try tho, MasterDebated!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.