The Instigator
DTSmember
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Ajab
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Gay marriage

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 2 votes the winner is...
Ajab
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 469 times Debate No: 53714
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

DTSmember

Con

This is not a debate about gay rights, it is a debate on the ethics and cause of gay marriage. I will open with the definition of marriage from google. The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
Ajab

Pro

I accept, I believe I a not supporting gay marriage?
In any case I have accepted whichever side's argument you will give, I will give the opposite.
Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
DTSmember

Con

Alright, we can both be con. :) For the viewers, I hope this will enlighten you. Marriage, was not established by the law, only recognized. This means that the law has no power to marry people in spirit, which is what marriage entails. Gay marriage is not advocating gay right, that can be done whilst living with another person of the same sex. The latter is not against the law while the former, gay marriage, is more of an intrusion upon religious practices. You see, if two men wanted to be together, they can. There is nothing stopping them. Absolutely nothing. The only differences between marriage and living together are the belief that they are married in the body of Christ, or similarly in other religions, and tax benefits. And since those who advocate gay marriage say it's not intruding upon religion, if that is the real case, then tax breaks seem to be the only cause. Taxes breaks, which they still receive by marking boxes of dependency and how many live in their home, are the goal. Much like what Al Capone went to prison for, they are wanting larger tax breaks that could be received by marriage. In final conclusion of this round, marriage does not belong to the state, so it is not theirs to give.
Ajab

Pro

I shall play the Devil's Advocate, basically I will be supporting gay marriage.
I shall start with a deconstruction of your argument:
Firstly you have made a whole lot of claims, and not once have you provided any evidence. I shall systematically go about this:
1. I believe you are supposing that the foundations of marriage are Biblical? That is farcical, marriage evolved from the basic relations that had come to be in the first men. It is an association which originated due to the very need of people to make unions. It is not Biblical, not one bit.
2. You assume man has Spirit, I deny such a thing exists. My proof for denying such a thing is that it cannot be rationally nor empirically explained.
3. I find your opinions on gay marriage slightly bigoted, do you have any psychological, or social proof that gay men marry due to tax cuts.
4. I do not believe religion has a patent over marriage, also there are many differences: gay men living together is a sign of love, you have to understand that this allows a lot of closure for them, is emotionally important, not to mention it allowed them to adopt children.
5. One's rights end where the other's nose starts: if one's religion is being offended because of gay marriage, then too bad. In a democratic society they have the right to do as they please.

Now on to my own argument. Let's understand that gay marriage has multiple benefits for the society and the gay people in question. Let's also understand that other than a select few who get mad at almost everything gay marriage does not have any adverse effect. The onus upon me is to show that gay marriage has a higher productivity than not allowing gays to marry. Lets start:
1. By allowing gay marriage we are supporting something more than LGBT rights, we are supporting a democratic, tolerant system. In the recent world, tolerance seems to be a lost element: people are often bigots, people commit murders for their honour and there is a hate for change: for evolution. If al-Qaeda is not enough of an example, there is nothing that will satisfy my opponent of the fact that the society needs tolerance. (Perhaps the proof lies in people like my opponent who actually believe or stoop to the ignoble level that gays marry for tax benefits: disgusting).
2. It would allow the gay men to adopt children more easily, buy houses today and transfer property. The essence of marriage is love, and therefore if two men or two women are in love then they have a right to marry.

For these reasons, and the fact that my opponent has nothing to say other than that Levictus is against gay-ism turns the debate in my favour.
Ajab
Debate Round No. 2
DTSmember

Con

Thank you pro for your argument.
I believe you are misinterpreting my previous arguments about the foundation of marriage, I never mentioned the bible or any books of, not even Leviticus. I was and still am saying that the purpose of marriage, as it was even in ancient Jewish times, is to bind a couple spiritually. My opponent says he does not believe man has spirit, then there would be no need to marry at all, since living together would be satisfactory enough and marriage is an institution of the spirit, not a social status like dating. Since there is no proof against spirit and far more proof of, such as ghosts, spirits, stories, and encounters, then I believe this point leans in my favor.
Secondly, my proof for same sex couples marrying for tax cuts is not bigoted like you attacked with. They are not marrying for religious purposes, and living together provides almost the same aspects, just not the binding of a spirit, then the only worldly part remaining are the tax cuts that follow marriage.
As you say on your point number four, Saying religion doesn't have a patent over marriage is like saying governments don't have patents over taxes. As the definition states, it is recognized by law, not made or defined. We can agree, I feel that living together can provide them with what they are seeking. As for samesex adoption, it is only illegal in one state, Florida. And a current study is finishing the largest survey of the academics and social interactions of those raised by same sex couples. In short that study is not looking good for those raised in same sex homes.(http://www.adoptionchildwelfarelaw.org...)
Point five seems to be an attack on religion, since priests and ministers would be required to marry the couple if it becomes federal law. And since priests and ministers are parts of the religion that does not recognize gay marriage as being gods will, then it is more than offensive, it is a sheer destruction of the first amendment by making them conform to something that is against their religion. (The Constitution of The United States of America)
In regards to your points, it would only be democratic if their were absolutely no person in America that opposes it. If they do, then the constitution serves no person and is destroyed. When that happens we will no longer be a country run off democracy, but one which the happiness of people rules. And everyone knows that money and objects make people happy so there will be an increase in crime. In this beautiful country we have now, all people ARE created equal. They are not created the same though, and this is where the debate has started.
Allowing same sex couples to adopt children also hinders democracy. The child will not have a say and, they can not choose a home with both a motherly and fatherly figure. They will be denied the access to one no matter what. And studies are currently coming in against modern trends of the media to be in opposition of allowing this.
But since modern media and activists claim that marriage is a right, and that men should be able to marry men and women marry women, then they must provide legiment proof that marriage is a right granted to all citizens. And, if that proof is indeed enough, then all people must have the right to marry whomever, whenever, and whatever they want. Wether that be polygamy, beastiality(which indeed some people are fighting for), or underage marriage. If we were to accept gay marriage, then we would be forced to accept other things which we know are morally wrong, also. This will in turn destroy American values and tradition.
Thank you pro for this debate, it has been the first one I've enjoyed and actually taken part in for a while so again thank you. To the audience, I hope you have enjoyed it as much as I have.
Ajab

Pro

Firstly thank you once more for initiating this debate.
Secondly let me once more remind you I am playing the Devil's Advocate.

Now let me come to my counter refutations:
1. The concept of marriage originated in men far before Jewish people, it was means of communion, as I have already said. As for proof of Spirit, please post what prove you have for Spirit being real. I do not believe in ghosts either, tell me something that I could take to the Royal Academy of Science.
2. Is there the possibility they are marrying for love, and marriage is a means to strengthen that love.
3. How can religion having a patent over marriage be similar to a government and taxes. For one a government has an actual president. Secondly let's recognize that priests are not the only one's who have the right to join people in holy communion, secular judges also have that power.
4. Your page (source) is temporarily unavailable.
5. No democratic means majority, and majority are for gays marrying.
6. As for your last points, would you deprive single parents (whose spouse has died) of their children for those children too will not have the "choice" you so refer to.

Thank you once more, I await your response.
Ajab
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PlumberGirl123 2 years ago
PlumberGirl123
Gay marriage is right :) people should marry any gender they want. It is what makes them happy. They shouldnt be miserable for the rest of their lives just because the stupid government wants to keep their tradition. Im glad gay marriage is becoming legal. marry any gender you want as long as the gays are happy. Atleast its not forced marriages, that should be banned from every country forever. Noo one should be forced to marry someone they dont want to. its disgusting and pathetic. In most forced marriages rape is always happening and so is unhappiness. Those poor women suffer the most, i feel so bad for them. And the pigs the women are married to control them. they are just little boys trying to make themself feel like men but ALL RAPISTS, WIFE BEATERS< AND ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT MEN SHOULD CONTROL WOMEN ARE COWARDS AND LITTLE BOYS...pathetic bastards, its no wonder why no one wants to be with you -_- >:(
Posted by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
Your welcome DTSmember, had a lot of fun.
Posted by DTSmember 2 years ago
DTSmember
Thanks Ajab, that was a great debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by LenaQueen 2 years ago
LenaQueen
DTSmemberAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I must put something here so hi
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
AdamKG
DTSmemberAjabTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: I agree with gay rights and marriage is perfectly ethical and that the government has the right to grant it. Pro had a superior argument and rebuttals that effectively deconstructed con's arguments completely. I found con's arguments somewhat bigoted and lacks evidence.