The Instigator
conbot10
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
christ88
Con (against)
Winning
40 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  
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: 12/8/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,498 times Debate No: 177
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (25)

 

conbot10

Pro

All humans should have the right to wed, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. There shouldn't be a law banning gay marriage because a certain religion frowns upon it. State and religion need to be kept separate. Religion should hold no ground in this debate because not all citizens are religious, but all citizens must abide the laws. If homosexuality is against your religion, that's fine. But, it is not fair that an entire nation is forced to live this way because of an unjustified law. It is ignorant to believe homosexual couples can not properly raise a child. It's not dire for both a mother and father to be present, as ideal as that may seem. A single parent would be a great example of this situation. In the end, there is no legitimate argument on why gay marriage should be illegal.
christ88

Con

Let me start this off by saying I am not antihomosexual. I just wanted to debate this with you.

I don't see how you can say that religion has no bearing in gay marriage. Marriage of any kind is a religious ceremony and a civil union. The problem comes because it is both. What needs to happen is a split. We need a civil marriage (legally binding) and a religious marriage. This way, gay couples can be married under the law and the church has no complaints. In fact with a civil ceremony rather than civil and religious, anyone can be married in accordance with the law. However, one can not say that gay couples can be religiously married because the religion is against it. You can not hope to change the religion, but you can change the law.
Debate Round No. 1
conbot10

Pro

Marriage doesn't not always have to be religious. Weddings are a religious matter. Marriages are a legal matter. Therefore, there is no need for a "split". If everything that was frowned upon by a religion were illegal, you could be arrested for lying, being jealous, and getting angry. Many people bring up the arguement that God did not intend for same sexes to marry because they can not reproduce and it is an unproductive relationship. So should sterile people not get married? Along with that, does everyone believe in God? Many people also say that marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Yet, wasn't voting only for white males at one time? Being religious is great, but what someone else does with their life, such as having a gay marriage which is in no way harming anyone else, is their own business.
christ88

Con

I've got a question. Why do two men need to be married? Why do a man and a woman need to be married? Other than civil benefits, what do they earn? So if two men were allowed the civil benefits, would the fight for gay marriage be over? No. They want "equality". But what do they add to society to deserve the equality? Sorry its so short but I have been very busy.
Debate Round No. 2
conbot10

Pro

conbot10 forfeited this round.
christ88

Con

What more to say... gay marriage is and will always be controversial. I do not believe it will ever be socially acceptable. Until there is a logical reason for it to happen, no love is not logical with heterosexually or homosexually, there is no reason for society to accept it. However, homophobia should not be acceptable either.

So yeah... I'm not going to spend time finding articles to support my argument seeing as the conbot10 did not bother to argue his last round. But yeah, if something doesn't help society, why should society help it?
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thrix 8 years ago
Thrix
conbot clearly wins this debate even without the 3rd argument.

Religion plays a main roll in this topic and i applaud both the Pro and Con for keeping it out of the debate for the most part.

We as humans are so easily manipulated by things in this world. From the time we're born to when we die we're constantly being fed ideas of society, the environment, what's "in-style"...etc..

I guess where I'm going w/ this is that being openly gay is something that becoming more and more expectable....a century ago you would have been shot on the spot for looking at a person of the same gender as you, the wrong way. Look how far we have evolved in the past ½ a century. The examples are countless….
Why can't excepting homosexuality be another one of those accomplishments?
This is something that is becoming more and more excepted whether the Con likes it or not.
Posted by conbot10 8 years ago
conbot10
Snap, my apologies to christ88. I'm terribly sorry I didn't post a 3rd argument. You deserve to win this debate on that reason alone.

But to respond to your question, many heterosexual couples contribute no more to society than homosexual couples. It can't be assumed that all heterosexual couples will produce children (give back to society) if that is what you mean. Also, many homosexual couples adopt, so if you want a reason, there you go: giving orphans more of an opportunity for a home.
With that, I find no logical reason for same-sex marriages to be unacceptable. The only thing stopping it is the mindset of society.
Posted by francis 8 years ago
francis
its very irrational to say that the government is only promoting the marriage between a man and a woman just to ensure the excistence of a country because if we come to think of it,dont you think that we will be able to solve one of the greatest problem of the world which is population ? and we are not generalizing the situation because in the, first place not all of us are homosexuals right ? and in the second place prohibiting these people from choosing the ones that they love only shows that in love there is a set of requirements to follow which all of us should abide.
Posted by aremisasling 8 years ago
aremisasling
I'm voting for pro, cause I think the swashbuckling racoon is cute!

just kidding

Aremis
Posted by christ88 8 years ago
christ88
cherrychocolate, that last argument was complete b.s. He didn't respond in time so I didn't really have anything to say... basically it was a filler that I thought sounded good because it had good symmetry :P.

As for women and the right to vote... haha I have a debate on a related topic to that which I spent much more time arguing. Naturally you will think it very sexist, but I was just trying to get a good debate, and the best way I could do that was with a controversial topic, whether I agreed or not.
Posted by aremisasling 8 years ago
aremisasling
Clearly not the same thing. A goat can't show that it even knows the meaning of what's going. If, however, goats were sentient beings capable of communicating to us that they were willing participants in marriage-like relationships I'd be all for it and I think you'd likely have very similar arguments that you have today about gay marriage for human-goat marriage. What's more, we'd have to go a long way toward marital rights (visitation, inheritance, etc) for goats before such a proposal would even be significant on a legal basis. Last I checked goats can't own property and aren't generally allowed to visit dying mates of their own species more or less ours. Furthermore, no one has presented a case to me that goats need to be married to engage in intercourse in the eyes of the lord so even religious grounds don't stand.

I bet you think I'm being ridiculous at this point. Well, ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Posted by parkerdoc 8 years ago
parkerdoc
I want to marry a goat! That should be legal also then!
Posted by aremisasling 8 years ago
aremisasling
Last I checked I had to register my marriage with the state of Wisconsin to make it legally binding even though I had a wedding with an ordained minister. So as far as I can tell, they are separate things. Since they are separate there is no reason why the state couldn't allow for same-sex marriage. And the historic precidence of heterosexual marriage is similar to justifications for slavery, voting rights for women, marriage among people of different races, arranged marriages, living with parents until marriage, maintainign tyrannical regimes and many other things. Tradition is not somehow so holy we need keep it at all costs. If society demands something and no danger can be reasonably presented in allowing it, there is no reason why it should not be allowed. Gay people need not show their marriages to be valuable to society. It is for the opponents of the idea to demonstrate that it is detrimental to society, which I have heard no good justification of to date.
Posted by cherrychocolate 8 years ago
cherrychocolate
christ88 - how can you say homosexuals don't "help society"? Many of the greatest contributors to our culture - art, literature, fashion, and so forth - have been bi- or homosexual; and I do not doubt that they would find other ways of contributing if they could find general acceptance outside of the arts world.

I would also direct you to an argument made by a one Anna Howard Shaw, regarding women's suffrage, from 1914 (yes there is a relevance bear with me): I cannot actually provide a link as one needs a membership with JStor to access it, but one of her most cutting points is that questions like "why do women need the vote" and "what would they do with it if they had it" are completely irrelevant, and I maintain that this is a parallel situation. How outrageous would it be if, when you attempted to obtain a license to wed your perfectly legal, perfectly female life partner, the magistrate demanded that you first explain why you absolutely needed a marriage, and why you couldn't make do with simply having the civil rights inherent in a marriage! The question has no bearing on the argument.

But, overall, I must say I actually agree with your position - marriages should be left to religions, and EVERYONE should be required to be joined in civil union to be recognized as wedded by the state. Not to mention, you argued your points rather better. So I'm still voting for you. I just wanted to put in my two cents.
Posted by moderate84 8 years ago
moderate84
Adding on to what a member said before marriage is defined as between a man, and women also religion has a lot to do with marriage. This is why the debate will keep going the way it goes. Culture is not ready for two people that are gay to be standing in front of a preacher conferring those two people. I include myself as one of these people and have no problem saying so. Is it wrong of me to think this way? To me no to others yes and I respect the view of people that would disagree. Will things change maybe but right now they will not because neither major party would support gay marriage. The majority of moderate democrats will do is allow for civil unions.
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
conbot10christ88Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
conbot10christ88Tied
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 blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
conbot10christ88Tied
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 christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
conbot10christ88Tied
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 DevinRichardson1 8 years ago
DevinRichardson1
conbot10christ88Tied
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 ally93 8 years ago
ally93
conbot10christ88Tied
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 Sludge 8 years ago
Sludge
conbot10christ88Tied
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 Thrix 8 years ago
Thrix
conbot10christ88Tied
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 Chob 8 years ago
Chob
conbot10christ88Tied
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 parkerdoc 8 years ago
parkerdoc
conbot10christ88Tied
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