The Instigator
Fluer
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
rodmaster
Con (against)
Winning
5 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...
rodmaster
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 885 times Debate No: 20564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Fluer

Pro

Straight forward debate on gay rights. Men should be allowed to marry men and women should be allowed to marry women. My opponent will argue that this is not only heterosexual couples should marry.
Set up
Round 1 = acceptance
Round 2 and 3 = arguments and rebuttal
Round 4 = closing speech (rebuttal but no new arguments)

Rules
Forfeit and you lose conduct.
New arguments in R4 and you lose conduct.
No "shouting" or bad language

Think that's it.
I look forward to hearing my opponents points.
rodmaster

Con

As a libertarian, it should be fun to argue against my own personal feelings.
Accept your definition and look forward to your opening arguements
Debate Round No. 1
Fluer

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and posting quickly.

Religion
No longer is it true that gay marriage restricts your freedom of religion as there are now many churches that accept people with all sexual orientations.

Now the only thing that is restrictive is the fact that there are still too many people of faith that are too blinkered to move into this century and accept that it is morally incorrect to marginalize people in this way.

Human rights
Human rights, as the name suggests, should apply to all humans. Gay people are still very much part of humanity. They are not aliens. All humans have to have equal human rights. When this doesn't happen it attacks the fundamental nature of having human rights in the first place.

Safety
Young people are being driven to suicide just because of who they love. This is morally wrong.
A few facts from The Trevor Program website paint a startling picture of the reality of being a gay youth in our society especially where gay marriage is not recognised.
1.Suicide is the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24-year-olds, accounting for over 12% of deaths in this age group; only accidents and homicide occur more frequently (National Adolescent Health Information 2006).
2.For every completed suicide by a young person, it is estimated that 100 to 200 attempts are made (Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey 2003).
3.Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007).
4.More than 1/3 of LGB youth report having made a suicide attempt (D'Augelli AR - Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002).
By legalising gay marriage we can change this suffocating view that too many societies have that is driving so many young people to take their lives unnecessarily. It has to change.

So, because there is absolutely no reason why gay marriage should not be recognised and that by legalising it we allow young gay people to not feel suicide is the only option gay marriage should be legalised.
No one should be bullied and marginalized for loving someone.

http://www.thetrevorproject.org...
rodmaster

Con

Although m opponent makes some strong points he must remember than America is founded on a belief in separation of Church and state. Essentially religious faith should not play a factor in polices but on the other hand political liberalism should not force morality on to Christians.

1. Human rights for homosexuals would include right to openly serve in the military, adoption, freedom from hate crimes and right to form a civil union with the same legal ramifications as a marriage. Marriage is not a human right as people of other faiths or lack there of are not allowed to marry. As mentioned early Christians have no right to stop homosexuals from adopting because of their faith just like how homosexuals have no right to demand to have the ability to a Christian service.

2.The horrific level of suicide amongst homosexuals has nothing to do with the legality of marriage. Atheists do not kill themselves due to not being allowed to marry, so clearly it is not a moral reason and due to civil unions with the same legal power being available it is not a pragmatic one. As you state the majority of these suicides happen between the ages of 16-24 way before the idea of marriage even occurs. Suicides are due to ignorance and bullying from the general public. The government needs to give homosexuals full rights in services they are in charge of and need to educate people. As stated this has nothing to do with marriage.

3. "Now the only thing that is restrictive is the fact that there are still too many people of faith that are too blinkered to move into this century and accept that it is morally incorrect to marginalize people in this way."
As mentioned earlier people have freedom of religion as long as they don't impose it on others. This is why it is acceptable for the government to intervene in God hates **** rallies but not any further. As mention before marriage is not a human right it is a sacred ceremony for Christians and forcing them into allowing gay marriage is a breach of religious freedom.

4. The pope himself said "This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,"[1]. The Episcopal church will supported the equal rights amendment but restated that "physical sexual expression" is only appropriate within a monogamous "union of husband and wife". The bible is a fundamental block of Christian morality and quite clearly states If a man also lie with mankind, as he lithe with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them [2]. Modern Churches simply not allowing them to take part in a CHRISTIAN system seems quite tolerant. "Newer" Churches will either have to convince the rest of Christian to change or break away offering something different than traditional marriage. I'd call it a Hafty.

I'm an atheist and perceive Christiany to be backwards and because of this will get a civil union. Marriage is not a human right and the government has no right to force the Church's hand on marriage. If you do not agree with the traditional Christian church's rhetoric in terms of marriage you have to join a different club.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
[2] http://nosamesexmarriage.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Fluer

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for their quick reply. I will not introduce any new points in this argument I will just rebut my opponents points and then sum up my arguments.

Rebuttal
I am not limiting this debate to Christianity, I just used that as an example. It is the fact that the government refuses to legally recognise that gay people get married whether they are Christian, Jewish, atheist or anything else.

"America is founded on a belief in separation of Church and state" This is perfectly correct and it is exactly why no religion should have any influence on who the government recognises as being married.

"political liberalism should not force morality on to Christians." It does actually when a religion marginalizes a group of people to the point where they can not live a normal life and they are pushed believe that they should just kill themselves because they are worthless then the government does have a duty to step in to stop this stigma and hate.

"Marriage is not a human right" Wrong. Marriage is the ability to show you love someone and that society is accepting that you can make your own decisions about who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. Marriage is a right and one that should be universal.

"Christians have no right to stop homosexuals from adopting because of their faith" Yeah that's because religion has absolutely no say in the adoption process and so it should stay.

"homosexuals have no right to demand to have the ability to a Christian service" Wrong. Christianity is a faith, a belief. Gay people are still human and therefore they have the right to believe in whatever faith they want. They believe in Christianity and they worship God and all the rest of it so they do have the right then to demand that they be given equal rights of Christian marriage as their fellow heterosexual Christians. It wasn't that long ago that the Lord hated all black people too. Whether you are black, white, gay, bisexual, straight, fat, small you are still human and you deserve to be treated as an equal in whatever religion or society you are in.

"The horrific level of suicide amongst homosexuals has nothing to do with the legality of marriage" Marriage shows that you are accepted as an equal in society. When we have a society that says one type of love is not as good as another type that's when gay youths start to doubt themselves and can lead to feeling insignificant. This is why many become susceptible to the opinion that suicide is their only option. That is why legalising marriage can go some way to stop this being such a bad situation.

"Atheists do not kill themselves due to not being allowed to marry" Atheists are not subjected to the same type of marginalization and they can get married.

"same legal power" This is not the issue. The issue is that they do not have the same social acceptance and this is wrong.

"the majority of these suicides happen between the ages of 16-24 way before the idea of marriage even occurs" They know that they are not accepted and they cannot be treated as an equal in marriage because their love is not as valid or it is wrong.

"Suicides are due to ignorance and bullying from the general public" and this is strengthened by the fact that everyone knows gay people can never get married therefore they also believe that gay love is wrong.

"The government needs to give homosexuals full rights in services they are in charge of and need to educate people." Yes they do and they are starting to but what they are not doing is allowing gay people to have this status of marriage that shows that their love is just as valid as any other love. This has everything to do with marriage because this is about how we love and how we show that love.

"as long as they don't impose it on others" They are imposing it on others by refusing to accept that gay people have the same right to love as heterosexuals. I have rebated the rest of this point.
The whole of your fourth point is a bit ridiculous. This is a religion based on a society that is outdated by a few thousand years. These societal views cannot be used in today's society to pursue the marginalization of a group of people. If you understood anything to do with atheism you would not have brought this point up. Christianity is only a belief among certain people. Their beliefs should not rule the governments decision to not recognise gay people as having the right to get married. This goes for all religions.

Summary

1. Religious beliefs are no reason for the government to dismiss the legality of gay partnerships and these beliefs are outdated.
2. As humans we have the right to love who we want and we have the right to believe in whatever religion we want and we have the right to an equal portrayal of the validity of our love. Gay people have the right to marry if they want.
3. The lack of social acceptance and the marginalization of the gay community leads to far too many youths to commit suicide. Legalising gay marriage stops this view that gay love is unworthy and lesser than heterosexual marriage which allows more social acceptance and less hate.

There is absolutely no reason why gay people should not be recognised by the state as married couples and it actually benefits society to legalise marriage.
Vote Pro.
rodmaster

Con

Good swift debate. My opponent keeps referencing that marriage is somehow superior to civil partnership and that Christians have no right to dictate what takes place at a Christian ceremony. Yet again marriage is not right, it is something given to people by the Christian Church. Those who are not allowed too or don't wish to associate with the backwardness of Christianity can get a civil partnership which is equally valid.

"Religious beliefs are no reason for the government to dismiss the legality of gay partnerships and these beliefs are outdated."
Absolutely. All people no matter what religion or sexual orientation have a right to a civil partnership. A civil partnership is the ability to show you love someone and that society is accepting that you can make your own decisions about who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with. A civil union has the same legal rights but is just not done at a Church and is not conducted by a religious person. If religious people were against homosexuals having a civil union then you would have a point but marriage is a Christian civil union. Therefore it is up to Christians how it is practiced.

"they be given equal rights of Christian marriage as their fellow heterosexual Christians."
As I pointed to in my last post there are many verses of the bible that are anti-homosexuality and the Episcopal church (most prominent body for protestants) and the Pope (for Catholics) are against gay marriage. Anyone can believe anything they want but Christians decide Christian marriage, if I believe that anybody witty enough to think of Rodmaster should become the Pope does not mean it is going to happen. Taking different views on a religion over the accepted religion makes you a different branch. As I stated all those interested in a religion that has a religious same sex partnership can break away and start up their own religion if they believe that is what is right in the eyes of God.

"Atheists are not subjected to the same type of marginalization and they can get married."
Exactly atheist are not subjected to the bullying and ignorance that homosexuality. Suicide has nothing to do with marriage. Civil partnerships are already recognized as being the same as marriage. People who believe homosexual relationships have any less love are clearly ignorant and need to be educated, putting in a technicality which is a breach of Christian religious freedom is not the answer. Church members not allowing same sex marriage is nothing like calling for the death of homosexuals. One is Christians imposing their morality on others whilst same sex marriage is the other way round. If I make it abundantly clear to my priest that I'm an atheist he will not marry me.

"Their beliefs should not rule the governments decision to not recognise gay people as having the right to get married. This goes for all religions."
Their beliefs should, as marriage is a Christian custom based on Christian beliefs. As stated they have no right concerning civil partnerships but marriage is theirs, otherwise there is no longer separation of Church and state.

Summary
1. Civil partnerships are a right, marriage is Christian. Therefore Christians control it as it a Christian service. Christians who disagree with this can break away from the Church and set up their own form of religion.
2. Suicide rates are down to ignorance and intolerance to homosexuals which is sorted by education on the matter and speaking out on those who condemn gays.
3. Forcing Christians to change their religious and moral practices by law is a breach of the constitution.
4.I'm defending people who think they drink a guys blood once a week, so vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
FluerrodmasterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was off topic. Pro argued that gays should be allowed to marry. That's what the debate was about. But Con only argued that the government should not force churches to allow gays to be married in church. That is not what the debate is about. Pro was totally victorious.
Vote Placed by YoungBrain 4 years ago
YoungBrain
FluerrodmasterTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not provide any good arguments and did not rebut con's arguments.