The Instigator
julianna.rose
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Gay marrige

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 36093
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

julianna.rose

Pro

I believe that gay marriage should be legalized. People who like the same sex, are still people they are the same as you and me. The only difference is that they like the same sex. Why should that really matter, that is their business not yours, not mine, not anyone's but their own, and for them to be judged on who they are is pathetic. Everyone always talking about, "love yourself" and "no one should be judged" They are just everyday because of their personal life. I am absolutely for them, everyone deserves to live long, and truly, truly, HAPPY.
Mikal

Con

I accept this debate.

I would like to clarify that I am pro gay marriage but I am also really bored and would like to play devils advocate.

I await my opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 1
julianna.rose

Pro

Thank you for accepting, and i look forward to debating with you!

Well, people always talk about "our rights" and "equality for everyone" Yet people are willing to take away others rights, just because of how they feel. If one man, is attracted to another, then who are you to say that's, "sick" "unnatural" If it wasn't natural don't you think it wouldn't happen?

I believe that everyone deserves to be happy, everyone should live the life they want to live, and not have to be judged for it.

What i can not understand is how people are quoting from a book, that was made thousands and thousands of years ago, and we can't even prove that those things happened. So how can you go by something so unreliable?
Mikal

Con

Okay lets look at my adversaries argument. She states that denying gay marriage is to take away someones rights. This could be construed that way, but it is not the case. For me to address this we will need to look at what the institution of marriage is and where it came from.

Marriage in itself is based on and originated from church doctrine. I will admit it crosses state levels in some regards, but this is completely obvious by the qualifications to be ordained to marry someone. Most states normally require an ordained member of the church to perform a ceremony. Some states do not require a member of the church, and this has been changing over the years, but I would venture to say around 90 percent of the people who perform marriage ceremonies are some type of Christians or have an religious affiliation with the church. You can look through this link at how many states call it "clergy" or "church"
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...

When we acknowledge that marriage is a religious institution, we then must look at what rights are we denying someone if we were to deny them the right to be married. If you were to deny someone the right to be married, you would be denying them benefits that married couples receive from jobs and tax benefits, such as insurance, healthcare, and tax returns. This would be a major issue if it were the case. That is the entire reason a civil union was set in place. It is a way for homosexuals to receive the same benefits as regular heterosexual couples who are married without actually infringing upon the sanctity of the church. Bear in mind civil unions are still a work in progress and vary from state to state, but I think the most viable argument would be to improve on civil unions and have them offered on a federal level. This would shut the religious people up, and allow them to keep the ideology behind marriage and the church.

If we can also acknowledge that marriage is a church institution, claiming anyone has the right to be married within it is a fallacy. It would be the equivalent of offering free health care to illegal immigrants who live in the USA.

Now my adversary claims one thing within the premise of her argument

(A1) People are judging homosexuals and this is wrong. Everyone deserves the right to be happy.

This is a valid statement but we must look at it from a literal standpoint. Just because religious people disagree with how someone chooses to live their lives, does not necessarily make it wrong. If we were to knock on their door and force gay marriage to happen in churches that did not want it, that would be the same thing as what Christians do to most of us atheist and non believers. Essentially slamming the word of God down our throat, when we have no desire to hear it. Everyone has a predisposition of certain people in some way. I don't think a majority of religious people in the USA hate gay couples, they just disagree with the idea of them being married and don't understand it. This is not out of hate but born from a lack of understanding and because of their worldview. While this is admirable is not a valid reason to legalize gay marriage by itself.


As i have shown, by legalizing civil unions on a federal level we could avoid huge conflicts with the church. It would allow them to keep the institution that they claim is their own, and it would offer homosexuals the same rights and benefits as heterosexuals once we regulate and improve upon it.

Where as my opponent is very kind with her thoughts, words, and desire for civil equality she has presented no reason for me to believe that gay marriage should be legalized. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
julianna.rose

Pro

I see and understand the US marriage laws. But, why should that mean that they can't get married? Not all religions are the same as Christianity. For there to be a law that they can not get married is wrong, because there are some religions that are not against gay marriage, such as, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Paganism. They can find those churches and get married by them. There is no real reason for gay marriage to be illegal besides the point of people not understanding it. If a church doesn't agree with it, that's fine, they don't have to get married by them, they do and could have other options.

I understand completely, forcing gay marriage down their throats is wrong, and no i don't believe that is what we should be doing. I agree with what you said, "Just because religious people disagree with how someone chooses to live their lives, does not necessarily make it wrong." this is true, but i believe they should be able to accept it, they may not agree or like it, but they should be able to understand that, that is what makes those people happy.

I also agree with what you said about legalizing civil unions, that defiantly avoid huge convicts.
Mikal

Con

Then I will accept that as a concession?

You agree with everything I stated but still think they should be allowed to get married. That is not providing any evidence why you believe so, other than you think it is intolerant. You also completely missed my point when I mentioned it being a church found institution. I am not saying that other people besides churches should marry them, I am stating the church claims the right to the institution of marriage itself. That was the entire point I made about civil unions and avoiding conflict.

So extend arguments due to no rebuttals and a concession.

At this point I have provided a viable reason as to why it should not be legalized, and shown a viable alternative. As i stated I am playing devils advocate, but my adversary has offered up no reason to support the legalization of gay marriage other than personal opinions. Thank you for reading this
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by rhoey 3 years ago
rhoey
I originally held the ideas of the contender but the argument that the concept of marriage is not solely owned by the Abrahamic doctrine is a very good one, i look forward to the conclusion of this debate
Posted by julianna.rose 3 years ago
julianna.rose
Excuse me, the last word was meant to be conflicts, not convicts.
Posted by julianna.rose 3 years ago
julianna.rose
So lets not post mean things on here. If you think it's stupid then don't read it. Thank you.
Posted by Dominomac 3 years ago
Dominomac
stupid argument
Posted by Beckyyy 3 years ago
Beckyyy
If gay marriage is allowed,then more people get married with their pets!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
julianna.roseMikalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Much better sources.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
julianna.roseMikalTied
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: Pro conceded.