The Instigator
HorseGirl64
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Dmot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay people should be free to get married with out being judged

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 913 times Debate No: 36681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

HorseGirl64

Pro

I am going to start with the same old sentence that so many people used, but now think about it differently. If a human being is in love with another one what right do you have to say no to it. To say its sick. Exactly you have no right because you aren't that person. In addition many people would say "its just like marrying a dog" well its not, first of all you cant marry a non human being because if you would've wanted to you are mental. So now thing about it gay people are just like dogs? Just because they are different people have the right to judge them? Its just like being a bully in high-school just this time the bull is the community that cant accept something new... You see how much it painted: Girl to boy is good exactly like the picture. Boy to boy is like a accidental blob of paint you got on the picture but you cant get it out so instead of smudging it more and ruing it why not just accept and make it into something beautiful.
Dmot

Con

Okay this is a very delicate topic to debate and I do not want to offend anyone. I am going to argue against same sex marriages. This is a pretty unpopular opinion but let me clear up a few misconceptions before I begin.

1. I am not arguing against people with same sex attraction. I am not calling their lifestyles wrong in any way. I am not arguing over the romantic/sexual interest of these people at all. The debates over the morality of the gay lifestyle and the romance between two people of the same sex I am not going to argue at all.

2. I respect, and we all should, each and every human being gay or straight. We need to recognize the value in every person and whatever conclusion is the correct conclusion regarding this issue, this point should stand. Further, we should not define people as gay or straight. A person is much more than that and deserves more than to be seen as one with simply their sexual preference.

3. This is not about religion. This is not an argument about what religions should do or about religious doctrine on marriage. It is an argument about the government's role in marriage.

I am going to be arguing the following: "There are no good reasons to recognize the relationship between two men or two women as marriage" This is all. I will not be arguing any of the following:
a. Gayness or gay people or gay acts is sinful or unnatural
b. Gays are bad
c. anything about the bible, God, Church, etc.
d. That two men or women in love should not be allowed to live together
e. That the government should forbid and suppress private ceremonies, religious or otherwise, that celebrate the love of gays (including those ceremonies which are called marriages).

So now we need a landscape, a field of play so to speak for discussion same sex marriage. This has do be done without bias. So I say we start off with no pre-conceived notions. Let's start with the facts: We live in a world where the government regulates some things and grants certain benefits to some people and some groups under some circumstances. Private people become romantically involved with one another and sexually involved and often want to recognize their unions as "marriage." This is because marriage is an ancient institution that has had much significance over the years. At the same time however marriage has taken on many different forms. Generally, for various reasons, some better than others, governments have gotten involved in this relationship of marriage.

Currently, there are many people who become romantically and sexually involved in relationships with others of the same sex. They want to celelbrate their love and therefore have spiritual, religious, personal, social, etc. gatherings and celebrations to celebrate their union. They often call these celebrations marriages. These same sex couples live as spouses to one another. They currently are asking for the government to grant their unions the title and benefits of "marriage" that are granted to man and woman. The government must next evaluate this request and determine whether or not they should grant this request.

So far, I hope you agree with me. There is nothing controversial here. It is just a statement of context so we can argue about the leginimacy of gay marriage. Okay, now the question is posed: Should the government recognize the romantic union of two men or two women?

I would argue no. Here is why:
1) The government should generally keep their nose out of people's personal business unless there is serious reason to get involved.
2) Relationships between two people involve two individual's own personal feelings and commitments.
3) There is no good reason that the government has to be involved in the personal relationships between two people or three people or four people etc.
4) There might be some exceptions to this but ONLY IF there is good reason for the government to become involved which involves the common good or securing the rights of individual people to be protected under the law
5) There is not sufficient reason for the government to recognize the union of two people of the same sex with a special title and benefits (I will leave aside business relationships or something like that. I am talking about the personal relationship between the two people. obviously there are implications of enforcing contracts and things like that in other scenarios. But since we are arguing about gay marriage, it comes down to the government recognizing the relationship because of love).

The conclusion of the above is that the government does not have sufficient reason to recognize two same sex individuals as married under the law.
That is my argument. It basically hinges on one question "Is there a good reason for the government (which generally stays uninvolved in people's personal lives) to become involved in the personal relationship with two men or two women who are in love and want to celebrate that love?"

The argument stands whether or not gayness is good or natural. For all this argument is considered, same sex romance and sexual acts are the best thing since sliced bread...but because of their private and personal nature, there is not compelling reason for the government to become involved.

The argument stands whether or not gay people are good, bad, born this way, etc. The argument stands even if having same sex attraction gave you a dignity beyond that of other people because it has nothing to do with the people who ask for the legal recognition but everything to do with the union itself.

This argument stands regardless of what we do about man-women relationships. marriage as traditionally defined bwteen a man and a woman may be good or bad. The government may or may not have an interest in recognizing this union. The answer to this question is not affected or related to whether or not the government should recognize the union of two men or two women.

This argument stands even if the love of two people of the same sex is stronger and more permanent and more joyous than those of the opposite sex. Remember, it isn't about love. The question is not whether or not there love is good or worthy or real. The question is simple: Does the government have sufficient reason to legally get involved in the private relationship of two people of the same sex.

Presumably, you are going to answer that the government does have good reason to get involved in this kind of relationship. I would like to hear your reasons. Since it is reasonable to accept the idea that the government in general should stay out of people's private personal lives, I would say that the burden of proof is on you to show that the norm (government uninvolved) does not apply here.

Thank-you, now present your reasons and I will respond.
Debate Round No. 1
HorseGirl64

Pro

No the government doesn't have a right to be involved in other peoples lives. Because i agree with you we have to call this a draw..
Debate Round No. 2
HorseGirl64

Pro

Nice debating with you
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
I suppose I have trouble seeing the lifting of restraints on who can be married as unnecessary government involvement. You say that "Freedom is good and the government should not be overly involved", but it seems to me that LIMITING who can get married seems to be a greater restraint on freedom than NOT limiting it. I can see how issuing marriage licenses to more people, etc. could be viewed as additional government involvement, but then it would seem to imply that even TRADITIONAL marriage is an overstepping of government involvement. (I'm new to this site by the way, and I am capitalizing words for emphasis, lacking the ability to italicize, not because I'm yelling).

I recognize that Gay Marriage isn't really an "essential" issue (not that it isn't important to people, but that compared to issues like poverty, disease, etc., people's livelihoods aren't on the line), and can see why you think that this means the government should refrain from intervening, but this seems an argument for maintaining the status quo, simply because it is the status quo, rather than an argument for or against either side of the issue based on its merits.

I don't mean to "debate" you in what is ultimately the comments of the "real" debate, sorry xD. I would guess we have differing views on the merits of government involvement in general (you might even deem me an extreme liberal!) which is likely the source of our differences on this issue.
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
oops I posted that a bunch of times. weird...
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Also I disagree that the government should really be looking out for anyone in particular. The government should protect the rights of individuals, so should make sure contracts are enforced and people are not unjustly harmed or their stuff is taken. Gvt should work for the common good to an extent and I think the government has a role say in fighting homelessness and things like that. But the government isn't the big parent that watches over our every move and ensures that we are happy. They are not the teachers on the playground for a bunch of kids. I think that this view of the government fits in to most ideologies except for extreme liberalism or further left. Maybe a moderate liberal would articulate it a little differently but I think my point is the same that the government isn't here to control our every move
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Also I disagree that the government should really be looking out for anyone in particular. The government should protect the rights of individuals, so should make sure contracts are enforced and people are not unjustly harmed or their stuff is taken. Gvt should work for the common good to an extent and I think the government has a role say in fighting homelessness and things like that. But the government isn't the big parent that watches over our every move and ensures that we are happy. They are not the teachers on the playground for a bunch of kids. I think that this view of the government fits in to most ideologies except for extreme liberalism or further left. Maybe a moderate liberal would articulate it a little differently but I think my point is the same that the government isn't here to control our every move
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Also I disagree that the government should really be looking out for anyone in particular. The government should protect the rights of individuals, so should make sure contracts are enforced and people are not unjustly harmed or their stuff is taken. Gvt should work for the common good to an extent and I think the government has a role say in fighting homelessness and things like that. But the government isn't the big parent that watches over our every move and ensures that we are happy. They are not the teachers on the playground for a bunch of kids. I think that this view of the government fits in to most ideologies except for extreme liberalism or further left. Maybe a moderate liberal would articulate it a little differently but I think my point is the same that the government isn't here to control our every move
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Also I disagree that the government should really be looking out for anyone in particular. The government should protect the rights of individuals, so should make sure contracts are enforced and people are not unjustly harmed or their stuff is taken. Gvt should work for the common good to an extent and I think the government has a role say in fighting homelessness and things like that. But the government isn't the big parent that watches over our every move and ensures that we are happy. They are not the teachers on the playground for a bunch of kids. I think that this view of the government fits in to most ideologies except for extreme liberalism or further left. Maybe a moderate liberal would articulate it a little differently but I think my point is the same that the government isn't here to control our every move
Posted by Dmot 3 years ago
Dmot
Well when I say sufficient reason I mean that for the government to do ANYTHING whatsoever, there should be a good reason for the government to do it. Now, I am going to leave this pretty broad. Of course where you stand from libertarian to conservative to liberal would alter the degree of this reason (in other words, libertarians would say the government needs a really really strong reason to act whereas liberals might say that the threshold to get involved is lower). The point however stands for most people in America: Freedom is good and the government should not be overly involved. True, there is difference of opinion as to the specific degree of involvement, but my principle that the government should only get involved with a good reason seems sound. If pro wants to challenge this I can debate that as well. I think though the traditional understanding of US government would support my notion.

Anyway, you are saying that public recognition is good for various reasons. I won't go in depth because I'll wait for pro to post her side. I'll just say this: we can have public recognition and celelebration of things w/o the gvt getting their nose in it. Having close friends is great for ppl. Its better for society if we celelbrate intimate friendships publically!! But I don't think that's the government's job. I hold the same thing with respect to the romantic friendship between two men or two women. Romance is not a justification for gvt. involvement
Posted by evangambit 3 years ago
evangambit
What exactly do you mean by "sufficient reason"? A government should be interested in creating an environment that is beneficial to its citizens (e.g. traffic laws, property laws, a military, etc.), right?

It seems that since so many people feel strongly about whether a same-sex couple's love is publically recognized via the institution of marriage, it has a very real impact on the welfare of the very people the government is supposed to be looking out for.

Perhaps my confusion is simply an ideological difference
No votes have been placed for this debate.