The Instigator
peace25
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
Alex
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

Gays should be allowed to marry.

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 8 votes the winner is...
Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,901 times Debate No: 7398
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

peace25

Pro

Yeah I know this topic is 'overused' but it seemed interesting....any takers? First round would be used to clarify any things and second through fourth rounds would be to debate. Got it? Cool! So...I now stand open for the NEG!
Alex

Con

Hello, thank you for posting this controversial debate.

I think the topic is pretty straightforward, and you have stated nothing in which you need clarified, so i will respect your round format and let you begin.
Debate Round No. 1
peace25

Pro

First, I would like to say is, Thank you for accepting this debate, and good luck! (and sources are not needed...it can be mostly opinionated arguments :))
I would like to start off with a quotes:

"Every gay reader understands the secret self that is full and wonderful and has longing and tenderness and a desire for connection to other people. I think arguments against gay marriage are just ridiculous! Who cares? People want to get married for the same reason I want to get married. They want to do it in front of their friends and family. They want it to be a legally binding thing. They want to have that commitment. The idea that there's some moral issue about it is so ridiculous."

-Lynda Carter, writing in Instinct Magazine,May 1, 2007
Actor and Singer
http://www.buddybuddy.com...

"There's no reason that the government should prevent homosexuals from entering civil marriages because some religions object to the concept, any more than the government should ban atheism because some religions object to it."

Lisa Pampuch
newspaper columnist
http://www.great-quotes.com...

And now onto my arguments; I will only be making three (for now) which include; proving that marriage is NOT an institution between a man and a woman, gay relationships are NOT immoral, and same-sex marriage does NOT threaten the institution of marriage.

1) My first argument is that 'marriage is NOT an institution between a man and a woman.' I will prove this throughout this argument.
First off we have to look at what marriage means to people. To the Christians and Catholics, it means a sacred union between a MAN and a WOMAN. But what about the other religions in the United States and beyond? The rather overused statement does not neccesarily apply to Buddhists and other world religions that generally allow gays and lesbians to marry. Buddhists getting their rights infringe, which I believe is the FIRST AMENDMENT. and the first amendment that cleary states FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

2)My second argument is that 'Gay relationships are NOT immoral.'
Many people might say that gay relationships and in turn gay marriages are immoral...but who says? The Bible? Somehow I always thought that freedom of religion implied freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American Law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (as well as being explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and no one has the right to impose rules none else simply because of something they perceive to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. As I stated in my first argument Buddhist do not consider gay marriage to be immoral and would like to have the authority to have the right to gay marriage here in the US. In one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to disclose the argument that gay relationships/marriage are immoral.

3. Same sex marriage does not threaten the institution of marriage.
Hmmm....my opponent might argue that it threatens the institution of marriage but how? Threaten marriage by allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

and I now stand open for the neg response....

"Marriage is both a civil and because some religions object to the concept, any more than the government should ban atheism because some religions object to it."

Lisa Pampuch
newspaper columnist

Sources:
http://www.great-quotes.com...
http://www.buddhistview.com...
and of course the LOGO channel

VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO!
Alex

Con

Thank you for the quotes, now if only the people that said them had looked at the whole situation.

Lets start with the obvious mistakes in the title, it states "Gays should be allowed to Marry"

First off, gays can marry. They may not be able to marry another man, but they can marry a woman.

Second, I will argue as if you meant gays should be allowed to marry other gay men. They cannot simply be allowed to marry other men, simply because it is in the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman. The only way the proposition would work is if the government completely changed the meaning of marriage to allow such a thing.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, to counter his first argument. If you know anything about marriage, it was created by the Catholics between a man and a woman. Other religions simply did not make marriage, they adopted it and changed it to their own liking, hence those few that do allow said marriages.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

To counter his second argument, my opponent is simply confused between freedom of religion and morals, he is saying that we should go against the Catholics who created marriage for the few religions that do allow it, why should one religion be put over the other? We cannot simply change a law because the clearly in minority Buddhists want it.
The truth is, is that gay marriage is immoral to the ones who create it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now to counter his third argument. "Same sex marriage does not threaten the institution of marriage"

And this is possible how? If your talking about the institution, then simply look up the history of marriage and who created it, the beliefs of those who create it are strictly against it, so yes it does in fact threaten the institution of marriage.
Gay marriage does not worry us, it is frowned upon by those who care about the meaning of it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now for my arguments, they are simple enough.

We live in a democracy, if you do not know what that means it means that the people choose. Now, how can we change the law in favor of a topic that clearly over half of the population is against? We would have to completely change our government, change sex education and more.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Back to my point that marriage is a religious ceremony. It is. Due to separation of church and state, they cannot mandate eachother. Anyhow, why should we religious folk change the entire meaning of marriage that WE CREATED so that two people of the same sex can completely contradict and defile our beliefs? You simply cannot

The fact is, is that we created straight marriage for straight people, and we created civil unions for gays. Deal.

The idea that heterosexuals and homosexuals have different rights is simply balderdash. No one is receiving special treatment, we allow the government to regulate lots of things.
Debate Round No. 2
peace25

Pro

First off, I would like to say "thanks for calling me a guy"
"Now, to counter his first argument"
IM AM NOT A GUY....

ok now that I got that out of my system, I will rebuild my case and points and prove why the negative is wrong.
First off, he argues that my first point that gays can marry, but to a woman. Hello? Look up the definition of gay. OH, wait I already did:
gay (someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

And would you look at that...a gay is someone who has a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex!
And now for the definition of marriage as well...
Marriage:(the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)) (two people who are married to each other)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

And the government cannot change the meaning of marriage because of the Tenth Amendment,which clearly gives states and/or the people the power...not the government so that makes your Second argument null.
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
____________________________________________________________________________________________

And I shall put his first 3 attacks on my case together...which are that the Catholics created marriage and we cannot change the law because Buddhists want it.
OK first like I said before "THE AMERICAN BIBLE HAS NO STANDING WHATSOEVER IN AMERICAN LAW"
And where did I say that I was against (or should go against) Catholics. Why should Catholics & Christians be considered above all religions? Hmmm?! This is, of course, related to the motive above. But it is really subtly different. It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well. It would seem to me that anyone who feels that the sanctity of their marriage is threatened by a gay couple down the street having the right to marry, is mighty insecure about their religion and their marriage anyway.
And to add to this, wasn't SLAVERY A TRADITION?!?!?
And if YOU knew the history of marriage you can see it was at first for the Bourgeoisie (which in the Marxist theory it is simple a fancy word for rich people) than it was denied to slaves and now it is time for us to allow homosexuals to marry!!!

__________________________________________________________________________________

And to attack his first argument, you can see that he has contradicted himself! See he even said people choose, thus expanding on his point, we (as the people) have the right to do what we want. And hey, more than half the population at first was against not teaching religion in schools but over time they learned to GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT! And as a point of clarification we live in a DIRECT REPUBLIC not a democracy..
_____________________________________________________________________________________
And going on to his point that "Anyhow, why should we religious folk change the entire meaning of marriage that WE CREATED so that two people of the same sex can completely contradict and defile our beliefs? You simply cannot"
This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.
________________________________________________________________________________________
The fact is we need to create gay marriage for gay people. DEAL!
________________________________________________________________________________________
It is indeed so that straight people have the special treatment...the right to MARRIAGE!!!
VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO! VOTE AFF/PRO!
Alex

Con

I apologize for calling you a guy, saying "him, his" etc.. is just a habit

But honestly, this debate would be much more enjoyable for us and the readers if you were not constantly sarcastic and rude.

I would also like to ask that you do not spam that the voters vote pro on the bottom of every round.

Due to the restriction on characters, i will point out the meaning of each of he arguments rather than stating the whole quote. With exceptions.

Now for your "Hello? Look up the definition of gay. OH, wait I already did" I know the definition of gay but thank you. But you simply did not specify how gays should be able to marry other gays in the title. If you had, it would be much more clear. Because I could simply win this debate by stating that gays can in fact marry, but because i know what you meant i will act as thought that is what you said.

"And the government cannot change the meaning of marriage because of the Tenth Amendment,which clearly gives states and/or the people the power...not the government so that makes your Second argument null."

First of all, yes the tenth amendment does prohibit the change, that is another reason why it should not be allowed.
And second yes it does give the people the power, that is what a democracy means, you just contradicted yourself saying that we do not live in a democracy and now your saying we do. I ask that my opponent does a little research and knows what she is talking about before stating things she does not know. I clearly do not need to, but i will point out that does not make my second argument null.
____________________________________________
"I contradicted myself now saying that people should be able to do what they want."
" we live in a DIRECT REPUBLIC not a democracy.."

I did not contradict myself. I said the people have the power and that is how our laws are made, thus over half the population is against it, therefore we have the law that will not change. I did not say that everyone has the right to do what they want. Please if your going to quote and argue my points, argue them correctly and do not put words in my debate so to speak. And we live in a "Constitution-based federal republic; with strong democratic tradition" actually. -www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html do your research.
_________________________________________________
"there would be no law requiring any church to marry any couple they do not with too, they can already refuse any couple they wish. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted."

Just because there are select and few individual pastors that would want to do so, does not mean that it is not true, a majority are against it. You are simply confusing law with pastors and priests ability to choose whether or not to marry other races etc.. They are still legal, just because some will refuse does not make it illegal. But your point, that does not mean that it should be legal just because the pastors have the choice, it is the will of the people, not just the pastors, as i have stated.
____________________________________________________
I will not argue the same quote but i wanted to argue a part of it separately.

"Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted."

Your right it would not, but i did not argue that, that was not one of my points, you are the one that brought that up, not me. And i also did not say that freedom of religion would be contracted, Again please stop putting words in my mouth/debate.
_________________________________________________
"THE AMERICAN BIBLE HAS NO STANDING WHATSOEVER IN AMERICAN LAW"
Why should Catholics & Christians be considered above all religions?
It's based on the assumption that the state has the responsibility to "sanctify" marriages - a fundamentally religious idea. "
"Here we're dealing with people trying to enforce their religious doctrines on someone else, but by doing it through weakening the separation of church and state, by undermining the Bill of Rights. Not that there's anything new about this, of course. But the attempt itself runs against the grain of everything the First Amendment stands for - "

"One does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion as well."

Your right, it does not. That is why we should not allow the government to alter marriage, because it should not be in their power to do so. I did not say that Catholics and Christians should be above all religions, the state cannot alter other religions as well. Freedom of religion is irrelevant to this debate. Separation of church and state only suggests that we keep marriage between a man and a woman due to the fact that separation of church and state prohibits them from mandating one another, and since it is a religious ceremony, government should have no say.
Please provide sufficient proof that it goes against ever grain of the first amendment, and please also provide sufficient proof that if one does not truly have freedom of religion if one does not have the right to freedom from religion.

If you knew what freedom of religion was, then you would know it means you have the right to practice any religion you wish, and nobody is trying to force our doctrines on anyone else, you are simply confusing a religious ceremony, with one that is not, but marriage is a religious ceremony.
________________________________________________
Now, since my opponent has not put forth any new arguments, i will continue to argue hers from round two.

"1) My first argument is that 'marriage is NOT an institution between a man and a woman.' I will prove this throughout this argument.
First off we have to look at what marriage means to people."

First of yes, as of since it was created until even now marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. The fact that some homosexuals want to get married does not alter institution of it. In order to prove what it does institute, marriage we actually technically do not need to look at what it means to people, that does not change it.

"2)My second argument is that 'Gay relationships are NOT immoral.'" Since we cannot actually prove whether it is immoral or not, since it is to some people and it is not to other people, instead i will just prove its irrelevance. Whether or not it is, that does not mean that it should be allowed.

My opponent is simply confusing government and religion, saying that government should be able to regulate religion but religion should not be able to effect government, please explain on how this is right.
____________________________________________________________________________________
My arguments:

By my opponents arguments, it is apparent that she thinks that pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, polygamy should be legal as well.

She has conceded that this is a democracy, but provided no sufficient proof as of why we should go against the majority of the population and change the law.

Gays should not need a piece of paper saying married to prove and know their live for one another.

There are non religious civil unions for gays and lesbians so that they get the same benefits.

A man and a man is not marriage regardless of what the government or pro gays say.

same sex marriage is not a fundamental right

Homosexuality is still a suspect class, therefore we should not change the law for something we are not for certain of.
Debate Round No. 3
peace25

Pro

You know what? I'm pretty bored with this topic...and yes sorry for being "sarcastic and rude."I just wrote down the first words that came to my head...
and I forgive you for calling me a chick.
I do not wish to further any arugements so vote con.
I really do not care..
Alex

Con

My points still stand, vote con
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
And if every U.S. law used "civil unions" instead of "marriage", I would agree. The bottom line, is the use of "marriage" as you defined it (religious ceremony), is either a violation of the First Amendment, or you are wrong. A couple can go down to town hall and receive a marriage license, no ceremony nessecary. Therefore, a marriage can be a secular practice. Look, either change every U.S. law to "civil union" and disallow secular marriages, or stop with the "religious" bullshitt. And if it is for "religious" purpose, then lets illegalize divorce. After all, if it is a religious practice...

"So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Matthew 19:6)

The phrase "except for marital unfaithfulness" is the only thing in Scripture that possibly gives God's permission for divorce and remarriage

So it's your choice. Or perhaps you cannot come to the evident conclusion that the term "marriage" has taken on a civil, modern, and reformed meaning. (oh and a marriage must be recognized by the state as well)
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
It is an injustice to change a religious ceremony when the exact same thing for gays is available. Called civil unions.
Posted by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
okay, and what the hell- is your point? It is an injustice to allow one and not the other. Gays should be allowed to marry other gays.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Gay men have the same right to marry women as straight men; so yes, gays are already aloud to marry.
Posted by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
Con: If marrige is a religious practice created by the Catholics, then why is it written into literally 1000's of U.S. laws. This is a very clear violation of the 1st amendment. I am not denying that the Catholics created it (they did), but you have to accept that marrage has taken on a new definition-- a legal one, not just a religious one. Thus, it is illogical to make moral judgements which decriminate a minority of people. Jefferson said that goverments were to protect the minority, not alientate them
Posted by peace25 7 years ago
peace25
I AM NOT A GUY....
that needed clarifying..
:D
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Well, then follow this debate and you will see.
Posted by william11373 7 years ago
william11373
whats the big deal of letting gays marry.

only a religious person would be against gay marriage. Any reasonable person with morals will be pro gay marriage
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by hamy152 7 years ago
hamy152
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
peace25AlexTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by colebertpete 7 years ago
colebertpete
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 7 years ago
wpfairbanks
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by ccochran1993 7 years ago
ccochran1993
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
peace25AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07