The Instigator
youseeovermyhead
Pro (for)
Tied
18 Points
The Contender
Jokerdude
Con (against)
Tied
18 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  
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: 3/8/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,921 times Debate No: 3132
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (12)

 

youseeovermyhead

Pro

Gay people, whether between man and man, or woman and woman, should be allowed. Marriage is not just between man and woman. Just because the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean we have to abide by it. How can the government not allow gay marriage when there is separation between church and state? Gays should have the right to say they're married.
Jokerdude

Con

I'd like to start off by saying that I oppose gay marriage

So I present that we keep gay marriage outlawed but allow civil unions which are sepearate, still abiding by separation of church and state. This is the best option to avoid the controversial topic and everyone wins in this scenario.
Debate Round No. 1
youseeovermyhead

Pro

Civil unions are not the same as marriage. When two people, gay or straight, say I'm married is probably one of the greatest and enjoyable statement. It's the complete opposite of saying I'm civil unioned. Gay people should have the same advantages and disadvantages with marriage that straight people have.
Jokerdude

Con

Yes I'm well aware that marriage and civil unions are different, only in the fact that one is in the church the other is by the government. The only difference as you pointed out is that you cannot say I'm married. You still get all the benefits satisfying everyones needs. If your whole argument is based on that one phrase then my arguments outweigh yours completely
Debate Round No. 2
youseeovermyhead

Pro

Yes, civil unions abide to separation of church and state, but it does say ANYWHERE in the Constitution that marriage is between man and woman. Marriage is when two people who love each other want to spend the rest of their lives together and share their joys and dreams with their spouse. It's not our job to judge and tell people who they can marry. Our country is always changing, it's time for a change.
Jokerdude

Con

Gaaaaaahhhh your missing the point Yes there is separation of church and state thats why the constitution doesn't mention marriage. As a result the govt can use civil unions which are not done by the church but the government. They get the same rewards. This is an alternative that settles all parties arguments. This is change and why gay marriage should not be allowed
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
Bitz: I affirm that from a strictly legal/libertarian perspective, popular sovereignty makes the most sense. I am well aware that the people of each state have the right to vote on which types of marriages they wish to subsidize. The statement that "I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, regardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that" doesn't even apply to the point I'm trying to make. You're over complicating the issue. I'm not debating the legalities surrounding the issue of gay marriage, all I'm saying is that those opposed don't really have any good reason to be.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
JasonMC,

Actually, both the pro gay marriage AND the anti gay marriage approaches are both wrong from a legal/libertarian perspective. From a strictly legal/libertarian perspective, popular sovereignty makes the most sense.

Here's the thing. A legal marriage contract involves the consent of 3 parties all 3 of which must consent to the subsidation of the marriage for it to be legally valid.

2 of those parties are the people who wish to have a subsidized marriage. The third party is the one providing the subsidation of their marriage, which is the State. And since the will state comes from the will of the people in that state, essentially the 3rd party is the people of the state.

If the 3rd party (the people of the state) does not consent to a particular subsidation of marriage for any reason they have the right not to subsidize the marriage.

So the people of each state have the right to vote on which types of marriages they wish to subsidize.

Legal marriage stats is not a fundamental right. The right to life is a fundamental right, freedom is a fundamental right. The right of other people to accept you as "married" is not a fundamental right.

I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, regardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that.

Heterosexual marriage is legally subsidized because the people of each state voted to subsidize it. If the people of a state vote not to subsidize Gay and Incest marriages, they have the right to do so as well. And if that is the case, incest couples and Gay couples have no right going to the people and forcing them to subsidize their marriage if the people of that state don't want to.

In conclusion, when it comes to subsidizing marriage, we should use popular sovereignty.
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
I agree with moondragon. I'm not a gay-rights activist, but I just don't see how two gay people getting married really effects anyone opposed in any way. The claim that civil unions are provided by the government and marriages are provided by the church is not true. My wife and I were married last month by a county clerk, and never was god, religion, etc mentioned in the ceremony, paperwork, etc. We were married by the state, and not by the church.

Also, not that I support them, but incest marriages are allowed in some states. You are allowed to marry your second cousin in Indiana, and I could be wrong on this one, but I believe that you can marry your first cousin in Kentucky and some other states.

Who cares who other people marry? Sure I think it would be repulsive if a man married his son, a brother married his sister, or one guy married another, but what right does any person have to impose their will upon another person especially based on one's religious / ethical views? As it states in the bible: "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Just copy and paste my last comment every time you have a debate against gay marriage you will win every time I bet.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Hey Bitz, I don't know how to thank you for that last comment!! My wife was born and raised in Sweden and we have gone round and round on this subject, she being for and me being against gay marriage, but when I told her what you said about two siblings being able to get married that share one parent she imeadiately came to my side of the argument, not to mention the fact that are children fit that particular scenario of sharing one parent. I told her that in Sweden my son could marry her daughter and boy oh boy you should have seen the look on her face it was absolutely priceless. Again I just don't know how to thank you for that piece of information!!!!
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
MoonDragon,

The arguments have already been used and will continue to be until their support gradually continues to slowly build up.

Murth v. Frank would be one example of how incest couples wanted equal rights as homosexuals. They used the same arguments and were denied for silly reasons...for now.

In Sweden Incest couples have fought for the right to get married with some success: Sweden now allowes marriages between siblings that share 1 parent.

You seem so confident that this will never happen, yet so long as the potential logic in in play, the potential political support is in play as well. It may not happen now, but unless you are going to argue that you are some prophet or something, you can't know what the future will bring.
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
No no Bitz, You're missing the point.

I did not say that the arguments cannot be cross applied. I said they won't be cross applied. When interracial marriage was legalized, the arguments could have been cross applied but that doesn't mean they were. Employment protection for Gays and Lesbians could easily be cross applied to transgenders, but for political reasons, transgenders were specifically omitted from the ENDA bill.

Our legislature does not work on logic. It works on popularity. Cross applicability of arguments is irrelevant unless there exist enough people committed to cross apply them.
Posted by Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
MoonDragon,

Sadolite is right on this one. You are missing the point.

The point is, logically, if same sex marriage is allowed, why should incest marriages not be allowed? Just because they are few in numbers and dont have political support is NOT grounds to ban all their marriages.

You must realize that just about every logical argument made by two men in favor of homosexual marriage can also be used for homosexual-incestuous marriages as well. ((IE father and son(son is over 18))
Posted by MoonDragon613 8 years ago
MoonDragon613
I don't see why giving gay people the right to marry opens the door for incestuous couples. Incestuous couples, unlike gay men and women, are relatively even fewer in number and by and large have little to no political support or influence. Furthermore, there has been no movement nationally whatsoever to change how incestuous people are perceived. It's like saying opening the door to increase the number of British people that can immigrate into the United States would somehow equate to letting Mexicans into the United States.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Furthermore, anyone who claims to be gay that has had sex with somone of the oppesite sex isn't gay, they are bisexual. I seriosly doubt that there are more than 1or2 thousnd truely gay people in the United States. I would be all for those people to get married but not bisexuals their preferences can change on a wim.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 g713 8 years ago
g713
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 xxHellogoodbyexx 8 years ago
xxHellogoodbyexx
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 youseeovermyhead 8 years ago
youseeovermyhead
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 deviant 8 years ago
deviant
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 nini722 8 years ago
nini722
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 Bitz 8 years ago
Bitz
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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 FunkeeMonk91 8 years ago
FunkeeMonk91
youseeovermyheadJokerdudeTied
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