The Instigator
ava234
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
wareese
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexual Marriage in New York

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 883 times Debate No: 15909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

ava234

Pro

New York is considered a fast moving, "ahead of the game" type of place. Many people dream of coming to New York City. New York City is, in fact, "ahead of the game", but when it comes to homosexual marriage, it is lagging behind. Many gays feel that New York City is a place to express themselves for who they are without being judged. This is definitely true in some cases, but why aren't gays allowed to be married? This is because according to the bible, those who are wed are expected to bear children. A homosexual couple would not be able to do this. Adoption is very popular now for hetero and homosexual couples. If some are so concerned about homosexuals being able to raise a child, they are still able to with adoption. Some time ago, marriage was arranged. You were not able to choose your spouse yourself, but your parents would decide instead. Now, there are very few arranged marriages (the probability is dependant on your family's beliefs) so we are lucky that we get to chose our spouses in the first place. The bible never said anything about being able to choose your own spouse yet we do anyway. Why does society make exceptions to the bible by allowing citizens to chose their own spouse, but not an exception with homosexual marriage? Why is it fair that the heterosexuals should be able to get married wherever they want to, while the homosexuals have to go to a whole other state?
wareese

Con

I will be opposing the argument that New York should legalize homosexual marriage. I will challenge the fact that the advocate has not shown sufficient evidence for effect, significance, and inherency, and therefore the prima facie has not been established. Also I will challenge the advocates definition of homosexual marriage and this idea of New York, has a city that is "ahead of the game". That is a very broad term that could mean many different things to different people, and the advocate has not done a sufficient job defining what they mean when they say that New York City is "ahead of the game". Also the advocate has failed to properly define the value object, which is homosexual marriage. Although it may seem that everyone should know the definition of homosexual marriage you never want to assume anything about the audience.
When arguing value propositions the advocate must prove that effect, significance, and inherency have all been met, or they have not demonstrated enough evidence to establish prima facie, which is what must be present to show there is sufficient cause for a change in belief or action. Effect focuses on showing the audience the results or consequences of what has happened, is happening, or will happen (Rybacki). The advocate briefly demonstrates effect by explaining how gays sometimes feel like they cannot express themselves for who they are without being judged, and not allowing them to marry is denying them the right to express who they really are. But with that said the advocate did not explain the significance of this problem. Significance is related to the magnitude, severity, or frequency with which the effect occurs. Simply stating the effect of not legalizes gay marriage in New York City is not enough evidence to justify a change in the law. I argue that the advocate does not properly argue inherency, which refers to the belief that a problem exists because of an existing belief or behavior. The advocate sites the bible as an example claiming that because the bible does not talk against picking your own spouse society should also allow homosexual marriage. The problem with this example is that although the bible may not be openly against choosing your own spouse, and the majority of Christians believe that God wants you to marry who you love, the bible does talk openly against the idea of homosexual marriage. For instance, in one of the very first verses in the bible Genesis 2:24 Moses says, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh". Also in Leviticus 18:22 it says "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination". In Matthew 19:4-5 the bible says, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". These are just a few examples in the bible that are against homosexual marriage. So to say that society should make exceptions for homosexual marriage like what has been done for choosing your own spouse is not a very good comparison.
Through my argument I have demonstrated that the advocate did not adequately present the audience with evidence for effect, significance, and inherency and therefore does not create a prima facie case to justify a change in the law.
Debate Round No. 1
ava234

Pro

My opponent has suggested that, yes, the bible does mention same sex marriage (same sex marriage- when two people of the same gender get married). Being a native New Yorker, I know that New York prides itself on it's diversity. Even since the 1500s when the Dutch first colonized it, (calling New Amsterdam then) New York has always been a manifold city. Part of being diverse is the mixture of religion, culture, ethnic backgrounds, economic backgrounds, etc. The first amendment says that you are allowed freedom of speech and religion. This means that if you aren't are religious Christian and you don't read the bible, you shouldn't have to listen to something that the bible says. Marriage is supposed to be sacred. It is supposed to be a beautiful ceremony that bonds two people who love each other. Today, reality television has taken over. Suddenly, a contestant is saying that they has "fallen for" a someone that they barely even know. A person who the contestant only knows the "TV personality" of. For instance, the popular ABC show, "The Bachelor" shows the happy couple fawning over each other and talking about how they will be married soon. After doing some research, I have discovered that one out fifteen bachelors actually get married. Most end in rabid arguments between the couple. If marriage is so sacred, but is being abused in this way, why wouldn't there be law against reality matchmaker shows instead?
wareese

Con

wareese forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
ava234

Pro

ava234 forfeited this round.
wareese

Con

wareese forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wareese 6 years ago
wareese
I missed the time period for my second round so I decided just to post my rebuttal on the comment section. My opponent decided to point out that reality dating shows are degrading American marriages. I will point out that the two points made by the advocate are completely unrelated; the bible and reality shows. I do not think that American's watch shows such as the Bachelor really believing that the shows portray true love, most of the shows are watched for pure entertainment reasons. Considering that a lot of these shows are scripted it is safe to assume that the majority of people are not truly watching because they want to see two people fall in love and grow old together.
Posted by aishwarya.bluewine 6 years ago
aishwarya.bluewine
I personally feel every individual is captain of their own spirit and should make their own decisions...

Once the rapper 50 cent said *i dont mind gay people around me BUT its their intentions*..

Thus, if relationship is only love and strictly platonic, then its fine to be in same sex marriage but if its intentions r lust> well just one word *filthy*
Posted by phantom 6 years ago
phantom
lol people in the bible chose their own spouse all the time
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
ava234wareeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)