The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
48 Points
The Contender
Daysuit
Con (against)
Winning
55 Points

Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

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: 1/26/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,952 times Debate No: 2227
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (33)

 

blond_guy

Pro

NOTE: I had the same opening argument in a different debate although it did not go as I pleased. Therefore, if you're taking on this debate as a contender, that you are AGAINST gays receiving the legal effects of marriage.

I want this to be a straight forward debate. If you have many points to make, make them all! But do not give me 50 lines to explain ONE of your points of view.

1) It is against a democracy to diminish the rights of a minority. Gays are a minority and they are not being given the right to be married to a person of whatever sex they like.
Daysuit

Con

My opening argument will be simple and straight to the point. If homosexuals have the right to marry then we are stating that marriage rights are on the basis of sexual preference, and if that were also true then why shouldn't people be allowed to legally marry outside of just one person? Just what are gay people missing out on through marriage that they couldn't get from a civil union?
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

Me: "if you're taking on this debate as a contender, that you are AGAINST gays receiving the legal effects of marriage."

Civil unions give gays the legal effects of marriage.

Also, gays should have the right to be MARRIED. If marriage and civil unions are the same under the law, they should have the same name.

To your polygamy point: There is no difference between the legal effects of marriage and what gays want in gay marriage. However, if you choose to marry more than one person, there has to be some changes made to these legal effects to apply them to three people. Furthermore, I don't think it's the government's job to stop someone of marrying more than 1 person, as long as both women and men have the right to do so. That is for people to decide and not the government.
Daysuit

Con

Not all civil unions offer all the rights or considerations under the law, depending on the region, hence it is a civil union and not a marriage. Marriage establishes kinship out of family whereas some civil unions do not establish this fact.

What about people exploiting financial benefits of marriage. Do we need more people exploiting taxes, social security, visas, and work permits? What about people exploiting the benefits of service members? The rates of these things happening are already staggering, why allow people who wouldn't mind the stigma just to gain the benefits?
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

if someone wants to "abuse" the system then they have the right to. Heterosexual couples don't contribute anymore to society than do homosexuals. And if you don't want gays to have the right to marriage simply because some might lie then why not ban heterosexual marriage as well? They have the capability to abuse these benefits too.

You said the 1st round: "Just what are gay people missing out on through marriage that they couldn't get from a civil union?"
And when i countered that argument assuming they had the same legal effects you answer your own question and contradict yourself by saying "Not all civil unions offer all the rights or considerations under the law"

It's simple
Those who are the same should just get called marriage.
Those which are not should grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
Daysuit

Con

Look, gay marriage rights, at least in the American spectrum comes down to the rights of States to choose, and the people within those States. If two homosexuals really feel they want to and need to be married and have the rights of those who are married can move to California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington state, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). The majority people in these states and one district believe in these rights and respect them. But until the US and majority of the states in it as an overwhelming majority decide to legalize gay marriage its not right for those 8 states and one district to tell people what they need until they want it. If that doesn't satisfy there are 20 nations that they could live in to provide them with those rights Andorra, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

So if you are talking about homosexuals deserving the rights granted by marriage, its already been done in many places they already are granted. So your original point and statement of argument is redundant to that fact. Obviously it's not the rights of homosexuals everywhere, but it will never happen. Arab, and Muslim governments probably won't ever allow it in fact they hardly recognize homosexuals as people in some cases right now. Is it right in the sense from our free point of view, probably not. But is it the will of society in those places at least in most cases as an overwhelming majority standpoint, yes. That's what having your own country, society, and area are all about, the ability to choose who and what have the rights to and for.

Rights are not any actual thing. You cannot touch, see, or taste them. They are an idea, but ideas are only as real as we make them. Therefor there is truly no guaranteed set of rights aside from those that society on a scale of majority believe in. That's what freedom is, that's what law is, thats what rights are. You can't make people follow through or make things rights or laws if the society doesn't believe in it. Whether or not believing in it is right or wrong, but forcing people to as a whole or majority if they don't believe in it is wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
http://www.acpeds.org...

Sorry, here it is.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Daysuit,

no they are not "cards" when used appropriately. They are when someone uses as you did. As far as me being homophobic you should look at the definition of the word. I do not fear homosexuals at all. I also do not discriminate against homosexuals. I simply base my thinking upon facts as you should. If it means I am not "PC" that is fine, I would rather be correct.

" I'm not sure many people would like to hear someone say that white, Christian, heterosexuals are lousy parents because that too would be a bigoted statement (intolerant and ignorant)"

There is no statistics to prove this in the first place so it is a moot point. I am not saying EVERY homosexual couple would be bad parents, I am only saying that they are more prone to being bad parents. I do not label a whole group.

Here is a link for you:
Posted by Daysuit 9 years ago
Daysuit
Homophobia and bigotry are not "cards" or redundant meaningless talking points, they are foreshortened definitions of a description of a person and their behavior. Saying someone is incapable of doing something or deserves to be discriminated against on the basis of their sexual, racial, or religious views or orientation is a form of bigotry. In your case, goldspurs, your particular form of bigotry is called homophobia[1].

Therefore, it is not an accusation, it is the truth and definition of the word[2]. We are not saying you HATE someone, we are simply stating that your view is that of a bigot. I'm not sure many people would like to hear someone say that white, Christian, heterosexuals are lousy parents because that too would be a bigoted statement (intolerant and ignorant); which no matter what would have no statistical basis for judgment because no amount of polling can give anyone a real idea of how stable a child's home is.

Let me ask you where the stats are on your stable home?
It doesn't matter, they don't exist neither does it for anyone else.

[1] http://www.bartleby.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
goldspurs, still no links?
leme guess, u have another excuse?
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Jackbauer,

Maybe it is mostly about children. Whats the problem? Doesn't make me wrong. Did I say its all that couples are worth? NO! But I see no other reason for the goverment to endorse the love of 2 people. Do you have any better reason?

You claim I haven't looked at any other side. I find this laughable. I see the other side every day on websites like this.

Once again you have to pull the "bigotry" card on someone because your own reason's are lacking. Give me a break. I don't hate homosexuals at all. You have no grounds to make this accusation.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Daysuit,

I didn't say homosexuals couldn't have a stable enviroment. I only stated that MOST parents that are opposite sex provide a MORE stable enviroment. Assuming only serves to make you appear the fool.

I am far from being a bigot. If you cannot understand a diffrence of opinion than I pity you.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Blond guy, if it doesn't apply in today's world then maybe we should abolish marriage and just leave it to the religions. I see no point for providing benefits to anyone if overpopulation is such a problem as you say.

And yes I do have links, was on my work computer and not able to post them.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
and goldspurs, you never gave me the links.
is it fair for me 2 infer that you don't have any evidence?
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
I saw it daysuit. I find it mean that you used your mastermind to play devil's advocate on me. It doesn't make you right but it does project a point of view that makes it seem so.
Posted by JackBauerPower 9 years ago
JackBauerPower
goldspurs
somehow this has become only about children, but when did that become the end all be all of a couples worth? Even by government standards? Homosexual couples have more purchasing power on average. More disposable income= more money into the economy. Does that make them better? The point is its not so black and white as to say that one way is better than the other, and you clearly haven't looked at any other side than your own. Which leads me to believe that you base your views on something other than unbiased evidence and logic, but rather straight up bigotry.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 out_n_proud_HINDU 8 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 Ninjanuke 9 years ago
Ninjanuke
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 Out_and_Proud 9 years ago
Out_and_Proud
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 RonPaul08 9 years ago
RonPaul08
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 John_Quincy_Adams 9 years ago
John_Quincy_Adams
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 divid 9 years ago
divid
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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 nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
blond_guyDaysuitTied
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