The Instigator
TheLogic
Pro (for)
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)

Is Gay Marriage Okay?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
TheLogic has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 308 times Debate No: 93878
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

TheLogic

Pro

Living in the Bible Belt, it seems as if the topic of homosexuality comes up often. I myself am an agnostic pagan, but I was raised in a Christian home and have gone to church many times so I can argue from a Christian standpoint as well. In my opinion, love is not spething to be discouraged or oppressed. Anybody care to explain otherwise?
Debate Round No. 1
TheLogic

Pro

For starters, I'm assuming that my opponent is a Christian and therefore I would first like to point out that the bible defines love as "patient and kind" not "straight and defined" I'm aware that this ancient work of fiction also condemns homosexuality as a sin, but what I find hilarious is that the bible also condones and even encourages slavery. Now if you ask a Christian about that they will most likely say that slaverly is included because it was considered acceptable during that time period. Therefore I could argue that homosexuality was also in reference to the time period. Slavery is not acceptable now, and therefore disregarded in the bible. Homosexuality is acceptable now (as far as most people are concerned) so why are people still using the bible to condemn it? You can't cherry pick what parts of the bible are still relevant now. Looking at this from a non Christian point of view, there should really be no reason to oppose gay marriage. It is the Union of two people in love and those who are not blinded by religion, have no reason to oppose the love of two people.
SJM

Con

Ok well my opponent assumes I'm Christian but I am not, even if my bio says so and pro's arguments where all made upon that assumption. Therefore since I'm not required to defend someone else religion, all of pro's arguments are neglected. Now even though my opponent is affirming that gay marriage is okay, I have no case to argue against, but I'll provide points anyways.

It"s simply not in the definition

I am not saying at all that gays do not deserve equality, or to love who they choose. But the problem with saying that gays should get married, is that it"s impossible. By definition marriage is a woman and a man, therefore by saying same sex couples should be able to marry is contrary to definition. This is comparable to saying that since a mammal can"t be an amphibian, we are discriminating against mammals, but of course it"s just impossible.

Civil Unions

People may say then, how come hetero couples can have the benefits of marriage same sex couples can"t? If there weren"t such things as civil unions, I would agree, but civil unions fill similar purposes to that of marriage. Therefore civil unions are basically a same sex "marriage".

People shouldn"t be in marriages for the benefits

Marriages and bonds are suppose to uphold love and not for any materialistic gain. Marriage benefits diminish the value of the love between the two since they are taking other paths in their relationship instead of trying to stay solely on love. Therefore there is no need to get married when it doesn"t any more love as if they weren"t married. Marriage does not have any intrinsic love addition. For example, someone may say marriage signifies a secure bond, but marriage is not needed for a secure bond, all that is needed is to have it.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by SJM 4 months ago
SJM
I'm not really catholic, soooooo.
Posted by malalo75 4 months ago
malalo75
About polygamy (as brought up by Adam_Godzilla):
Civil marriage should be defined as the union of two people. Whatever gender they are.
If they want to shack up, live together, why shouldn't they profit from civil union's benefits?
But if you're married once, you can't marry again, that should not be allowed because it wouldn't be fair to others. So polygamy shouldn't be allowed. If you want to marry someone and gain benefits from that marriage, then divorce from any other marriage you're in and lose those benefits.
Posted by occluded 4 months ago
occluded
No one can make the argument that it is okay to take rights away from people just because they are not explicitly spelled out, the 9th amendment states that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Therefore, because it cannot be demonstrated that taking freedoms away from gay people does anything to further the interests of a state, it is unconstitutional to do so.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 4 months ago
Adam_Godzilla
I don't think gay marriage has anything to do with love. It has a lot to do with equality. You can love a person and be together with that person for the rest of your life, but if you want the social benefits that a married couple has, and the government doesn't let you because the other person is of the same sex, then you've got a problem.

Otherwise, people's main arguments would probably be about raising children, and pointing out statistics showing gay couples not being able to raise children as well. But I've long seen these too, and they're usually biased.

Slippery slopes like it allows pedophilia or bestiality, are also weak arguments. Those two things are illegal due to parties just not being able to give consent legally. Gay marriage is between two consenting adults. Arguments saying gay marriage leads to polygamy, are in my opinion, better arguments.

Anyways, good luck to both Pro and Con.
Posted by Forthelulz 4 months ago
Forthelulz
I must be in the "heathen" section of DDO again.
I, for one, am okay with gay marriage. They can do whatever they want, as long as they don't lecture me with their beliefs.
Gareth, stop being a mong and explain WHY reason would win with the simple act of burning a text that may or may not be the keystone to saving someone's immortal soul.
(Waits for a cherry-picked argument)
Posted by Gareth_BM 4 months ago
Gareth_BM
Don't cherry pick the bible to satisfy your own beliefs, burn it and rejoice at reason's victory.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.