Is marriage a gay rights issue.
Debate Rounds (5)
This is to exclude the idea of a legal union for gaining access to custody of children, homes, insurance, ect.. and to have a merit in court should a disagreement in ownership or access occur.
I argue no.
Reason: Anytime a law can give access to one group, it gains the ability to remove the same access. Allowing government to control marriage has lead to a disgusting polarization among people. It is a distracting issue that takes away from issues, voters should be concerned with. Does this mean that discrimination might and probably will occur thanks to religious institution? Yes, it is their right, just as it is the Phelps family has the right to disgrace fallen soldiers every day. To limit an individual's or an institution's right to free expression, even if that expression is hate, defeats everything that makes freedom great. Our ability to disagree is what empowers us and makes us great. So to make a religious institution designed to create a union a government regulated commodity (hetero only or homosexuals allowed) chips away at that freedom. In the debate, the issue of our freedom is ignored and it becomes a bickering match between who's toes are going to be stepped on in this topic's room. In reality, it's a room government shouldn't even be in and by having it here we chip freedom away bit by bit.
Resolution: Shift the discussion from gay rights. Get government out of the business of religious regulation. Bring the issue of all unions that want legal recognition to not have a religious union associated with it. Removing certain requirements that need genders and genetic compatibility for procreation. This allowing all people; gay, straight, Christian or otherwise to create a legal union without the need of government to infringe upon religious or social lifestyle freedoms.
1- Anything that sounds factual requires a reference (the constitution counts), evidence only required upon request and if not brought up in the following argument, it will be considered falsification and cheating.
2- This can be about gay rights but I am aiming for more of a governments purpose sexual and religious freedom
3- No swearing
I don't have round criteria set up. I have taken the first argument and would like each argument there after to be a rebuttal with the last person getting a closing argument.
so am I agreeing with this topic? Looks like it um sorry if I am incruttte. My spelling and grammar suck so sorry in advance I try my beast to type it proper. So am I supposed to agrea with your oping?
okay this is where I make others believe stuff I don't believe in yeah!
okay here why the give should put there hands in this subject...
1 most people are sheep if the government say something they fall in line like cattle, you don't believe me?
weed has been eligall cents the 30s because the government told the sheep that it bad for you and it make white woman fornicate with black men. hmmm I might be able to dig up more on this if you want me to add other time when the sheep let the tack away are freedom's. But down to the matter in my belief is that if the government sad it okay to be gay and you can marry like genders Id guess that a little more then have the usa would be like okay the gays won. The only sid that may not back of or thos crishtins but they dislike every thing so who cares.
okay I now need to do more recherché cuss that al I have for now, cant what to see what you have to say till later toodles
I honestly don't want to be rude but is English a second language? I am notorious for having terrible grammar but this is just silly.
Truth be told, I am a little dumbfounded by your argument.
From the top, "okay this is where I make others believe stuff I don't believe in yeah!" What? This makes zero sense. It either invalidates everything you said, not that you said much or I'm not sure you know what you wrote here.
"1 most people are sheep if the government say something they fall in line like cattle, you don't believe me?" <- Sure prove this to me. Given there is even an ounce of validity to that argument of which I am sure there is not. Look at the revolutions that have taken place throughout history <- no citation necessary, common knowledge. Let us say for one moment there is an ounce of validity though. Are you saying it is a good thing the empower the state to control freedom? If the state gains the ability to redistribute freedom, by taking from one and giving to another does this not leave the door open for it to swing both ways?
"the sheep let the tack away are freedom's" - You just said they are sheep, they fall in line. If this is the case how can they take away freedom, if they have already given up all freedom to the state by becoming "sheep"?
"But down to the matter in my belief is that if the government sad it okay to be gay and you can marry like genders Id guess that a little more then have the usa would be like okay the gays won. The only sid that may not back of or thos crishtins but they dislike every thing so who cares." - I really hate to troll but what? From what I can figure out here, it sounds as if you are saying. [ If the government regulates marriage , and sanctions it between homosexuals it must be just. Someone in government may loose the support of the Christian voting block but who care, they are ignorant and will hate regardless ]. If this translation is even close, then I would say you are ignorant to politics in the United States of America. The Christian Values voting bloc is huge in the United States of America. "Christian right organizations sometimes conduct polls to determine which presidential candidates will receive the support of Christian right constituents. One such poll is taken at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit. George W. Bush's electoral success owed much to his overwhelming support from white evangelical voters, who comprise 23% of the vote. In 2000 he received 68% of the white evangelical vote; in 2004 that percentage rose to 78%"- http://en.wikipedia.org...
I would like to point out, you're not arguing anything stated above. You are arguing should two people regardless of gender have equal legal counsel should a union form. The question involves the purpose of government in a religious union.
Okay I know that about the cherstins okay I was saying that people like me don't care not the government they have there head up churches back side.
2nd is that I am anti government at the moment I lost a lot of faith with them the fact the people don't see it makes me be live this fact people are sheep. Fox 2 new for instance is there to scare the paint out of you if you car to watch more then a day of there crap. Know why scare people for? To shift power or to get more ratings and maybe money.
now the sheep this you need evidence about how sheep the Americans are (yeas I am a American and English is my primary adhd ad close head injury means that my grasp on spelling ant to good) sheep. And yeah reverluchins are mad not by the sheep but by pp like me who end up pissed at there ruler and grab arm. That why the 2cnd amendment allows me such access to guns in the 1st place so if the gove gets to happy we can shoot back. Now back on subject. Let me go look in the inter net for you give me 20 minsl...........
also when weed was mad illegal it had a other uses such as the hemp plant now I will move away from weed. They gave the racist Wright man fear to control them and they obeyed.
okay lets see what ells is there out there one minint...
for now ill let this drop but that because I need to call my ma later on.
now why ells would government held gay rights marige whachma call it be help full for? Well most of the time the states that form this union lessen to the Wright house and they do as told so is obama sad gays can truck like rabbits and wed, the other stats cant say no to it. And I agrea with you the gov need to pull there heads out of the churches but and need to be sterile in that regard but it dos not need to go around ripping crossed of graves and tacking away whit is are syimballs in some of are more old grave yards... Ill get you more link about ship once I talk to mah mother to get some stuff to Google I am not to deep in the area so at the moment all I have is weed and that only because I am toker and a lover. But yeah I will brush up on more of this dark hallway. And sorry for the spieling I spell check but sometimes it breaks it so sorry
ps O do have a basic idea of what gos on out there but most of what I now is not relive4nt here
no you ant bing hazed, I do now a little on the subjeckt just needed to brush up on it more, sorry for making you feel used thaT Was not my inten. tho I can promis you that I now have a agument. My mom is a tad nutting but a found my what I need to look for on the ethernet. sorry agine
I have yet contracted my self. Oh yeah black value system dose this bother you? If not then this link will have no affect on you.
that a tad racey no? Yet obama prays there if what I read says anything.
I need a sec,,,
broke obama look like goanna beat mic Romney... People are sheep.
the NDAA kill the 2cnd amendment so nice like yet the president that we love so much is going for another term? Sheep baa bahhhh.
If my augment is contradictory because of my thick anti government augment that is only because Sadly it true.
people like to let the gov to think for them self, this country is a shadow of what are for fathers wanted, are freedoms are restricted with nice over acachuratid lies and we let them.
the gove3rment woks like this.
do as we say not as we do. So if they sad yeas to gay marige and that can have kid's there own kids and they won this cases in court then we the people would follow like the good little sheep we are.
and last my aponit has yet to make any augment ageist me he wasted his last slot to make a stamen in the hops that I would fumble or something he cant ague against me, he calls my augment contradictory but he wont show were they are at or any thing he just beat it with a stick in the hops that I will shut up vote for me I may be a a$$ but hay I admit this totally I may have used a ant government type augment for a government type augment but I supported that the government should be involved well with this augment so at least I am smart anuffe to ague it he on the other hand has nothing to fight me back with atlas any thing good
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Firstguy didn't meet his burden of proof, but Secondguy is trolling, effectively forfeiting.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.