The Instigator
KJVPrewrather
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Arganger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is marriage a human right for consenting parties?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 376 times Debate No: 106971
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

KJVPrewrather

Pro

I believe that marriage is a human right for two consenting humans. I am also bisexual. I have the right to marry my lover if I want to. Mind your own business. Marriage is about love, not gender. Jesus loves me just the way I am. Why should I lose my human rights?
Arganger

Con

As clear by the title, I do not see marriage as a human right.

Human right (According to google's dictionary),
"a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person."

It would be very hard for someone to say that marriage is a human right, because if so anyone would be allowed to marry as long as both sides consented. This includes instances of beastality and peadophillia.

I doubt many people want that.

Because of the definition of a human right, I argue that, unless you are okay with the extreme of the extreme you don't want that either.

Not being able to be marryed has very little reason to be a human right either, as you will neither die nor become stuck to a socital class if you cannot marry.

Marriage is at its roots a religious ceremony, and though God most certainly loves you, homosexual acts are still sin. A sub set of sexual immorality.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." -Romans 1, 26-27

Though God loves all even in their sin, God still doesn't approve of sin.

Before anyone (Likely in the comments) starts trying to make God a moster over this, "for the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights." -Proverbs 3, 12.

Also, love itself is a choice. Infatuation, and being attracted to someone isn't love or even necessary to a relationship.

Love is hard, and requires being willing to put yourself aside for the other person. That is technically an opinion, so I don't think I can back it up, but it still shows something.

I consider myself heterosexual, but under different definitions I have found I could be seen as bisexual or asexual.

What I find a little odd in your first argument is that you said, "Why should I lose my human rights?" But the debate is whether it even is one.
Debate Round No. 1
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Consenting adult humans have the right to be married. I feel I have the right to not be alone. Life is ugly, let's make it beautiful again.
Arganger

Con

Not being married doesn't necessarily affect happiness, many people live their lives happily without ever marrying.

And for the right not to be alone, than does that mean that some people have the right to force others to be around them? It falls apart there.

A right has to be sweeping, so anything that is a true right must apply to children as much as adults. Notice in the defination it includes, "every person". Unless a minor is suddenly not human, marriage cannot be a right unless it includes them.

Also, under the case that it was a right and being refused to minors, there are cases that that would also be unfair. For instance if two independent teenagers that have been in a relationship for years wanted to get married, heck to make it more convincing, what if the docter gave one of them only a few months to live?

See how to gets more complex?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
KJVPrewrather

Pro

For an asexual persion, that is true. For me, that is not true. If I find a consenting man or woman, I have the right to be married.
Arganger

Con

By definition It cannot be a right as I have already shown. Stating that, "I have the right to be married." isn't an argument as to why in the least. Rather it is an opinion.
Debate Round No. 3
KJVPrewrather

Pro

Consenting adult nonincest humans have the right to marry each other. You don't have the right to force your opinion on other people. Who voted on your marriage? Not me. No one should be forced to die alone for a psuedoreligious fantasy.
Arganger

Con

Pro has now resorted to a ad hominem. Forgetting seemingly that they made a debate, meaning she was actively looking to argue over whether or not marriage a human right. Yet, is also saying things like, "You don't have the right to force your opinion on other people."

To recap:

I have shown that even by Pro's personal beliefs she does not want to treat marriage as human right for consenting parties. And due to the defenition of a human right, "a right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person" it cannot be a human right unless it applys in all situations.

I have also shown that marriage isn't necessary for happiness.

Pro has made her argument, simply by stating it is a right, and has failed to back it up.

My final points:
Happiness alone isn't a sound argument for making something a human right anyway. For instance, in the case of pyromania.

"Pyromania is a rare, pathological disorder characterized by intentional and repeated fire setting. People with pyromania are deeply fascinated by fire and related paraphernalia. They cannot stop their impulse to set fires, may participate in other fire-related activities, and experience feelings of satisfaction or a release of built-up inner tension or anxiety once a fire is set."

People expirenceing pyromania expirnce happiness when setting fire. Yet, it is far from a human right to set fire to things, I'm sure most everyone would agree.

If the question the title asks, "Is marriage a human right for consenting parties?" is
answered yes, that means as long as all people are consenting everyone could get married. This includes incest, multiple partners, young children, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia and anything else. Not just homosexual couples.

Conclusion:

Marriage makes in general no sense to be treated as a right, regardless of how one feels about same sex relationships.

Because of Pro failing repetitively to make an argument against any of my points, please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 weeks ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: asande27// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con not only had more reasons that supported their argument but also had more developed arguments. They were more convincing because they explained their reasoning point-by-point. Their argument was organized and straight-forward, so it was easy to follow along. The con side won because they argued so well that I could understand why their reasoning was sound. They made me see the issue from their point of view.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn"t explain S&G, conduct or sources. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments presented by both sides in the debate. Merely stating how Con convinced and spoke to the voter is insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 1 month ago
Ragnar
Small word of advice. Because of the number of mentally impaired people on this site, the Select Winner will most often be the better voting option to select.
Posted by Arganger 1 month ago
Arganger
Bitch_Goddess
Honestly, so what?
That isn't the main point of my argument in this one, and I could argue this I think quite effectively without mentioning it.
Posted by Pill_Junkie_Monkey 1 month ago
Pill_Junkie_Monkey
Do you either of you even logic bro?
Posted by Bitch_Goddess 1 month ago
Bitch_Goddess
Religion is not a valid argument for this type of question. Religious beliefs and matters do not concern modern societies laws. It, in no way, should be affiliated with the decision of whether or not marriage should be available to every human being.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
Gay sex is an entirely moral activity that should not be the basis for discrimination not because there is no choice in sexual orientation, but because it is a personal behavior that causes no harm to others. The question of what causes some people to prefer their own gender might be an interesting one, but it is not a moral one. It is the quality of the relationship one is in that is significant, not the gender of one's partner.
Posted by canis 1 month ago
canis
Man..-Woman...Do what you do ,,.Done is done and it is it...your righst ?... Are yours..Never the Rights of others..They do what they do.
No votes have been placed for this debate.