The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
happypancakeeater
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points

It's none of the government's business whether gays should get married or not.

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: 1,566 times Debate No: 2220
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (24)

 

blond_guy

Pro

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.
happypancakeeater

Con

Homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexuals. In this case they do, homosexuals can marry women. There is no law banning homosexual marriage. The problem occurs when homosexuals claim the term marriage as their right. They should be entitled to civil unions that have all the same legal effects as marriage, but the term is and should be reserved for civil unions between men and women. It would be an injustice to rob the term from those who gave it significance.
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

happypancakeeater: "It would be an injustice to rob the term [marriage] from those who gave it significance."

If the law gives them the same legal effects, then why give it a different name? The significance of the term under the law is the same, sex shouldn't make a difference.
happypancakeeater

Con

It makes a difference to those who get married. Marriage is for men and women. Civil unions are the binding contract. If homosexuals wanted to call their civil unions "gay-marriages" that would be fine. The terminology is the government's concern because it is important to those being married. The argument applies both ways. If homosexuals had defined marriage as a union between two members of the same sex, then heterosexuals would need to make their own term for their unions. In my opinion, the government should only have the distinction of civil unions, but since this isn't the case, its job is to preserve the original terminology.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

Then if it is fine to call it "gay marriage" why should it not be fine to call it just marriage? As a heterosexual I don't believe it diminishes the meaning of marriage simply because the people being married are of certain gender. Making sure that the person you speak to knows the marriage was between homosexuals causes discrimination of minority because unfortunately, people are most likely to think "ew, homosexuals" than to say "how great, a happy gay couple getting married".

Also, this debate was about whether gays should be married, if you say "gay-marriage" is fine, then I don't understand why you took on the debate as a contender.
happypancakeeater

Con

It isn't the government's job to form policy based on popular connotations and granting homosexuals "marriage" wouldn't stop the prejudice or the funny looks, it would just diminish the original significance of the word. It can teach tolerance, but it cannot rob the term of marriage of its initial marriage. "Gay-marriage" was just an example. Homosexuals may call it whatever they wish even something like "love-union." The phrase isn't important as long as it is different.

I took this debate as con because I think the term marriage is valuable of it's own right and should be defended as it is. I'm sorry that I didn't represent the perspective you wanted to debate against. Well, at least you saw a diffent take on the whole argument. I encourage you to start this debate again with someone else. I'll watch it.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by happypancakeeater 9 years ago
happypancakeeater
toria 2metal- I totally agree

clsmooth- People may make that choice, but there are distinct advantages to being in a government recognized union (I don't think the government should use the term marriage either), such as claiming dependent status, grouping taxes, and getting deductions for having children.

blond guy- That is a false analogy. Votes are votes and there is no difference between african-american voting and caucasian voting. The difference is that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If I advocated "gay-civil-unions" your argument would be valid.
Posted by blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
It's ok pancake eater, because like you said, I had a different take on the whole argument.

I now am clear about your stand on gay marriage.

But giving gay marriage a different name would be like naming black votes something other than "votes" , because the white voters gave it its meanning.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
The government should be out of marriage, period. This implies not "recognizing" heterosexual marriages, either. Many of the hardcore Christians I know do not have state marriage licenses because they feel it is an affront to their union in God's eyes.
Posted by toria_2metal 9 years ago
toria_2metal
yah, this was a waste. a big waste!
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FalseReality 9 years ago
FalseReality
blond_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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 9 years ago
out_n_proud_HINDU
blond_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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 1morevoiceinpolitics 9 years ago
1morevoiceinpolitics
blond_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
blond_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
blond_guyhappypancakeeaterTied
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