The Instigator
Lauragrasmussen
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Legalize gay 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 70153
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Lauragrasmussen

Pro

Everyone should be treated equally no matter where you are from, who you are or in this case, who you love.
Being gay is not something you choose, but something that happens and you cannot change it.
No one can change this, so there is no reason for it to be illegal.
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Argument

Before beginning my argument, it is essential to point out that my opponent is arguing in favor of "gay" marriage as opposed to "same-sex" marriage. There is a key difference, as we will see.

In 1996, the United States Supreme Court"s decision in the Romer v. Evans case prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a result of the finding that this sort of discrimination was unconstitutional, the United States government must be blind to sexual orientation (among other things) when enacting policy.

But the concept of "gay" marriage proposes to do just the opposite. In the case of traditional marriage, the law is blind to sexual orientation. A heterosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual woman, a homosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual women, a heterosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman, and a homosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman. In no way does the traditional idea of marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation. This traditional idea is consistent with the 1996 Supreme Court ruling.

In contrast, if "gay" marriage were to be enacted into law, it would mean that only homosexual (I'll use this term when referring to the orientation and the term "gay" when referring to the marriage idea) men and women would be allowed to be joined in a "gay" marriage with other homosexual men and women. This means that while a homosexual man would legally be able to marry a homosexual man, and a homosexual woman would legally be able to marry a homosexual woman, a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a heterosexual woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman. The orientation-based discrimination in this case is clear. The idea of "gay" marriage would unconstitutionally discriminate against a heterosexually-oriented individual"s right to the same type of marriage that would be given to a homosexually-oriented individual.

Thus, by its very definition, "gay marriage" is inherently discriminatory.

Rebuttal

"Everyone should be treated equally no matter where you are from, who you are or in this case, who you love."

I agree. It seems to me that all parties are being "treated equally" here; homosexual men are legally able to marry a woman in the very same way that heterosexual men are legally able to marry a woman.

"Being gay is not something you choose, but something that happens and you cannot change it."

While I disagree with those who say that homosexuality is completely a choice, I would argue that one certainly could (if he or she wished) choose to be a homosexual. As is often the case, homosexuality is likely the result of some combination of natural and environmental factors. That being said, I think it's strange for my opponent to argue that one couldn't possibly choose to be a homosexual or to not be a homosexual.

"No one can change this, so there is no reason for it to be illegal."

This is an absurd line of reasoning. Let's apply the logic my opponent uses here to a situation involving pedophilia. Suppose a man is a pedophile (he can't choose not to be, he just is) and he has sexual relations with children. Is it right to say, as my opponent does, "No one can change this, so there is no reason for it to be illegal"? Certainly not.

Summary

I have shown that "gay" marriage inherently discriminates based on sexual orientation and thus is unconstitutional. Moreover, I have refuted each of my opponent's points in defense of gay marriage. As it stands, it seems to me that it can be reasonably concluded that "gay" marriage ought not be legalized.

Thank you.

Sources
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Lauragrasmussen

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate. Now to my answer:

There have been some changes about whether marriage should be extended to same-sex marriage or just be the "normal" marriage between a man and a woman, and only 19 states had allowed same-sex marriage. Now there are 36 states that allow it.

You mention that "a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman" if legal gay marriage became a law. If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, then I would not consider him "heterosexual". He is attracted to another man which could result in a same-sex marriage.

I cannot see how a same-sex law would discriminate heterosexual marriages. We see heterosexual marriages as regular and normal so these marriages are working without a law, because it has always been seen as "the right way to do it". Right now, due to all the arguments against gay marriage, I would say that gay marriage is being discriminated. In a lot of countries homosexual people are being beaten and raped by family members to become straight. Homosexual people are seen as disgusting and not normal and they are certainly not being treated equal.

Homosexuality is not a choice someone makes because they think that would be better off marrying a person from the same sex as them. We could try the thing with "a black man is born black". This is not something he can change that he is born like this. A homosexual person is also born like this, it just takes some time and experience to discover it.
Also, if homosexuality was a choice, try to turn gay right now. You cannot do that, right?

At last, you mention pedophilia. I understand your concern, but pedophiles have a mental issue. Pedophiles and homosexuals have nothing in common at all. Pedophiles think it is all right to have sexual relations to children where homosexuals are attracted to people of the same sex. There is nothing bad about being together with a man or a woman of the same sex, unless the other person does not want a relationship like that. A pedophile is doing it for pleasure, where same-sex couples are doing it for love. There is no love in pedophilia and i agree with you that a pedophile should be punished.

Thanks.

Sources:
http://www.ncsl.org...
1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

Rebuttal


"There have been some changes about whether marriage should be extended to same-sex marriage or just be the "normal" marriage between a man and a woman, and only 19 states had allowed same-sex marriage. Now there are 36 states that allow it."


I don't see how this is relevant.

"If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, then I would not consider him "heterosexual"."

It doesn't matter what you would consider him; the point remains that your proposed version of marriage, if enacted into law, would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, something which is clearly unconstitutional.

"Right now, due to all the arguments against gay marriage, I would say that gay marriage is being discriminated."

Really? So anything that has arguments against it is being discriminated against? This seems to be faulty logic to me.

"In a lot of countries homosexual people are being beaten and raped by family members to become straight. Homosexual people are seen as disgusting and not normal and they are certainly not being treated equal."

It's of course wrong to beat/rape homosexuals (in the same way that it's wrong to beat/rape anybody). That being said, I can't see how the premise "it's wrong to beat/rape homosexuals" leads to your conclusion that gay marriage should be legalized. Please explain any hidden assumptions or additional premises.

"Homosexuality is not a choice someone makes because they think that would be better off marrying a person from the same sex as them."

As I made clear in the opening round, we're basically agreed on this.

"At last, you mention pedophilia. I understand your concern, but pedophiles have a mental issue."

(1) Why should we discriminate against groups of people with "mental issues", as you say?
(2) Can you provide any sort of justification for thinking that homosexuality is any different from pedophilia in terms of being a "mental issue"?

"A pedophile is doing it for pleasure, where same-sex couples are doing it for love."

Pedophiles seem to think that they're in it for love in the same way that homosexuals do. I certainly see no difference here. The burden of proof is on you in this case to show that homosexuality is different from pedophilia. I've yet to be convinced of this, and even if I were convinced, you'd still have all your work ahead of you in showing that gay marriage should be legalized.

Summary

My opponent has yet to refute my argument, which concludes that gay marriage should not be legalized because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which is unconstitutional. As it stands, then, this argument remains sound.

My opponent has failed to provide any sort of justification for thinking that gay marriage should be legalized. As such, his portion of the burden of proof has not been carried thus far.

Thank you.

Sources
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Lauragrasmussen

Pro

Lauragrasmussen forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

I have nothing further to add, as my opponent has forfeited in the final round.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Lauragrasmussen1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff the last round, leaving Con's entire previous arguments dropped. Therefore, conduct and arguments to Con.