The Instigator
zhuggett
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
joshizinfamous
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Legalizing Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 3/14/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,597 times Debate No: 15376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

zhuggett

Pro

Gays should be able to be married because their partners that they have without being married do not get the same benefits as they would if they were married. Like if one of the people worked their patner could not be covered by that insurance that they have. I also believe they should be able to get married because the government, or anyone in this country does not have the right to tell people what is right or wrong. This country was founded on the policies of being free and being able to get married. The constitution says that two people, it does not say male and female, can be married.
joshizinfamous

Con

I thank pro for introducing this Debate. I will first go over Points made by pro then introduce my own.
I will outline my opponent's points in three major contentions.

First on rights of people to be married so they can share insurance.
This point is non-unique to the pro side. If this were to be a deciding factor for deciding if people should be allowed to marry then we would allow children to marry also. However we do not because this is not a well formed presence foe deciding this issue.

Next an exact quote from the pro case."I also believe they should be able to get married because the government, or anyone in this country does not have the right to tell people what is right or wrong" If this were a true statement then the government would not have passed laws such as speeding limits, rights to own property, and rights to living a life. This statement is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot take away the right to tell people right from wrong simply because a minority of the country wishes to engage in such actions. The key wording of this is tell people(any people) what is right from wrong. This statement cannot be defended because we must institute laws to protect citizens of the United States. If we did not institute laws both debaters in this case may not have been alive or available to make this debate.

Third: The constitution states that two people (not male or female may get married) The constitution also does not say if children can be married. The constitution does not say if animals can get married. However, the Constitution was enacted as a major outline. We then allow the laws(which my opponent argues against) fall into place. This point does not gain my opponent any type of ground.

Contention One: "Gay"Marriage is not marriage at all. According to dictionary.com's definition of marriage. (a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners) The key wording in there is sexual. As we all know the prime route of Sexual is intercourse. Intercourse (the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation.) Since "Gay" people can only engage in Gay interactions then they cannot engage in one of the primary aspects of marriage. Since they cannot do this they cannot achieve marriage.

Contention Two: Gay Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage:
By allowing Gay marriage on the premises stated and the obvious underlying pursuit of happiness we are opening the door for many other(including gay marriage) outrageous marriage combinations. For example children. We cannot allow children to marry however they also face a natural given constraint.
Thank-you.
Debate Round No. 1
zhuggett

Pro

zhuggett forfeited this round.
joshizinfamous

Con

My opponent has forfeited obviously. Please extend all of my arguments. I encourage my opponent to debate still. Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
zhuggett

Pro

zhuggett forfeited this round.
joshizinfamous

Con

My opponent has conceded all of his points by not responding and mine must go uncontested. Thankyou. Vote Con Please.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
If I were pro, I would mention that children cannot marry because they are not of the age of consent. Homosexual marriage would be between consenting adults only. Children are of no comparison in this situation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.