The Instigator
Bruinshockeyfan
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
EvanMacIan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Legalizing 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 3 votes the winner is...
Bruinshockeyfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 726 times Debate No: 35444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

To start off what do people have against gays getting married? Its not going to hurt anyone. Its not going to cost people money or other stuff. All its going to do is give bisexuals equal opportunities and marriage benefits.
EvanMacIan

Con

Well I suppose I won't get very many votes no matter how I argue. Nevertheless I appreciate and accept your challenge.
To me the question is not whether gay marriage should be allowed. The question is whether it is even possible. Marriage is the formal recognition of two person's joint desire to have sex. Sex is the physical union of two bodies. Now a man and a woman can unite, because a man can fit into a woman, like one puzzle piece fits into another. Where one has an opening, the other has an organ specifically designed by evolution to fit in that opening. But two of the same organ cannot unite. Homosexuals cannot have sex. They can only have dual masturbation. I do not yet suggest that masturbation is wrong, only that it is not sex.
Debate Round No. 1
Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

Thanks for making your argument short. Ill do the same.

According to dictionary.com, marriage is a legally, religiously, and socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond.

That defonition say nothing about gender or sex. It doesn't matter if they can have sex or not. Marriage, as said in the defonition, is basically just a commitment between two people. Also who cares if they can have sex or not? The defonition of marriage says nothin about sex.
Also it is natural for some people to be homosexual. About 25 percent of the population is. Its just a recessive gene, like blue eyes. Having blue eyes means your eyes are slightly underdeveloped but its also natural. 25 percent of the population has blue eyes.

My sources
Dictionary.com
7th grade health class
EvanMacIan

Con

I may not be well versed in the history of the institution of marriage, but I do know that it has existed much longer than dictionary.com or any other dictionary. The vast majority of marriages were for primarily procreative purposes wherever they appear in history. The exceptions seem to be political and financial. (Even the political marriages seem to put a heavy emphasis on procreation). And people have for most of history considered marriage between a man and woman. Take ancient Greece for example. Homosexuality was a widely excepted practice in the old Hellenic world, but Homosexual pairs never asked to get married.
Since the topic is Legalizing gay marriage, I will stick to the legal aspect of marriage. If the definition of marriage is the legal recognition of two persons' commitment to each other, then two friends of the same gender with no homosexual attraction could get married. So my question to you is this. What is the difference between marriage and friendship?
Debate Round No. 2
Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

I understand marriage was traditionally between a man and woman but that doesn't mean we can't change it. Back in the day, women didnt traditionally participate in politics and generally ran the house, which was unfair but that was tradition. And look how far women have come. Today many women take part in politics so breaking tradition isn't bad.
Also, if homosexuals want the legal benifits of marriage like filling joint income taxes and inheriting a spouses property after death. Why should we deny them those legal benifits?
Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Freindship is the state of being a friend with no sexual attraction. I hope that answers your question.
EvanMacIan

Con

Legal benefits can be given without calling it marriage. And breaking with tradition (that is, the acumilated wisdom of hundreds of years of human expirience) can sometimes have bad effects. As I said, the Ancient Greeks kept with Tradition and accepted Homosexual relationships. Homosexuals don't need marriage.

Earlier, you told me that the definition of marriage has nothing to do with sex. Now you say Marriage is a commitment with sexual attractions as well. Do tell me, which is it?
Debate Round No. 3
Bruinshockeyfan

Pro

Marriage acually has a lot of benifits that couples that arent married dont have. I remeber hearing on the local news about a homosexual couple. One was in the hospital with injuries but her partner couldn't see her because since theyre homosexuals they can't legally get married and have the same benifits. Without the benifits they wherent considered married and her partner couldn't see her in the hospital. If straigh couples get thoes benifits then why dont homosexuals?
Yes breaking a tradition can have negative effects but breaking this tradition is going to give equal rights to homosexuals. If we break this tradition it will allow people to marry who they love, no matter what gender, and still enjoy the benifits as everyone else.
On to your question. Marriage is both, it doesn't mean you have to have sex but involves sexual feelings. It also involves a deep commitment to each other as well as sexual feelings.

My sources
Local news
Social studies class

Again, i thank con for accepting this debate.
EvanMacIan

Con

Married couples do have legal benefits, but that doesn't that non-married couples couldn't have the same benefits. For example, a law could be passed that allows the incomes of two people living in the same home to be taxed together, instead of separately. Or another law could allow a person to write a document similar to a will, that would give permission for such and such a person to visit one in the hospital. Laws like these would be much more equalizing than gay marriage laws, as they would give equal benefits to gays, straights, and people completely uninterested in marriage at all. Gay rights activists should be lobbying for equal benefits, not marriage.
The negative effects of breaking with tradition in this case are these:
1. Giving the government the power to define what a family is. The present government may be genuinely concerned with spreading equality, but future governments could use this power against individual and religious liberty. Religious liberty should be preserved for religious institutions as well as individuals.
2. Confusion between marriage and friendship. As the culture learns to accept gay marriage, other groups will clamor for marriage rights. As marriages move farther and farther away from being fully sexual (that is, sex for the purpose of procreation) it will become closer to institutionalized friendship. Marriage will lose its meaning as a deep relationship and become dependent on like-mindedness, instead of total commitment. Friendship will decrease, as it will suggest a greater future commitment than is reasonable to ask for in a friend.
3.Decreased respect for raising children. Disdain for the domestic life began a long time ago, (maybe with the Vikings!) but will certainly reach its climax with the normalization of gay marriage. As the family becomes disassociated with blood relationships, it will become a loose collection of persons whose commitment to each other is based on like-mindedness, instead of a necessary duty regardless of the situation. The family will become weak and limited in its power to form children. This last point seems to me the most worrisome of all.

I thank you for challenging me to this debate. May our conversation inspire others to think deeply on this matter of marriage.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
Sorry, i typed my post but it got deleted. Ill finish it tommarrow.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
BruinshockeyfanEvanMacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is not aware that sexual release can be attained from things other than penis to vagina, and based his argument around such... Also that marriage has only been going on for hundreds of years. This debate felt like pro trying to educate con, instead of even needing to debate him.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
BruinshockeyfanEvanMacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a horrible job of arguing their point, I just think Con did a worse job
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
BruinshockeyfanEvanMacIanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I really don't think either side argued this issue very well. CON loses conduct by introducing new arguments in the final round when PRO had no opportunity to rebut them. PRO gets arguments because CON didn't sufficiently rebut his argument for equality.