The Instigator
TheOutspokenOne
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
I-am-a-panda
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Nevada May Be 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 4 votes the winner is...
I-am-a-panda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,128 times Debate No: 9594
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

TheOutspokenOne

Pro

I heard on a news broadcast that same-sex marriage may be legalized in Nevada. My sister is bisexual, and she intends to marry a girl that she believes is the love of her life. I respect her thoughts, and it would be great if her wedding could be local. I personally am not lesbian/bisexual, but I have good friends who are gay and lesbian.

If this goes through, I would be so excited for the gay community, for this would be a huge step in the right direction. Marriage is about love, not gender. As soon as the other states realize this, I'm sure same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. Before we proceed, I am presuming we are discussing the merits of gay marriage. If we are not, please inform me.

===DEFINITION===

Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Civil Union - n. A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority. [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

===CON argument===

Firstly, marriage is a union of two people in religious traditions. This is perfectly fine, but where's the governments palace in dictating who religions can and can't marry? Religion is purely a private matter for the individual. If they want to get married, go ahead, but the state shouldn't be in a position to say which religions form of marriage is right and which one is wrong.

A civil union differs in that it is a partnership of two people recognised by the State and where no religion involved. This is the best option - It is based on a legal commitment to each other and is religion-neutral, meaning it discriminates against no-one.

If the state starts injecting in religions, where's the limit? Should they have the right to start denouncing different religions as cults and say their idea of a deity is wrong? It is in the states interest to separate itself completley from religion and not acknowledge any bond througha religious marriage, only through a civil union.

I await a response from my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
TheOutspokenOne

Pro

I understand that to most people marriage is something between a man and woman. However, society today says it is okay to do whatever you want whenever you want. I have always believed in this. I believe that we live in America, where you are free to be whoever you want to. By saying, "Yes, you can get married, but you have to get married in the special, off-to-the-side sort of marriage we have prepared for you." goes against all original principles of America, doesn't it?

Furthermore, if a woman and her significant other are both die-hard Christians and decide that they want to get married, why should they follow this procedure that tells them that they cannot get married the Christian way. The have to get married in some ceremony that tells the world that they don't believe in God. Now, call me crazy, but isn't the word for that a "blasphemer?"

Why in the world would anyone try to obstruct someone's religious beliefs and perhaps their well-being, just because they want to still be able to play "Smear the Queer?" Because, I hate to say it, often times America can act idiotically. L Lawliet said that "We often tease people we don't understand." That is exactly what is happening right here, right now.
I-am-a-panda

Con

"I understand that to most people marriage is something between a man and woman. However, society today says it is okay to do whatever you want whenever you want. I have always believed in this. I believe that we live in America, where you are free to be whoever you want to. By saying, "Yes, you can get married, but you have to get married in the special, off-to-the-side sort of marriage we have prepared for you." goes against all original principles of America, doesn't it?"

--> Under my theory, everyone would have to get a civil union. Religious marriage wouldn't be recognise, only a legal bond under the state would.

"Furthermore, if a woman and her significant other are both die-hard Christians and decide that they want to get married, why should they follow this procedure that tells them that they cannot get married the Christian way. The have to get married in some ceremony that tells the world that they don't believe in God. Now, call me crazy, but isn't the word for that a "blasphemer?""

--> A civil union is a legal bond, and isn't denying any deity(s). And when is it the State's right to intervene in religious traditions and tell them who they can and can't marry?

"Why in the world would anyone try to obstruct someone's religious beliefs and perhaps their well-being, just because they want to still be able to play "Smear the Queer?" Because, I hate to say it, often times America can act idiotically. L Lawliet said that "We often tease people we don't understand." That is exactly what is happening right here, right now."

--> I am not denying rights to anyone. EVERYONE under the society I proposed would have a civil union, a legal bond between two people. Marriage would be a private matter for various religions. It simply isn't being called marriage, but it has the same benefits.

I await opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2
TheOutspokenOne

Pro

TheOutspokenOne forfeited this round.
I-am-a-panda

Con

I extend my arguments and await a response by Pro
Debate Round No. 3
TheOutspokenOne

Pro

It's sounds to me that you are implying that gay couples are accepting of the niche society has carved for them. Perhaps some couples want otherwise. It is evident that not all couples want this in the first place. There are certain people who want the world to acknowledge the fact that they're Christian, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever.

Allow me to show you: http://www.youtube.com...

So, you see, a traditional marriage a is more deserving of the gay community. A traditional ceremony allows the individuals to be recognized as a person AND a spiritual being. I'm not sure of your sexuality, but this is a much more intimate way of being connected to another person. There are people who really want this, not an assembly-line, standardized civil union. They want a ceremony that recognizes their religion AND themselves, not one or the other.

I have no further comments for my opponent.
I-am-a-panda

Con

"It's sounds to me that you are implying that gay couples are accepting of the niche society has carved for them. Perhaps some couples want otherwise. It is evident that not all couples want this in the first place. There are certain people who want the world to acknowledge the fact that they're Christian, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or whatever."

--> They can acknowledge they are without a religious ceremony. Besides, if they aren't allowed to have a marriage under that religion, why should the government step in and force the religion to?

Secondly, everyone would be in this "niche" as you called it. Religions can provide little ceremonies, but legally it's all the same if everyone goes through the same system.

"So, you see, a traditional marriage a is more deserving of the gay community. A traditional ceremony allows the individuals to be recognized as a person AND a spiritual being. I'm not sure of your sexuality, but this is a much more intimate way of being connected to another person. There are people who really want this, not an assembly-line, standardized civil union. They want a ceremony that recognizes their religion AND themselves, not one or the other."

-->Where is the authority for the government to step in and intervene in the morals and practices of a religion? I'm an Atheist, but I feel the government shouldn't touch religion. What's next, the government forcing churches to only accept certain versions of a deity? It's a slippery slope that the government shouldn't be put on.

My opponent is under the perception I am discriminating against homosexuals as I am setting them aside, but I am setting everyone aside. Religion is a ceremony which is recognising a union under God, and the government shouldn't mandate that.

Besides, if they really want a religious marriage,then they should make their own religion.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
what are we supposed to do as con? say "no, your lying!" ?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Who's Nevada May? You're Sentence structure is bad btw.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
So... what's the resolution?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Actually, there's no debate. PRO says that the news already affirmed that something might happen. CON has no chance to do anything about it.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
This debate would be interesting and new if someone didn't argue against it on moral puritanical ideals, or that the state shouldn't recognize marriage. Worn out arguments that have long served their purposes.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 7 years ago
I-am-a-panda
TheOutspokenOneI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by 1-2-3 7 years ago
1-2-3
TheOutspokenOneI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
TheOutspokenOneI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TheOutspokenOneI-am-a-pandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07