The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
kjw47
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized in the United States.

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 4 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,119 times Debate No: 18205
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance only.
kjw47

Con

yes i accept
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and I firmly stand on the PRO end of the resolution of it thereof. Before contiuing in this debate, I would like to define the key term in this resoMessengerlution:


Ought (v): [a term] used to indicate obligation or duty (The American Heritage Dictionary)


With this single definition, the burden of the debate for either side to prove that it is an obligation by the United States to make recognition of same-sex marriage in the society. From there, we can build up my contentions for this debate:

Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits society
It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, we would be doing exactly what the government is required by society and make improvements on it as such. The main improvement to society lies within the betterment of the population with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to homosexuals as well as economically.

Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia.
The affirmative understands the conditions at which homosexuals are subjected under when it comes to the question of health in the gay community. The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. The following evidence shows that the high statistics in the gay community are strongly connected with homophobia/rejection of homosexuals and that same-sex marriage aids to the improvement of the gay community.
http://userwww.service.emory.edu...
http://www.avert.org...
http://shared.web.emory.edu...

Sub 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficial
Alongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole, meaning that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be beneficial to the community as a whole.
http://services.law.ucla.edu...
http://services.law.ucla.edu...
http://services.law.ucla.edu...

Contention 2: Denial of same-sex marriage does not uphold equality.
One of the essential tenets of a legitimate government is to uphold equality in the society, which is not provided by the denial of same-sex marriage in the country as of currently. Because it is not upholding equality by denying same-sex marriage, it ought be legalized as such.

Sub 2a: Same-sex marriage denial inherently does not uphold equality.
http://australianmarriageequality.com...
http://beingliberal.net...
Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.

Contention 3: Majority opinion now supports SSM.
In addition to the obligation to uphold the country, we must uphold the governmental style of the United States: a democracy dedicated to the people. A democracy must uphold what is both moral/practical and most supported by people in order to be valid to be upheld by the government. The following recent polls show that the new majority of people support SSM.

http://www.gallup.com.........


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com.........

http://www.pollingreport.com.........


















kjw47

Con

Men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men ( this includes women as well ) will not inherit Gods kingdom ( eternal life ) So if a state or country chooses to do the opposite by passing Gay Marriage- they make themselves antichrist. Where as they have the free will to do so, it is not a wise path.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Alright, so it definately shows that my opponent has made a case, and with this, I will move on to addressing it and explaining to you why my case should win.
When it comes to the state itself actually legalizing or illegalizing the marriage, it requires a defense at the constitutional and legal level, and when it comes down to that, I can bring us down to the quintessential argument about freedom of and from religion, which would pretty much knock down the entirety of my opponent's case considering that it is all based on religious scripture. However, instead of boring the judges with an entire rebuttal dedicated to arguing that way, we can analyze it at another level.
The United States is an eclectic nation; it is not only encompassed by Christians, but also by Muslims, Jews, atheists, and also others. When my opponent says that we should keep same-sex marriage illegal simply because his personal religion dictates as such, it doesn't necessarily mean that we should have it as a reason for illegalizing same-sex marriage in general because there is such a diversity of religious beliefs and values. To implement a single religious belief for a society composed of so many cultures is not only unconstitutional, but also immoral because we are not allowing these people autonomy to their religions or the beliefs thereof. This is why the judges should vote for my case over my opponent's: my argument analyzes society at a secular level so that it can apply to everyone, and as it would dictate, same-sex marriage would be better for society.
kjw47

Con

Yes the United states as the rest of the world has many religions--God has 1 religion- 1 truth-- The reason there are so many religions is CONFUSION-- As we find at 1 cor 6:9-11-- not only acts of being gay are condemned, but also sex out of marriage-besides other things. Its the practice of these things that puts one on the opposite side of Jesus. As his words at Matt 7:21-23 will show. As for me i believe a single christian religion has truth, being lead by the Faithful and discreet slave whom Jesus appointed, and only through them truths come.
Under God there is 1 human family-living in 1 world-- satan divided the world into seperateness. Gods word teaches that satan is the god of this system of things-its his will that wants countries to pass gay marriage-- its his will to make everyone antichrist. So i say no, the passage of Gay marriage leads one away from God-The only hope mankind has at this point is Gods kingdom. Keep on seeking first the kingdom and his( psalm 83:18) righteousness, and all will be added
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
kjw47

Con

xxxxxxxxxx
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Judges, please excuse my forfeit earlier considering my inability to be able to respond on debate. org because of strapped time. However, even with this one forfeit, I can explain to you why you should vote for me rather than my opponent based on what I have argued and what my opponent has not.
My opponent might as well have forfeited along with me because nothing in his rebuttal responds to what I have said in my original case (which means, you can extend all of those arguments across the flow because they go unargued) and nothing in his recent rebuttal makes a compelling argument against the rebuttal I had established earlier.
Of course, my argument about the Constitution remains unhindered, so with all due respect, extend that part of my rebuttal across the flow. Also, notice how in my opponent's rebuttal, he continues to bring his side of the debate back to himself--back to his personal beliefs. That only shows us how limited his case is for this debate because the United States is composed of so many religions and perceptions of deities that we must provide a medium that is equal for all of them, and this medium is through the eyes of secularlism because it keeps church and state separate so that it looks at everyone at equavalent statures. What he believes may not be what my Muslim friend or what my atheist friend will believe, and for him to simply assert that his religion trumps the other religions because his is the right one is not only unsustained and biased, but also heavily arrogant and disrespectful of the other religions we have in this country. Therefore, you should definately look at my case over his own.
You may not vote for me in the realm of conduct because of my flaw of not being able to show up on time. However, you should vote for me because my case remains untouched; I have argued against my opponent's argument well and knocked down everything he said; my evidence trumps his own because it looks at gay marriage at a secular, equal level rather than this completely biased perspective and still shows us why we should uphold same-sex marriage. Therefore, you must vote PRO on this debate. Thank you, and I await my opponent's rebuttal.
kjw47

Con

Only until recently has there been talk of seperation of church and state-- as we find on our coins-in God we trust- our songs-One nation under God-- It was never the early fathers choice for the seperation-- and as i stated God gives everyone free will to choose their path- either for God or against God. There is no other reality. Yes there are many religions ( confusion ) God only has one religion- not many. He only needs one religion because he is not a God of confusion, men are confused, mislead into accepting things against God.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by kjw47 1 year ago
kjw47
oops sorry, I thought this was recent, I did sign up for this, my error.
Posted by kjw47 1 year ago
kjw47
I never signed up to debate this--it is erronious
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
RFD

CON made an erroneous appeal to religion. This is a fallacy. Why should we conform to your ideology? Con never refuted any of what PRO has to say.

Sources: this one is obvious. Con provided no sources. (The bible isn't a source!)
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Though I must admit, the fact that PRO copy pastes his opening argument each time seems a little lazy.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
ScarletGhost4396kjw47Tied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, again you are lucky.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
ScarletGhost4396kjw47Tied
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: I'm voting pro because pro hasn't yet given me a reason to think he's an idiot, Con gave me more than enough reasons in this debate to think that of him.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
ScarletGhost4396kjw47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, I am sorry for the wasted time. Please see comment section.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
ScarletGhost4396kjw47Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct for the forfiet, however Pro did provide a much better argument and Con's 10 second responce was almost insulting based on the effort that Pro likely put into their case.