The Instigator
alysonreid
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
harrytruman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Same-Sex Equality

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2016 Category: People
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 446 times Debate No: 95607
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

alysonreid

Pro

Marriage isn't a privilege, it is a human right.

Many protesters of gay couples say that 'God states in the bible that only man and woman should be together'.

There's no proof God is real. And even if he was, there is NOTHING wrong with two people of the same gender being together. So, forget about your religion for a second and look at the real facts.

Same-Sex couples are no different than hetero couples other than the fact they cannot reproduce with each other.

Gay couples deserve the same treatment and same rights as straight people. They have done nothing wrong.

Straight people fall in love just as easily as gay people. Gender shouldn't matter. Finding your significant other is about loving them as a person, not for their gender.
harrytruman

Con

"Many protesters of gay couples say that 'God states in the bible that only man and woman should be together'.

There's no proof God is real. And even if he was, there is NOTHING wrong with two people of the same gender being together. So, forget about your religion for a second and look at the real facts."

So if the state decided that murder was acceptable and people protested it because the bible prohibits murder you would say for them to drop their religion? The bible is a guideline for moral behavior, what it says doesn't "mean" that something is moral or immoral- that is true regardless of what it says, it merely records what is moral and immoral.

This means that homosexuality would still be just as immoral whether or not the bible says it or not. But this is irrelevant in this debate since we are discussing what the government should do about it, so I will argue that the government should not acknowledge gay marriage.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Tenth Amendment

Nowhere in the constitution is the Federal Government given the power to define or redefine marriage, thus this should be given to the states respectively or to the people.
But since marriage is undoubtedly a religious institution (whether you want to admit it or not) this power should go to the church insead (or religious institutions in general actually), and since the church is very clear on homosexuality (
read the bible/tanakh/qur'an), then the institution which has the only real authority to define marriage says that gay marriage should not be acknowledged.

Therefor, it shouldn't.
Debate Round No. 1
alysonreid

Pro

There is a giant difference between ending someone's life, and making your own better. The bible is NOT a guideline for moral behavior. I understand you may believe in Christian ways, but the bible is just a book filled with stories for those who believe in it, not a handbook for society.

The government shouldn't even have to acknowledge it. It shouldn't even be a problem in the public eye. It is a basic human right to get married, so why make a fuss over it?

The church should not be allowed to make the rules for people, especially those who don't follow their beliefs. Marriage has always been legal, so it should be just the same for same-sex couples. Gender is irrelevant.

God can't make my rules when there's no proof he exists.
harrytruman

Con

"There is a giant difference between ending someone's life, and making your own better. The bible is NOT a guideline for moral behavior. I understand you may believe in Christian ways, but the bible is just a book filled with stories for those who believe in it, not a handbook for society."

Really? Because last I checked the Torah was given to the Nation of Israel as- you guessed it- the handbook for an entire society! Also, read the Torah, it is a guideline for moral behavior, hence all of the laws regarding your behavior in personal life, I bet you money.


"It is a basic human right to get married, so why make a fuss over it?"

No, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property are human rights, nothing else. Besides, the idea of Universal Human Rights was invented by Enlightenment period Deists as something you are endowed by your creator with, it was developed by people life John Locke, Thomas Paine, or Thomas Jefferson, all of which were deists. So you cannot believe in human rights but not G-d since the idea of human rights is derived from a belief in G-d.


"The church should not be allowed to make the rules for people, especially those who don't follow their beliefs. Marriage has always been legal, so it should be just the same for same-sex couples. Gender is irrelevant."

You misunderstand my argument, I am advocating for a Lassie's Fire System where marriage documents are given by religious institutions. If you don't want to deal with them you don't have to, but if you want them to acknowledge your marriage then yes you do.


Look, even if the conservatives get their way- it won't matter, if you're gay you can just live with whoever, we aren't going to send out the swat team and arrest you for practicing marriage without a license (though if the liberals get their Way this might become true, you can't do anything without a license these days), you just won't have the government acknowledge it. Who cares?


Debate Round No. 2
alysonreid

Pro

No one is required to read the Torah. It is not required, and it is definitely not something you have to do when you don't believe in it. Even if it stated laws, it's stating laws for their followers, not me.

No one has ever complained about two heteros getting married, so yes, it is a right to marry, regardless of gender. It doesn't have to be written on paper for it to be a right. It's called common sense.

The church doesn't have to be involved. It is not a necessity to have a priest read your vows, or for the ceremony to be held at a religious center, such as a church. Even without having a wedding, couples can get married legally, not through a church.

If you're going to make the argument that homosexuals can be married without actually being married, you have to turn that back around on yourself and to heteros. If it's such a problem that homos aren't allowed to actually get married, then heteros shouldn't be allowed to either. So yes, I care.
harrytruman

Con


First of all, the same logic could be applied to pedophilia, I could say that an underaged marriage is equal to a real marriage because age doesn't matter, and when all of these "right wing bigots" don't like it, I could claim that they are discriminating against pedophiles. Ob course pedophilia is much worse than homosexuality, but the same logic applies; if this argument cannot justify pedophilia, how then can it justify homosexuality?

Second of all, marriage is a religious institution, thus the authority to define or redefine marriage belongs to the church, and not the state. Fact is marriage has always been defined as 1 man and 1 woman, only recently has this changed, to demonstrate, I get a pile of horse sh*t and call it an ice cream Sunday, it isn't an *actual* ice cream Sunday, since that has always been defined as something very specific.

Third of all, not acknowledging gay marriages is not at all "discrimination," a straight man would be just as much prohibited to marry a man as a gay man and a gay man would be just as permitted to marry a woman as a straight man; the only difference is that the gay man "wants" to do something he is not permitted and "doesn't want" to do something permissible. For example, a person permits you to go into one part of his house and not the other, your friend likes that part of the house you are permitted to go into but you don't and would prefer the place you are not allowed; are you being discriminated against?

Ob course not! You and your friend get to go into the same room and are prohibited from going into the same room; it isn't the homeowners responsibility to appease both of you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Swimwithcats// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were focused on an objective approach separate from a religious perspective. This is contrary to Con, whose main arguments were merely 'because the bible said so'. This has and will not convince anyone that is not a believer in religion, and is not going to easily convince anyone who does not believe in Christianity specifically. Let me be clear, despite what Con believed, the bible is not the center for human morality, that comes from what is universally true about how we should treat ourselves and the world around us.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter tackles both sides' arguments by looking at them broadly without ever addressing specific points made by either side and, apparently, just using their own views on the veracity of religion-based arguments as a reason to dismiss Con's points. The voter is required to specifically analyze arguments made by both sides, not just tackle them in broad strokes, and is required to assess the strength of those points without using their own biases as the chief justification for accepting or dismissing them.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 11 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Iacov// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Although I agree with pro simply looking at what was said and how it was said con won this one.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess points from the debate. Merely stating in generalities that "what was said and how it was said" resulted in a win for Con is not sufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by CynthiaJoannTerry 12 months ago
CynthiaJoannTerry
Though I am straight, the Bible says, that a man cannot be with a man, THE SAME WAY he is with a woman. It never said he couldn't be with another man, or a woman couldn't be with another woman. They just can't be together in the same way.
Posted by harrytruman 12 months ago
harrytruman
@alysonreid
Yeah, but having your perverse relationship acknowledged by government is not a right, gay people have just as many rights as straight, they just want to do something which straight are prohibited from doing also.
Posted by alysonreid 12 months ago
alysonreid
The 14th amendment says we all have the freedom and equal rights as everyone around us.
Posted by Confucius1 1 year ago
Confucius1
God is a waypoint for objective morality.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
I'll accept this just wait 9 minutes.
Posted by CuriousFear 1 year ago
CuriousFear
Soon people will have relationships with animals, guarantee from me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.