The Instigator
AnniLyn67
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jf1236
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Same-Sex 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 64204
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

AnniLyn67

Pro

Why is same-sex marriage illegal if it was never a law in the first place? This argument has been going on since the 1970s when a same-sex couple wanted a marriage license and sued the man for denying their request. It's not an issue, it doesn't affect society. The only people that are "affected" by it, are religious people and douches (pardon my uneducated language). I believe it isn't the Christians or Catholics or anyone else's life besides the ones who love each other. It's like saying an ant shouldn't be so small.

Second: Why should you care? Why do I care? Why must you judge on those who love the one they love? I think, leave them alone. It isn't your life, why interrupt? Give them the same "rights" like other human beings. They're not freaks. Looking at society today, this question has been asked plenty of times, yet it always the same answers those who oppose, "it's not normal in the eyes of the lord" or "it's wrong in general, and we don't accept it." They're PEOPLE. Yes, some states allow it, which makes those people happy. But what about the rest?

Just a debate. My opinion. My curiosity for the right thought. Vote Yes or No for this "illegality"
jf1236

Con

Hello, this is my first debate on the site as well, and I hope we have a great time. Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (that is the point of this site after all, lol), but to begin, I just want to clarify the premise of our debate. It is inferred that we will be debating:
"Same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States." You will be arguing in favor of that statement, and I will be arguing against it. To my points:

To sum up the first part of your position, my understanding of your opinion is that same-sex marriage should be legal because it is not a topic that affects society and that it is a private matter, better left to private parties. I contend that marriage of any kind affects society more so than many other institutions. Marriage is considered a contract in which two people have a duty to be faithful to each other, and as several courts have found, tend to each other's sexual needs, in exchange for greater economic security, mobility, and flexibility. Law in the US grants and imposes several privileges, duties, and stipulations on couples that choose to marry. For example, laws surrounding child custody in Tennessee declare that a live-in partner may not be present in the home with a minor child living there, but that a step-parent may. Conversely, when applying for government benefits, a single person may claim only their personal income, while a married person must claim both their spouse's and their own incomes.
The greatest impact of marriage on society is the economic portion of the contract. Each party has a duty to ensure the other's well being. This duty is recognized by payments of alimony after the dissolution of a marriage. During marriage, neither party can simply walk away from the household without endangering their right to a portion of the marital assets. It is through this device that households are stabilized. Many households are kept together by this economic necessity alone, especially if both parties are dependent on the combined household income.
Households combine resources. A 1 bedroom apartment in a mid-sized metro area will rent for $600-700. When this payment, added with cable, internet, electricity, etc., is split between two people who are legally bound to each other economically, there is more disposable income that can be put toward other purchases. The economic, legal bond of marriage also enables creditors to have more confidence that money will be paid to them. A friend acting as a co-signer is great, but when a creditor tries to collect on someone who doesn't feel it's their obligation to pay someone else's bill, they must then take the co-signer to court as well. It is much easier to have a spouse co-sign so that both people's credit profiles can be credited toward a purchase, and since both parties will be using it, and its use is likely split between two incomes, it will be more likely to be paid as both the primary and co-signing parties need whatever item is owed on.
These are the ways in which marriage, in general, affects society. It is a stabilizing factor that brings more, statistically proven, economic success to the two people involved. This portion has been an answer to the statement: "It's not an issue, it doesn't affect society." Marriage does affect society, but why would people not want more marriage, same-sex or otherwise, if it is such a great thing for everyone?
This question ties into your second paragraph which asks, "Why should [the rest of society] care," who the two people are who get married? Marriage does not have its deepest roots in organized religion. It was originally a contract between two families, usually involving the exchange of a daughter who would be expected to bear children for a dowry and piece-of-mind for the daughter's father that his child would have some modicum of economic security in her husband. Marriage was a non-ritual event, but it was done "in the sight of God," "the god(dess) of love," or, "the gods."
In the centuries following Christ, several organized religions were founded that co-opted marriage and created rituals around the practice. It was at this point that the contract of marriage was changed from an agreement between families to a covenant between man, wife, and God. This practice continued for hundreds of years, then the government got involved.
Of course, governments had been involved in private life since the dawn of civilization, but it was the institution of the marriage license that permanently sealed the concept of marriage in America's collective mindset.
Most people have heard of common law marriage. It is the practice of legally recognizing a marriage after two people have lived together for a certain period of time, whether a marriage ritual was performed or not. This was the typical M.O. for marriage recognition if a household were to be divided during a divorce before marriage licenses were used. Following the introduction of marriage licenses, common law marriage gradually fell out of mainstream recognition and is generally not a recognized practice today.
Marriage licenses originated in the South following the Civil War. The intent of a license was for white government officials to be able to deny interracial couples the ability to marry. This practice was eventually struck down by the courts, but the licenses remained. They were a modest revenue generator. Today, you can expect to pay about $100 to your local government for the "right" to marry. It was the marriage license that took what had evolved into a religious practice and created a third marriage contract: one between man, wife, god, and Government.
To finally answer your second paragraph, society cares who gets married because of a vestige of an era 150 years past: the marriage license. If a marriage is legally recognized by the government, then businesses and individuals will be forced to, in some capacity, recognize it as well, contrary to some people's religious convictions.
I do not support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. No one should be legally obligated to recognize a same-sex marriage if it is against their religious beliefs. Likewise, no one should be legally obligated to recognize any religious institution, period. The heart of the problem lies in the marriage license. Marriage certificates were issued by churches since at least the 16th century, but marriage licenses are relatively new and are issued by the government. First Amendment freedoms allow Americans to ignore churches if they so desire, but none of us are able to avoid the government.
I do not support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, nor do I support the legal recognition of any marriage. Government should treat every person as an individual. A policy of government ignoring religious marriage would render the same-sex marriage debate moot. If a person is bigoted, they would be able to hold their opinions and not recognize a marriage. Meanwhile, homosexuals could marry or not as they chose and be on equal footing with every other non-government recognized marriage in the US.
In summary, same-sex marriage should not be legal in the US. The law should be silent on marriage and leave the institution to religion and the individual, where it belongs.

As an afterthought, I will address a couple of other points you make above:
a. Catholicism is a subset of general Christianity. Catholics are Christians that belong to an organized hierarchy of churches headed by the Pope in Vatican City.
b. "saying an ant shouldn't be so small." is not a fair argument. An ant cannot help its size just as humans cannot help the color of their skin, but the nature vs. nurture debate on human sexuality is still not settled, so your analogy of the ant is not equivalent.
c. Because a question has been asked before, does not mean the answer must change. ("This question has been asked plenty of times.") For example, Q. What color is the sky? A. Blue

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
AnniLyn67

Pro

AnniLyn67 forfeited this round.
jf1236

Con

jf1236 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AnniLyn67

Pro

AnniLyn67 forfeited this round.
jf1236

Con

jf1236 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AnniLyn67

Pro

AnniLyn67 forfeited this round.
jf1236

Con

jf1236 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AnniLyn67 2 years ago
AnniLyn67
i didn't say all religious people. and i respect your response sir/madam.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
I am a Christian but even I don't see a hole in you argument. I am apostolic not catholic so I actually understand that god gave us freedom of choice. In my religion we try to influence and persuade people to change not force them and we don't pay money for politics and things like the big churches connected to the government do. If the all mighty god allows freedom of choice then so must we. We are not worthy of him.

Also forcing someone to do something in general doesn't work gay couples have been having secret marriages for years anyway might as well legalize and again even god belives in choices. If those Christians were proper Christians they would understand this. Our job is to try and persuade people to change not critized and denounce them.
No votes have been placed for this debate.