The Instigator
Alessia_Riddle
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Same-sex Marriage Should Be Legalized Throughout the United States of America

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 5770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Alessia_Riddle

Pro

Though not drawn much attention to at this point in time, gay rights in general are constantly under debate. Though most people believe off the top of their heads that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, as soon as the topic of marriage comes up, most jump to say 'no'. I've been pondering the matter myself for a while, and I hope I'll have a good opponent in that case.

You may start.
brian_eggleston

Con

With many thanks to my opponent for starting this debate on, what is, a very controversial subject, I would like to start my response by relating to the voters a personal experience of mine.

Between the ages of 11 and 16 I attended a school in the rural county of Norfolk, England. Whilst living there, I was aghast at how rife incest was and how openly the locals discussed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The natives of this god-forsaken, windswept backwater would claim that it was nobody else's business if they had sexual intercourse with their close relatives, provided both parties consented, but I begged to differ.

My argument was that incest, like paedophilia, bestiality and male homosexuality are sexual perversions that are abhorrent to the mainstream of society and society has no moral or legal duty to acknowledge that these sexual practices are as equally valid as heterosexuality.

It is not good enough to say the "rights" of a minority should be enshrined in law. If the majority of society opposes these deviant sexual predilections and don't want them legally recognised, then their will, in a democratic country such as the United States, must prevail. Currently, only 30% of Americans believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Should their opinions trump those of the remainder of the people who disagree? Of course not.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

Marriage, as an institution, evolved to foster parental responsibility and engender a society wherein children were brought up by caring role models representing both the sexes.

That is not to say male homosexuality has always been, or should now be, condemned. In ancient Greece, for example, sexual relationships between men were actually encouraged. Nevertheless, marriage was insisted upon for the purpose of producing children and single and childless men were treated with scorn.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de...

The fact is that society, whilst largely tolerant of homosexuality, nevertheless recognises the value of the traditional family unit and does not wish to see the cherished and ancient institution of marriage polluted by individuals who want to get wed to their mother or father, son or daughter, underage Thai ladyboy, pet pig, same sex partner or whatever.
Debate Round No. 1
Alessia_Riddle

Pro

Firstly, I'd like to point out that we are arguing simply about marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman and that nothing else has anything to do with it.
I hope that you will not continue to compare apples and oranges when it comes to this, as pedophilia, incest, and bestiality are completely different than homosexuality, their only similarity being that they aren't the social norm.

Also, I was actually rather curious, was this social norm the same in the past? In the past, in different regions and countries and ect., there were definitely many things allowed and not allowed-- things that are lawful and unlawful-- that have been changed today. Relying on social norm to base your argument on is actually a rather ridiculous thing, considering marriage has changed a lot over the years. Arguing that because they are a minority, or because of what social norm dictates, marriage should be illegal between same-sex couples, is basically also saying that, because it was against social norm then, years and years ago in the US, African-Americans shouldn't have been able to marry. Or that because it was social norm, beating your children was appropriate. Or, that, because it was social norm, women were supposed to be considered property. Unless you would also like to argue these points with me in a separate debate, I suggest you not use the social norm as your basis argument.

"Marriage, as an institution, evolved to foster parental responsibility and engender a society wherein children were brought up by caring role models representing both the sexes."

So homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry and single parents should have their children taken from them? Once again, your point is flawed. It isn't necessary to have a 'mommy' and a 'daddy', as has been proved by the successful single parents raising children all over the world.

"The fact is that society, whilst largely tolerant of homosexuality, nevertheless recognises the value of the traditional family unit and does not wish to see the cherished and ancient institution of marriage polluted by individuals who want to get wed to their mother or father, son or daughter, underage Thai ladyboy, pet pig, same sex partner or whatever. "

The cherished and ancient institution of marriage used to be a lot different from what it is now, as I said before. Secondly, it would not be 'polluted' by these individuals. There is no problem with marrying anyone you want, but I would like to point out to you that a pet pig does not have a legal standing and so cannot be included in this argument.
Society meaning what, also? So if society decided that it was wrong for heterosexual couples to marry, it is terrible? It is disgusting and wrong and polluting? I beg to differ.

"It is not good enough to say the "rights" of a minority should be enshrined in law. If the majority of society opposes these deviant sexual predilections and don't want them legally recognised, then their will, in a democratic country such as the United States, must prevail. Currently, only 30% of Americans believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Should their opinions trump those of the remainder of the people who disagree? Of course not."

I am a strong, strong believer in giving people as many rights as possible, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people. Translation: If you're against homosexuals marrying, don't marry one. In the same way that if you are against abortion, don't have one.
It's like telling someone "I don't like what you're saying, so you're not allowed to speak anymore."
Or
"I don't want you to have a gun, so you can't anymore."
Or
"We don't want you to be Jewish, so you have to be Christian now."

Isn't this what we've been fighting against since the start of the US's history?
brian_eggleston

Con

First off, let me thank my opponent for her considered and seemingly reasonable, well-balanced response. She has very cleverly portrayed me as some kind of frothing homophobe, which I can assure you that I am not. Actually, I happen to personally know a bloke who is homosexual. Indeed, until last week, I knew two, but his boyfriend was set upon in the street by a pack of gay-bashers and he died from his injuries a few days ago. Still, never mind, he had life insurance and I know that the money will be of some comfort to his former partner.

In my argument I hope I did not give the impression that paedophilia, bestiality, incest and homosexuality are necessarily connected. Having said that, no doubt they could be, and though I haven't checked, I bet if you could find at least one website that catered for gay father and son and pet dog sex perverts.

My opponent wrote that she is "a strong, strong believer in giving people as many rights as possible, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people." This sounds like a good philosophy until we examine what it means. If dad and young junior both consented to having gay sex with each other and decided to get Fido involved as well, would that be okay? In mean, they're not interfering with the rights of other people are they? (Dogs aren't "people").

Society elects governments to represent their views and if the majority of people are of the opinion that incest, bestiality, paedophilia and gay marriage are morally abhorrent then their elected representatives have the duty to ensure that such practices remain outlawed.

At no time did I say, by the way, that single parents should have their kids taken off them, although most people would agree that children should have both male and female positive role models in their daily lives and, ideally, should be brought up by their mother and father.

My opponent was right, however, to point out that society has changed over the years and is continuing to change. It may be that in time to come, the majority of people will view homosexual marriages as equally valid as heterosexual ones and that the average mum and dad will think nothing of allowing their son to sleep over at an adopted boy's dad and dad's house, but we haven't reached that point yet.

Finally, my opponent tried to muddy the water by referring to gun rights and religious tolerance. The fact is that these rights already exist (at least in the US) and will continue to do so until decides that they shouldn't and elect a political party that promises to "crackdown hard on gun crime" or to "put and end to Jewry, Israeli usury and other Semitic skulduggery" whereas gay marriage is a "right" that the minority of people want to foist upon the majority.
Debate Round No. 2
Alessia_Riddle

Pro

I'd like to start off by saying that, no, I wasn't attempting to make you out to be some 'frothing homophobe', but moreso reveal you as a narrow minded fool. Close enough, though.
Also, touching story, but I really find it annoying when people throw random personal stories into debates without a point.

I don't know if I'd be able to find such a website, but there are far stranger ones on the Internet anyway-- everything is on the internet.

"My opponent wrote that she is "a strong, strong believer in giving people as many rights as possible, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people." This sounds like a good philosophy until we examine what it means. If dad and young junior both consented to having gay sex with each other and decided to get Fido involved as well, would that be okay? In mean, they're not interfering with the rights of other people are they? (Dogs aren't "people")."

Semantics debator, huh? Okay, so how about rights for animals (And bacteria and fungi, in case you want to fool with words a little more) should be considered as well. Now, a dad and young junior absoulely can if they both consent, as I find nothing LEGALLY wrong with that. Legality is what we're arguing, after all, not silly social norms and morals that change with time and person.

"Society elects governments to represent their views and if the majority of people are of the opinion that incest, bestiality, paedophilia and gay marriage are morally abhorrent then their elected representatives have the duty to ensure that such practices remain outlawed."

And when society becomes hypocritical, the government (Or other people) step in themselves and try pointing out how contradicting they've become. Also, would they be morally abhorrent to everyone? My biggest problem with most 'moral' challenges is that we have so many freedoms that we can basically have any opinion in the world (Almost) in the US. So, to put it simply, a group of people (Or groups of peoples) could believe that heterosexuality is wrong, but because they are interfering with rights of others by doing this, they cannot outlaw it. I find that, because we are supposed to be a free country and have so many wonderful rights and such, deciding that a person should have some of these removed because of your own opinion or the opinion of a current minority is outrageous. When you can give couples the right to same-sex marriage, without interfering with the rights of heterosexuals, then why not? It's better than restricting a decent part of the population in a way that the US originally tried to escape from and provide freedom from. If you can represent the minority and the majority, why should you refrain from doing so? It is much better than imposing the views of a majority onto minorities, as we have discovered many times in the past.

I wasn't trying to muddy the water. I was making a very valid point that you seemingly cannot understand said plainly.
As I said before, homosexuals do not want to FORCE their rights on others. They want them to be courtesly allowed because, guess what? If you really don't want gay marriage to exist, but people who ARE ACTUALLY HOMOSEXUAL do, their opinion matters more than yours. It brings me back to something I've said a thousand times: If you don't want there to be same-sex marriages allowed in the US, then do not marry someone of your own sex. That's all you need to do to prove your point, not strip others of rights you've taken for granted all of your life. Because if you really look at it, there's nothing more disgusting (There's never been) than stripping someone of their rights. Hitler did it, the US did it with African-Americans and women years ago, it's being done in some countries even now-- And how do we look at that now? We think, What Was Society Thinking? That, that, if you really need to know, is why we cannot always trust Society to do the right thing.
brian_eggleston

Con

With many thanks to my opponent for her eloquent and impassioned reply, I can't help feeling that this debate has drifted away from the narrow issue of same-sex marriage and on to the broader issue of homosexual rights in general.

Therefore, I should just like to make it clear that I agree with my opponent that gay men and lesbians should be afforded most of the legal rights enjoyed by heterosexuals.

That said, there must be a few exceptions, particularly relating to family matters, for example, same-sex civil unions and gay marriages.

Marriage is a matter of personal choice; it is not a right. Nobody HAS to get married. Indeed, marriage is becoming less and less popular in Western countries with most couples satisfied with just cohabiting.

One of the few reasons people do get wed though, is the tax-breaks that are given to married couples. These are designed to help young couples build up a stable home in which to raise children. Since homosexual couples are not able to have children themselves, the extra income these tax-breaks give to married gay men is not spent on cots, nappies, prams and pushchairs as intended, rather on studded leather caps, KY Jelly, bottles of poppers and signed photos of Christiano Ronaldo!

At the end of the day, this is not about prejudice against gays – some of society's most celebrated personalities are gay – and let's face it guys, if a couple of busty teen lovelies cornered you in a hotel bar, invited you upstairs and offered to lez it up to sweeten the pill, you wouldn't say "no" would you?

Whilst liberal-minded people like myself are all for social reform, we must recognise that we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater with regard to same-sex civil unions and remember that some cultural institutions are worth preserving, and marriage is one of them.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
I have to say, this was a very interesting debate to read. I voted like so:
Who did you agree with: Pro both times.
Conduct: Brian, but only because he thanked his opponent and all those formalities.
Spelling and Grammar: Brian, but only because he structured his debate better.
Arguments: Alessia, since Brian dropped a couple points in his third round, and only stated one of his own points in his third round. Incidentally, it was a new point, so I disregarded it. Also, I think that Brian failed to prove his burden of showing why gay marriage should not be legalized. He provided good arguments, but he failed to refute Alessia's point of: if it doesn't affect you, why should it matter. I don't think Brian answered this point very well.
Sources: Brian, only because Alessia didn't use any.
Posted by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
Pro stated: "I am a strong, strong believer in giving people as many rights as possible, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of other people."

I have to disagree with you here, if we allow homosexuals to get married to one another, then we are stating that traditional marriage and same sex marriage hold the same value and meaning. This would in turn, be presented to our children. Traditional marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God, whether you believe so or not is your choice, but for 85% of Americans who are Christian, marriage is a sacred and eternal bond between one man and one woman.

As a Christian, I believe that marriage is an essential part of God's plan for us. I believe that marriage is very sacred and meaningful both to the couple involved, and God as well. I want my children to be raised knowing that only a bond between one man and one woman is ordained of God, and understand that that does not extend to a "genderless" society where we can marry whoever we want.

I disagree with you because if gay marriage was legal, we automatically say that it is okay for our children to learn that the world is genderless, and marriage (no matter the sex) holds the same values and sacredness. As a (future) parent, I oppose that notion. It does interfere with the rights of other people; it interferes with my right as a parent, who is trying to raise her child in her beliefs and morals. It interferes with the rights of my child(ren), who have the right to uphold their own values, without being taught otherwise. My children have the right to go to school and learn, even about evolution because that is scientific. So while my child may not believe in evolution, it is a scientific theory that must be taught. Gay marriage; however, is simply an opinion of what few consider a "right". Marriage is not a right, it is a choice. No one has to get married.

it interferes with others, with the majority who believe it's wrong.
Posted by valexin 8 years ago
valexin
i also am pro... and gay what a coinsidence. anyway but this debate is going to be exciting(sits in corner and eats popcorn)
Posted by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
This should be an interesting debate! I would accept, but only if I was pro. Good luck! :j
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Alessia_Riddlebrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
Alessia_Riddlebrian_egglestonTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Alessia_Riddlebrian_egglestonTied
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 
Vote Placed by ANSmith 8 years ago
ANSmith
Alessia_Riddlebrian_egglestonTied
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 josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
Alessia_Riddlebrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01