The Instigator
David.McIntosh
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
PatriciaCarroll698
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Same sex marriage should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 8 votes the winner is...
David.McIntosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,196 times Debate No: 35361
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (8)

 

David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con in advance for the debate and hope we both have fun!

It is my belief that marriage has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and that not allowing them to marry, as many would, is no different to the discrimination black people and other minorities have faced in the past. There is no harm brought about by gay marriage and there for no reason for it to be against the law.

They should be allowed to marry if they wish.

I look forward to Cons first round, Thank you.
PatriciaCarroll698

Con

I should start first by saying that I am NOT against homosexuals. That does not mean that it does not DISCUST me to watch two men showing affection in public. If they want to suck face or play in poop- then they should do it in the privacy of they're own home. I feel the same way about straight people! There is a time and place for everything, and out in public is NOT it! However, call me old fashioned- but marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. And NO! IT is NOT the same thing as racial profiling! I posted a debate on whether child molesters should be put to death, the man that debated this with me actually had the nerve to try to compare statutory rape to a child molester. Bringing race into this or other ethnic groups is twisting the topic just as the other ignorant guy. Same sex marriage is an insult to the sanctity of marriage! If homosexuals want to date I say have at it; they deserve to be happy also. GOD made EVE for Adam, not STEVE! So yes, I find Homosexual marriage a straight insult to GOD.
Debate Round No. 1
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con for the first round, however the argument proposed does not hold a lot of weight.

I would however like to clarify that despite Cons first round, this debate is not on the topic of public affection, it is not a place for describing same-sex couples as people who "play with poop", especially when I am talking about all same-sex couples. Also myself, my argument, and general view point are not "ignorant" like Cons opinion of a previous debater, and examples of discrimination in law are perfectly sound arguments when we are debating something that a large group of people feel is discriminatory within the law.


Always A Man And Woman

Firstly, Con asserts that "marriage meant to be between a man and a woman". Con has stated this, however, not backed this up with any source. I put it forward that Con is blatantly wrong, for the following reasons. Same-sex marriage dates as far back as ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, recognition of it in western culture dates back to the early middle ages and polygamist marriages date back to before recorded history.

Modern religions may put forward that marriage has always been between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN, but this is just simply not true, they are lying as shown. It has been between a man and man, a woman and woman, or even a man and many women. So, having same-sex marriages now is no change, at all.


The Law and Discrimination

We strive to live in a relatively free and peaceful society, with the maximum amount of freedom and happiness. We accept that this can only be possible if we give up a small percentage of our liberty and freedom and obey laws so that we may be safer.

We are allowed to do tasks until they are shown and proven to do harm, not the other way about. If it was the other way about we would be allowed to do nothing apart from what was specifically stated in law. That isn't the way it works. We are given the freedom to do anything except which we have come to learn creates harm, and those things get legislated on and become illegal.

The law as it is, needs to follow a burden of proof scenario. Things need to have a reason to be illegal, or they should not be illegal. I feel that any laws legislating against same-sex marriage fail to ever meet that burden of proof.

It is for these reasons we have laws on marriage surrounding for example, age. It would be wrong to marry someone who isn't of an age where they could fully understand and agree to the contract of marriage with an appropriate level of understanding.


Comparison to other discriminations

Con also states that "And NO! IT is NOT the same thing as racial profiling!" and "Bringing race into this or other ethnic groups is twisting the topic. I will clarify the analogy further.

We used to live in a world where slavery was common practice the world over. Over time we came to realise that this was wrong, and slavery has widely been abolished in many modern countries and the slave trade has fallen dramatically. We have changed this because we realise that owning slaves causes harm to people, and harm should be illegal where ever possible.

We also used to live in a world where we discriminated against skin colours within law, they did not share the same marriage laws etc. We now realise this was because of nothing other than prejudice, and thus it has been changed. The same is true of same sex marriage, there is no reason to disallow it and therefore it should be allowed.


Reasons To Allow

I would also like to point out that, to ban same-sex marriage actually creates harm. This helps incite anti-gay hatred, because it makes people think that its ok to treat them differently. It also gives an unjust legal system as it stops any gay couple from having the same legal backing that a married couple is entitled to.

In the UK for example, there are 3000 laws with the word marriage or married in it, and none of these laws are covered for any types of civil partnership. Allowing marriage to be between same-gender couples helps legally protect them if anything happens. By taking this legal protection away purely from discrimination, causes harm, and therefore should not be allowed to happen.


The God Arguement

I will also argue that marriage is a legal contract, it predates the religion that Con refers to and is not guverned by this religion. It is a seperate thing, and religious grounds should not define marriage laws.

Con states "GOD made EVE for Adam, not STEVE! So yes, I find Homosexual marriage a straight insult to GOD"
If you want to state this, please backup with proof that God exists, with proof that God does not want same-sex marriage, and that God is infact insulted by this, otherwise this is an invalid arguement.
PatriciaCarroll698

Con

I need to be clear that just because I said that I am not for same sex marriage does NOT mean that me, or anyone else should be able to tell them they cannot get married. My previous statement is only an opinion. As I said before they still deserve to be happy just like everyone else. I only said how I felt! Not that it should be illegal! I do not think that the government should have the right to decide who marries who! Do I agree with same sex marriage? No. DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. It is not wrong to have an opinion. It is wrong to judge!
Debate Round No. 2
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank Con for the response, however Con has failed to uphold any side of their debate, as I will show.

Con agrees with Pro

Con states "I need to be clear that just because I said that I am not for same sex marriage does NOT mean that me, or anyone else should be able to tell them they cannot get married." and that " I only said how I felt! Not that it should be illegal!". This is further backed up with "DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes."

Since Con is debating that same-sex marriage should not be allowed, Con has abandoned her arguement and is actually agreeing with Pro.

In conclusion

Con has not made one clear point as to why same-sex marriage should be illegal.
Con has not provided any response to any of the arguments I have made.
Con has failed in the burdon of proof regarding the appeal to religion made in Con's round 1.

Con agrees with Pro's side. This is basically as good as a forfeit.
Vote Pro!
PatriciaCarroll698

Con

I NEVER said it should not be allowed! I SAID I DISAGREE with it. There is a difference!
Debate Round No. 3
David.McIntosh

Pro

Again no arguements have been made to back up that same-sex marriage should not be allowed. All of my points still stand.

I feel I need to clarify some basics with Con;

The title is "Same sex marriage should be allowed".
I have taken the Pro/For side to this debate, meaning I agree that it should be allowed.
By taking on the Con debate, you disagree with the statement "Same sex marriage should be allowed".

Therefore, purely by taking on the debate, you have stated that at least in terms of this debate, your position is that same-sex marriage should not be alloud. If this is not the case, you have missed the entire point of the debate.

Either way, in both the last 2 rounds you have agreed with the Pro side.

Vote Pro!
PatriciaCarroll698

Con

If in your mind you have won the debate- whatever! You have already showed just how STUPID you are when you made the statement 'Prove there is a God" You can not see air- but you know that it is there! I CANNOT AND WILL NOT have a moral discussion with someone who does not even believe in God! It is obvious that without God you are lacking MORALS & VALUES! Not to mention you have ignorantly twisted my statements. I am AGAINST same sex marriage!! But I never said it should not be allowed! Only god can judge them! OH that's right YOU DON"T BELIEVE IN GOD.
As far as I am concerned this discussion is over. I don't like talking to immoral ignorant people who have NO values!
Debate Round No. 4
David.McIntosh

Pro

I thank con for her response, again however Con has given no tangible arguments for her side in any form, and has not responded to my own.

As this is the last round though I will try my best to answer all that she has given, however relevant or un-relevant to the initial debate it seems.


My stupidity for asking Con to back up her arguments

I will start with this. Con has said "You have already showed just how STUPID you are when you made the statement ‘Prove there is a God’...". I asked this because Con asserted that God and religion is a reason in her argument against same-sex marriage. Therefore this is a very valid request. If there is no proof of God, and Cons specific God is not believed by a majority of people (no God is, even Christianity is only the view of 1 3rd of people worldwide), then how can we honestly base our laws on the views of these religions.

Since Con stays in the USA, I find this a particularly invalid point, since the US constitution specifically states that religion and politics should be and remain separate from one and other. You need to show lawful reasons to ban it under law, not religious reasons.


Cons discrimination and religious bigotry

While I generally would never like to make statements against the person, Con has intertwined her arguments with direct attacks, and her last round while containing no points for her debate, contained many direct statements at myself, as such I feel I must address these. Con has even went further with comments outside of debate too! Here’s one example

"Had I known that I was in a debate with an atheist (David McIntosh) I would not have given him the time of day for a debate! SOOOO Disgusted right now." – From Con just 8 hours ago.

Well, thank you very much Con, on judging me for not agreeing with your religious beliefs. That certainly clears up this debate about judging and discriminating against people. My profile clearly states I am an atheist, if you did not want a debate with an atheist, then next time do your research so that you aren't so offended by your fellow human beings.


I have no morals or values because I do not believe in God

Here’s another of Con quotes "I CANNOT AND WILL NOT have a moral discussion with someone who does not even believe in God! It is obvious that without God you are lacking MORALS & VALUES"

I feel I must address this. Morals and the study of morality is how we determine good or bad, right or wrong. I get my morals from rationally considering the consequences of what I do. My actions have an effect on people around me, and their actions have an effect on me. It does not matter whether you get your morals from religion or not, what matters is that your morals are based on reducing harm and living as peacefully with each other as possible.


Also, you are saying people without god lack morals, which by extension means you assume the people with god have morals. This would mean that religious people do right, and non religious people do wrong, surely? I stay in the UK, and here, there are more atheists than Christians. Does that mean that the majority of people here do bad things and have no morals? If true, surely out of every 100,000 people, at least 50,000 should be in prison for doing these wrongs? It seems odd that its around 148 in every 100,000 people then.

In fact, The USA has a much, much higher rate of Christians in the population (something around the 75 - 85 percent mark as far as I can tell) and yet, a much higher percentage of people end up in jail in America. It’s over 700 per 100,000 people in the USA. If anything this shows your logic is majorly flawed. Those two countries aren’t the only examples, there are plenty other countries with lower religious rates and lower crime rates.


May I point out that the bible actually gives rules around owning slaves, tells you when beating them is ok, how long you can keep them for, what you should pay for them etc. It is my MORAL opinion that slavery is wrong. I believe this because i put VALUE on the life of other human beings and believe that no human being should own another one. Is that correct? Or should we abandon the changes made to the law and go back to owning slaves because the bible does not rule against it?

So please, do not insult myself along with your own intelligence by telling me that being non religious makes my values and morals any less than yours. All it shows is a disgusting bigotry and a horrid discrimination on your part.


You can not see air, but you know that it is there!

Con asserts that you cannot see air, but you know it exists, and tries to use this as an example for Gods existence in some way. This is a false analogy. By Cons logic, anything that you could not see, could exist. We accept that air exists because we can scientifically measure it. We can measure the content of the air particles and can manipulate it in a number of ways and we can see the effects of it. It is measurable with a great deal of scientific accuracy.

The reason I choose not to believe in a God is because I have never been shown any proof of God. So again, laws against same-sex marriage should not be based on religion when the said religion has not been scientifically proven.


Cons failure to grasp the debate itself

Con accepted a debate titled "Same sex marriage shoul dbe allowed". She accepted this on the Con side, argueing against the statement. However more than once she has said "I never said it should not be allowed!" and "DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes. ".

Con has not argued her side of the debate, and at times has actually backed up my side.


Conclusion

1;
Con has not shown that same-sex marriage causes any harm.
Con has not shown that anything that does not cause harm should be against the law.
Therefore, my point stands that same-sex marriage should be allowed under law.

2;
Con has no shown that same-sex marriage is any different to any other form of discrimination within law.
Other forms of discrimination have been changed over time as people have realised it was wrong.
Con has not shown why same-sex marriage is any different.

3;
Same-sex marriage dates further back in history than religions, Con has not refuted this.
Therefore Con has not shown why religious grounds should be what use to judge same-sex marriage today.

4;
Marriage is a legal contract between people, regardless of sexual orientation.
Con has not refuted this, and therefore not shown why sexual orientation should be a factor in allowing marriage.

5;
Con puts forward many appeals to God, but cannot verify the existence of this God.
Even if this God exists, Con has not shown that this God dislikes same-sex marriage, at all.
Therefore, Con has not met burden of proof on this matter.

6;
In round 2 Con agrees with Pro's side, saying that same-sex marriage should not be illegal.
Con has failed to uphold her side of the debate with any integrity due to this.

7;
Round 3 again clarifies that she does not assert it should be disallowed, just that personally she disagrees with it.
One persons individual opinion does not shape a law, and no further argument was given.

8;
Con has claimed that I have no morals or values, and a lack of intelligence,

but has not been able to back up any of her points in any way, shape or form.
She has let her own discrimination of peoples beliefs ruin what could have been a very open and productive debate.

I thank Con for the debate, and since this debate has been shaped so much by Con judging me based on religious beliefs, I openly invite Con to debate those beliefs instead. If Con would like to show me why I should believe in God, the invite is there. Otherwise, I would ask her to stop judging myself and others based on these as all it has done is ruin a debate that had nothing to do with religion. All Con has done if fail to uphold her side of the debate.

Vote Pro!

PatriciaCarroll698

Con

I stand by what I have said! And I Thank GOD I was born an American in the United States. 90% of OUR Country believes in God! Including 90% of Mexico-Which for the most part is Catholic! For your Information Religion and politics have ALWAYS gone hand in hand.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
I joined the debate because I wanted to show the ignorance of having a debate that would dictate another's happiness or life! This really shows how petty and ignorant some of those in society have become! Sometimes it is important to point even the simplest things out! Had David not pointed my closed minded, ignorant attitude toward those without religion; I would most likely not have learned from my mistake! I know that we have all heard "Choose your battles wisely" - This means that we need to be focusing on matters that are serious! I do not care who is having sex with who; even if it IS with the same sex! Last I checked NONE of us had to have consent of a king to have fortification!! F.U.C.K- This IS America!
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
Then I think you joined the wrong debate, actually. You are Con in a debate which is saying that same sex marriage should be allowed, and yet in the debate you say you don't oppose same sex marriage.
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
Thank you Noctan!! That is the whole reason that I joined this debate; is to point that out! Opinions are just that. Not reasons to dictate or judge. I find it absurd that it should even come down to a debate. I am NOT judging against same sex marriage. I am merrily saying that it is not for me. After all who are these people even hurting?? NO ONE! I am actually glad to have lost this debate. Maybe I have even enlightened a few that had not looked at it quite the same way before. And again Thank you David for opening my eyes up to my closed mindedness against those with a lack of religion! That was quite ignorant of me and I am trying to learn more, be less closed minded, and judgmental towards others. Thanks for pointing out my ignorance, so that I may change and become a better person. Sincerely, Patricia P.S. Thank you for the Debate.
Posted by Noctan 3 years ago
Noctan
Um, exactly. This IS a free country. Taking away gay rights is anti free. Sweetbreeze just voted all CON because that's who she wanted to win. She doesn't care about the argument, just the opinion. :/
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
I agree with all of you. AND I want to apologize if David felt as though I was attacking him. TRUELY! If you read in my profile I am not afraid to say that I a bisexual! I also said that NOONE should have the right to dictate who marries who!! That is WAY too much like arraigned marriages done in third world countries! This is supposed to be a FREE country! And last I checked NONE of us were GOD! Anyone can have an opinion-AS to say- "It is or is not for me!" NOONE has the right to judge or dictate for anyone else though. Just because it is not for YOU does not mean it is not OK for someone else. Thanks again for the debate David. AND I Do apologize if I was rude to you in any way.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
Raya, I agree. Its just a shame we cannot sort out these issues due to the discriminations present in our society as shown by this debate.
Posted by Raya 3 years ago
Raya
Living in the 21st century and with the right reasoning and logic, there is not valid argument against this case. If we look at the past, evolutionary it wouldn't make sense for same sex individuals to be romantically attached to each other and that is why most of us are hardwired to feel uncomfortable about it.
However, things are different now as we a more compassionate and intelligent species. It means that we understand that love can exist between two individuals of the same sex. It means that we can not stop two consenting adults in the right state of mind doing what they wish when it doesn't harm others. It means that we understand that the basic rules of marriage and parenting can still be respected regardless of the sex of the individuals. Because of these reasons and many more, it is only logical to allow same sex marriage.
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
You do? But you said in the debate...

"I do not think that the government should have the right to decide who marries who!" "DO I think they should have the same rights to marriage as everyone else? Yes."

But thanks for clearing that up. That definitely explains why you felt it was right to personally attack me from both your debate arguments and your personal profile.
Posted by PatriciaCarroll698 3 years ago
PatriciaCarroll698
I NEVER said homosexual people should not be together! I SAID I do not agree with the marriage aspect of it!!!
Posted by David.McIntosh 3 years ago
David.McIntosh
PatriciaCarroll698, Let me just reply to that for a quick moment.

First off, your statement on here, AND on your profile about how it is a "fact" that you are "winning" seems to be a bit false since if you scroll up debate.org itself has it listed the other way around. I believe I'l go with the sites own opinion. But that is not really the part I care about.

The reason you are not getting votes is because you put forward NO argument, and turned a debate on one topic into an entirely new one. You are also wrong, what side peoples opinions fall on matters in the OPINION category of this site. How people debate and put forth their own side is what the debate category is about.

Now, as a matter of conduct, I would like to point you to your own bibles's teachings...

John 13:34-35 ESV: A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

1 Peter 4:8 ESV: Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

Your profile also lists you as bi-sexual.

So... your judging others rather than letting God judge them, you are hating on people for agreeing on the bibles opinion about being wary about false prophets, you disregard the bibles commandment about loving everyone because love trumps sin... Should I go on?

Maybe if you spent more time following your religions own teachings instead of judging people, you would get somewhere.

Lastly, I will and do enjoy my points, whether you see them as irrelevant or not, because when it came to the debate, at least I was able to put points forward!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by nw91 3 years ago
nw91
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly was more professional, polite and made more compelling, logical arguments. Con not only failed to refute Pro's points, but the majority of their replies were merely asserting personal disdain for homosexuality and attacking Pro as "stupid" eventually even refusing to refute contentions on the basis of Pro's religious views. This was a no-brainer.
Vote Placed by Coinsruledude 3 years ago
Coinsruledude
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually explained and defended his position, instead of resorting to insults and bias like Con.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct against CON for calling PRO stupid. Argument to Pro for actually stating points on the subject.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering sweet breeze
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: No, same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. All votes to Con.
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 3 years ago
TheHitchslap
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even put fourth an argument to justify her position ...
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was so fallacious and personal that it went as far as saying "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve." It's a parody of itself.
Vote Placed by Thugzbunyyy 3 years ago
Thugzbunyyy
David.McIntoshPatriciaCarroll698Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sigh. I was interested in seeing a good debate but you made it a waste of time con.