The Instigator
tmf_luvs_debate
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Who
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Same sex marriage should be legal everywere in the U.S.A.

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: 8/11/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,219 times Debate No: 4977
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (18)

 

tmf_luvs_debate

Pro

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

What is happiness? Happiness is the quality or state of being happy, content, and joyful. I believe that every person deserves a fair chance at happiness, and when you take away the right to same sex marriage you are robbing a good chunk of people of the chance to be happy. Of course you don't have to marry someone for your relationship to progress but if same sex couples are legally aloud to date then why not marry? It does not affect anyone but themselves and if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together they should be able to do that.
The biggest groups of people that are against same sex marriage are people of the church. They say it is sinful and un-constitutional. However it is clearly stated in the Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") that each person has freedom of religion. Which means that the law stopping same sex marriage which was put into place by religious believers is completely un-constitutional. Our country was built so that people could be free. So let EVERYONE be free.
Who

Con

First, realize that my opponent has not yet provided any benefit same-sex marriage would bring. He's implied one, but I will respond to it in a second.

Second, my opponent claims that a law stopping same-sex marriages should be outlawed because it is largely supported by religious people. He has blatantly misinterpreted separation of church and state. Restricting same-sex marriage does not endorse any religion, so it is not a breach of separation of church and state. Religious people still have a voice in government, we don't just ignore them because they're religious.

That will bring me to my main point, but first, let me respond to that implied benefit my opponent gave us. He said: "It does not affect anyone but themselves and if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together they should be able to do that." Indeed, they may very well want to spend the rest of their lives together. And how is same-sex marriage going to help them do this? It's not. People can spend their lives together all they want, no one's stopping them.

So what's the point of marriage, then? I'll tell you, since my opponent has failed to do so. Marriage gives a couple a few very important benefits. The question that's important here is, "why?". I'll tell you why we give married couples benefits that unmarried couples miss out on. Married couples are very much more likely to have a high-quality family, and to bring up a new generation of successful kids. Gay couples are not as likely to have kids, seeing as they can't actually breed in their marriage. Sure, they adopt every once in a while, and that's all fine and good, but they are still much less likely to have successful kids. This is partially because very few gay couples actually do adopt, and partially because adopted children tend to be less capable of success [that kind of thing runs in the family, and if they're up for adoption, their parents were probably not too successful].

So, I'll try to sum it up less confusingly.

1. As far as government is concerned, marriage is only useful for assigning special benefits to devoted couple who is likely to bring up successful children.

2. Gay couples do not meet the criteria for getting these special benefits. That is to say, gay couples are very unlikely to raise up successful children.

3. From 1 and 2, there is no reason for the government to give marriage to gay couples.

Those three points are my case, for now.

Also, since the lack of marriage for gay couples does not limit them in what they can do, their 'freedom' is still intact. Just what are they not free to do?
Debate Round No. 1
tmf_luvs_debate

Pro

First I would like to point out that my opponent has made the very wrong assumption that I am male. Why I do not know but I do know that its is strange how people automatically assume anyone with a strong opinion is male. I will start by explaining his mistakes.

First I did say that I am completely aware that you do not have to be married to be completely happy. Although to a lot of people marriage symbolizes commitment and seeing as it is expensive and tiresome to divorce they see it as security for the relationship. Because when you are dating someone you can leave at anytime, there is nothing stoping you. When someone is married they are less likely to just pick up and more likely to go to counciling which helps the relationship last. So he asks why should a couple be married if they are not able to have children? My opponent has failed to acknowledge the fact that marriage is not just a legal title. It is a symbol of undying love for one another, a sign that you are willing to live with them forever. If our country followed what my opponent is saying perfectly then woman who cant bear children would not be permitted to marry, or men who were unable to get a woman pregnant. There for what he is saying is completely invalid.

When I say let everyone be free I don't mean just let them spend their lives together, I mean that if you take away that right our country is almost like a communist country. Where everyone is equal but some are more equal than others, and that isn't what we want for our country. I just think that everyone should be able to get married if they love eachother even if they cant have kids, and if people don't want to except that they should atleast aknowledge that everyone deserves to have the same rules. Our country has had the same problems with racism, and sexists, and we now look back and realize how crazy it was to prevent them from voting and riding were they want in the bus. So how is it any different with same sex marriage? I will tell you. There is none.
Who

Con

First, it seems I must apologize. I called my opponent 'he' when clearly she is female. Admittedly, I never bothered to check my opponent's profile, or even her picture, and just assumed she was male. This is lazy and irresponsible of me, and I am truly sorry for the mix-up. This is why I tend to use gender-neutral wording like "my opponent" or PRO/CON, but I apparently slipped up.

Now, onto the arguments.

First, let us realize that my opponent only had one objection to my reasoning on why gay couples do not deserve the legal benefits of marriage. Her objection was that if we were to follow my reasoning, infertile straight couples should also not be able to get married.
However, realize that this is not an argument at all, it is an observation. Sure, my argument leads to that other argument. So? My opponent has failed to show that either of these arguments are actually flawed.
The only problem with denying all infertile straight couples the ability to get married is that the government doesn't know whether most people are fertile or not. However, in principle, I will agree that stopping infertile straight couples from getting married makes sense for the same reasons I gave for denying gay couples this same luxury. Pointing out that my argument about gay couples leads to this one about infertile straight couples does nothing to damage my original argument.

So now that I've addressed my opponent's only objection to denying gays the legal status as marriage, let us move forward.

My opponent points out, "marriage is not just a legal status." Agreed. Marriage does a few other things, which my opponent pointed out. It is a binding agreement - that is to say, it makes it difficult to get out of the relationship. It also is a union between two people, symbolizing their undying love for one another.

So from this, we derive the equation:

Marriage = Legal status + binding agreement + union [and whatever other things you want to add here]

However, we've determined above that gay couples [as well as infertile straight couples] should not get one of these pieces due to their inability to breed in their relationship: the legal status [which gives benefits].

Therefore, gay couples and infertile straight couples should instead get a contractual union. Here's the equation:

Contractual union = Binding agreement + union
or
Contractual union = Marriage - legal status

That is to say, in giving these groups _marriage_, we are automatically giving them the benefits thereof. What we need to give them is a modified form of marriage, which has the same implications, except the legal ones.

Marriage is not some right we give everyone. People under a certain age can't get married. People can't marry a member of the same family. People can't marry a member of a different species. And last, and possibly not least, people cannot marry members of the same gender. All these restrictions are somewhat arbitrary, though they all have arguments backing them.

People can't marry under a certain age because a> they might not be ready for it, and b> under a certain age, it is impossible to have children.

People can't marry a member of the same family because if they do have children, which marriage encourages, that child is likely to be very unsuccessful, due to a high likelihood of having genetic problems.

People can't marry a member of a different species because it is impossible to have children with a member of a different species [or at least to have fertile children].

People can't marry a member of the same sex because it is impossible to have children with a member of the same sex.

Just like rich people don't deserve the benefits of welfare, neither do gay couples deserve the benefits of marriage, which are given specifically to help the family with present or future children, which gay couples cannot have.
Debate Round No. 2
tmf_luvs_debate

Pro

I would like to make it short and sweet.
I have a video to show of Ellen DeGeneres interviewing John McCain. As you voters are watching this video please observe how nervous Mr. McCain is. It is my personal observance that he talks about all the legal aspects of same sex marriage, but his body language shows that he is spinning a web of lies. I believe that most people who are against same sex marriage are just uncomfortable with two people of the same sex being intimate.
So here is the video.

http://www.youtube.com...;

My final thing I would like to ask my opponent is, "Why exactly do you really believe same sex marriage is wrong? Because you can say all you want about legal rights in marriage, and child bearing, but everyone knows that every person has different reactions to same sex marriage on an emotional level. So I would like to know what it is in you that makes you feel that ALMOST everyone should be equal?"

I am straight, and that doesn't stop me from being 100% FOR same sex marriage. I am for EVERYONE having the rights that they deserve. Which in this case includes the ability to marry.

Thank you for taking the time to read my arguments, I hope you make the right choice and vote PRO.
Who

Con

I agree - most people who argue against same-sex marriage are indeed just uncomfortable with two people of the same sex being intimate. However, this is irrelevant, since I am not arguing from such a standpoint. My opponent is not supposed to be arguing against 'most people,' she is supposed to be arguing against me.

My opponent asks me why I think ALMOST everyone should be equal.
People should not be equal. For instance, a lawyer should make more money than a guy who makes videos on youtube all day. A 5 year old should not be able to make certain decisions that require maturity, while adults should be able to make these decisions. Men should not have to endure childbirth to have kids, whereas women must.

As it is with all things, society makes guidelines for marriage, since it comes with certain benefits. These benefits are not a right, or all people married or not would have them. These benefits are a luxury, a luxury society deems fit only for a certain class of people.

The legal benefits of marriage are NOT just some badge that says 'yay for you, you found someone you love.' That's not a reason to give someone benefits. The reason is to encourage childbirth, and gays simply do not have this capability. Therefore, they shouldn't get the legal benefits.

And there you have it. Marriage, at least the legal benefits inherent in it, should not be given to everyone. They are not a right, as my opponent puts it, or everyone should have it. And since all the other parts of marriage are available to gay couples without marriage, there is no lack of justice here. I concede making a contract the way marriage does is indeed a right. But it is a right the gay community is not being deprived of. I concede that the ceremony, the rings, and all that other jazz should not only be available to straights. But there's nothing stopping gays from accessing it.

Giving gays the 'right' to get married rather than having a contractual union would be like giving a blind man the right to have free contact lenses. It just doesn't make sense.

Vote how you wish.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Many people believe that the bible teaches 'no sex before marriage' but it actually teaches something infinitely more profound.. that sex IS marriage.
The vows/ceremony etc came after the act. ( something we honour even now in that a marriage is not complete without being 'consummated' ) .
The word 'marriage' refers to many different things, for example the 'coupling' mechanism on train carriages.. a nut and bolt are created to 'marry'.
People of the same sex cannot physically 'marry' in this sense.. our body's do not allow it, externally or internally.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
snicker,..

what?!

First, every church is individual,.. why must religion be "lumped" as one. Preists or whatever,.. have a duty to god to help people find salvation,.. they do not put them on an express lane to hell.
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
i think it's up to the church. but hey any church who allows it is just trying to be fair--they do NOT believe it's ok...why? religious ppl believe gays will go to Hell. so why would a priest go around supporting gays to marry if he believes they will all burn forever anyway? i think that priests who do allow it are only trying to let the "gays" choose their own fate. and deal with the consequences. i think gay ppl should not be allowed to marry religiously. marriage is religious and it is only supposed to be for woman and man.
Posted by ivanareg123 8 years ago
ivanareg123
I mean the person who is PRO lol. my bad. Im a dork. :D
Posted by ivanareg123 8 years ago
ivanareg123
Btw that last comment was the debator. my cousin left it signed on and i forgot i was still on her account. lol
Posted by ivanareg123 8 years ago
ivanareg123
You are right that they cant do that. But they are still completely allowed to try. I am not saying there are rules. Like a resturant can turn someone away if the arent dressed properly. But the point is that if they wanted to they could dress right and go to that fancy resturant. There is nothing stoping them except the choices. No laws. I didnt say that part about adoption because honestly I didnt think of that detail until it was over.

and I must say you are right about the no rights thing. But it isnt that. so if you think the should be equal in that way, why not the other?
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Who
In paragraph 5 of my last comment,
passuming = [assuming
I hate typos.
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Who
A poor, dumb, weak man has less 'rights' than a rich, smart, strong one. the first cannot go to a good school. If he did, he wouldn't be able to get the degree [due to being dumb]. He can't do manual labor either, due to being weak. And he certainly has the right to less luxuries than the rich man.

You see, all these things are, like the extra things the rich man can buy, luxuries. You don't have the right to go to a good school. You don't have the right to eat at a nice restaurant. And you don't have a right to legal benefits.

If gay couples should get legal benefits that marriage currently provides, so should single people. Both have the same ability to adopt, so that's a non-issue.

Honestly, now that the debate is over, I'll admit that I think gay couples and straight couples should have the same benefits. None at all. There's no reason to give people benefits simply for being a couple.

If we want incentives to have children in our society, we should just give benefits for having children [which we do, tax breaks for a higher number of dependants]. Marriage should not have any legal benefits, raising children should. passuming we want people to have incentives to have kids, though that doesn't sound like a great idea considering the bloated population of the earth].

And anyone reading this should ignore everything I just wrote as far as voting is concerned. The debate is up there.

And to my opponent...
Why didn't you make the point about adoption in the debate? Was it just because Ragnar had brought it up in the comments, and you didn't want it to use his argument?

And on the voting issue, I believe that a debater who makes his point better than his opponent wins. Whether I agree with him or not. It's not about convincing people, since people rarely change their minds. Especially people on this site, who tend to have strong positions already.
Posted by water123 8 years ago
water123
in the bible it sais man is maid for women and women is maid for man
Posted by tmf_luvs_debate 8 years ago
tmf_luvs_debate
You do have a point "Who" that it is voting. But it still isnt about winning. let me clarify what I ment when I said "please vote pro."
I ment that I hoped my side of the debate influenced people to vote pro. Not to win. But to care about what I care about. I wouldnt care if everyone voted con. that is their choice. like I said I am not here to argue. I am here to hopfully plant a train of thought in their mind. To make them re-thing why they are agianst it. I do not think badly of a person if they are against Same sex marriage, I just dont agree with them. So everyone who will read this. I am not telling you how to vote, I am just hoping my writing will alter your way of looking upon same sex marriage.

:) thank you for reading.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tmf_luvs_debate 8 years ago
tmf_luvs_debate
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
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 
Vote Placed by DylanAsdale 8 years ago
DylanAsdale
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
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 
Vote Placed by bman18 8 years ago
bman18
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by MyMeteora81 8 years ago
MyMeteora81
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by ivanareg123 8 years ago
ivanareg123
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by HistoryNotHisStory 8 years ago
HistoryNotHisStory
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Jonngotti 8 years ago
Jonngotti
tmf_luvs_debateWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03