The Instigator
KCole
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal In America

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 76817
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

KCole

Con

I am a Christian, and I strongly believe and know that gay marriages are wrong. The Bible talks in several different places that it is wrong. Christianity is what America was built on, so why abandon it now and listen to pop culture that's telling us that gay marriages is okay? forbid gay marriages
MagicAintReal

Pro

Well thanks for creating this debate. Seeing as there really isn't a format, I'm assuming I have the Burden of Proof and 1st round isn't just acceptance, so I'll jump into it.

Gay marriage, not just gay civil unions, should be legal in the United States, because if citizens of legal age are willing to file taxes jointly, and both consent to have their marriage recognized outwardly, its relevance to the federal government is the same as a heterosexual marriage. A marriage is just two social security numbers.

These numbers file taxes jointly, are afforded with full juridical capacity under the law, and are recognized numbers in marriage; having this granted requires no sex or gender, just a social security number.

Even in a traditional heterosexual marriage, the only real tie to the government is the taxes portion of it. The government doesn't need to make your love official for your love to be true; the love exists without the government, straight or gay. I would think some Christians agree with me that the government does not make their love official.

If gay marriage is legal, it should make no difference to the government as long as two people are jointly paying the taxes and consensually sharing their marriage in an outward form. Since the United States government is secular, and America was not built on Christianity, there is no reason for the government to discriminate against gays for marriage purposes.

Yes, the United States constitution has a very clear 1st amendment, that forbids congress from making laws that respect ANY establishment of religion. With that said, many opponents of this idea claim that the wording in the constitution is such that the 1st amendment does not separate church and state. But it does so...
https://www.law.cornell.edu...

a little history...
So our founding fathers came from England, which had a tyrannical government with a centralized religion, Christianity. Our founding fathers also believed that it was this centralized religious power that was inciting such tyranny. "Powers from god" bestowed to the leaders were being used for unreasonable governing of people and religious persecution. So when our founding fathers were given the opportunity to make a better, inherently fairer, less biased government, they made certain it had no religious considerations, so as not to repeat their traumatic persecutive past and maintain religious freedom.
That's why the founding fathers wrote the 1st amendment.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org...

Con claims "Christianity is what America was built on."
So here's a quote from James Madison, the writer of the American constitution "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these [American] shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." For this reason, the writer of the constitution made sure that the United States has a secular constitution, not built on Christianity.

If anything America was built on escaping Christianity.

I realize the founding fathers were culturally Christian, but Ben Franklin would be an atheist by today's standards, Thomas Jefferson was Anglican, but notoriously anticlerical, and Madison was a deist at most, still obviously secular.

Pro also states "The bible talks in several different places that [gay marriage] is wrong"
I have two questions for Con:
1. Why should I consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of morality?
2. If our country forbids laws considering religious establishments, why should we consider Christianity when making laws about gay marriage?

Things to consider when answering.
1. The bible says that being gay is an abomination. The bible also says that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night, shall be brought to her father's door and stoned to death. I assume that women who have had premarital sex can't get married either given the bible.
https://www.biblegateway.com...
2. America was built on freedom from religious persecution. See Madison's quote above.

Yes, as Pro with a positive claim, I have the Burden of Proof, but if Con claims they know that something is morally wrong, Con still has to explain how they know it to be morally wrong without appeals to authority, tradition, or antiquity.

I appreciate a fun reply from Con.
Debate Round No. 1
KCole

Con

First off, James Madison only said that to imply that the state has no control over the church, and the church is free to worship and do as they please. And if the America was built on "escaping" Christianity, then why does our currency say "In God we trust" and why did the Founding Fathers (that were Christians) talk about God so much. And why did the Pilgrims leave England in the first place, not to escape Christianity but to escape the king that was telling them how to worship.

With that said, marriage is NOT just two social security numbers. Marriage is sacred between a MAN AND WOMAN. Where two people become one until death. And the Government does care more than a tie to taxes because according to the constitution they can't favor a religion. They are afraid of the diversion that will come. Between now and next Tuesday, Congress will decide if gay marriages will be legal nationwide. The thing they don't realize is how much it will effect America. Hell is going to break loose. There will be judgment. What happened to all the historic cities like Israel who disobeyed God. They were destroyed. So obviously, the Founding Fathers were into God and Christianity, America was based off of Christianity. And the Bible talks in several different places that gay marriages are evil, one of them being 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:2, (please look these verses up) so why would we let that overcome our country? Why would you let evil come into your heart with open arms?

Personally I would like to know why you think gay marriages are okay, outside of this debate. God Bless!
MagicAintReal

Pro

Is this real life? After the history lesson and explanation of the motivation behind the 1st amendment, which completely negates the claim that this country was built on Christianity, your only objection is what Madison meant by a quote?

The 1st amendment is a two way street. No government in religion and no religion in government. The government is controlled by the people, and the government makes laws for people. So when the 1st amendment says no laws respecting an establishment of religion, it may as well say no laws with religion controlling the government, and no laws with religion for the people to follow. Claiming there needs to be a law against gay marriage, because gay marriage is anti-christian would be requesting a law with respects to a religion.

Con says "If the America was built on "escaping" Christianity, then why does our currency say "In God we trust?"
What something is built on is its foundation. The foundation of America was not in 1957 when "In God We Trust" was affixed to our paper money. Also the original slogan was put on our coins...in 1864, much after the foundation of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org...

The founding fathers may or may not have talked a lot about god, but they most certainly talked a lot about not having a government run by religion, because of their disdain of a tyrannical government with a centralized religion...England.

Pro asks "Why did the Pilgrims leave England in the first place?"
To escape religious persecution from a tyrannical government with a centralized religion of Christianity...to escape Christian rule.

Pro says "Marriage is not just two social security numbers...marriage is sacred"
Well, my claim was that with respects to the federal government, two people getting married is just two social security numbers. The government doesn't even care if you love each other to be married in their eyes. You are married if your social security numbers are identified as married filing jointly. This should not, and does not, take away from the sacredness of a marriage, because the government does not make your sacredness or love true. You love your partner irrespective of the government.

Pro continues with a non sequitur "the Government does care more than a tie to taxes because according to the constitution they can't favor a religion"
Marriage, to the government, is more than just taxes, because the first amendment doesn't allow for laws to be made with respects to a religion? This makes no sense, please clarify.

Pro says "obviously, the Founding Fathers were into God and Christianity, America was based off of Christianity"
Even if Con's claim that the founding fathers were into god and Christianity were true, it does not mean the founding fathers didn't support a secular government. America was based off of religious freedom, not Christianity.

Pro then begins to slippery slope the idea of letting gay people marry in America to hell breaking lose like the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah from the bible. Then Pro quotes some bible passages to demonstrate gay marriage being wrong, to which I will repeat my unanswered round 1 questions:

1. Why should I consider the bible to be authoritative on matters of morality?
2. If our country forbids laws considering religious establishments, why should we consider Christianity when making laws about gay marriage?

Things to consider when answering.
1. The bible says that being gay is an abomination. The bible also says that a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night, shall be brought to her father's door and stoned to death. I assume that women who have had premarital sex can't get married either given the bible.
https://www.biblegateway.com......
2. America was built on freedom from religious persecution.
Debate Round No. 2
KCole

Con

KCole forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Please respond to my round 2 points in round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
KCole

Con

KCole forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Please respond to my round 2 points in round 5.
Debate Round No. 4
KCole

Con

KCole forfeited this round.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Well, now that gay marriage is legal, isn't nice to know that it's a logical position to take?
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 1 year ago
SirMaximus
KColeMagicAintRealTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Before the debate, I agreed with Pro that same-sex marriage should be legal in America, and I still agree with Pro after the debate because of Pro's arguments, which I will get to shortly. Pro had better conduct as Con forfeited 3 rounds while Pro didn't forfeit any rounds. I counted 6 grammar and spelling mistakes each from both of them, so that's a tie. Pro made more convincing arguments because Pro rebutted every argument that Con made, while Con did not rebut every argument that Pro made. Pro used the most reliable sources, as Pro used numerous sources, all of which are reliable, while the only source that Con referenced was biblegateway.com. (For the record, I'm not saying that that source is unreliable, I'm just saying that Pro used more sources than Con and that all of Pro's sources were reliable, so Pro automatically wins that.)
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
KColeMagicAintRealTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits multiple times. As such, I award conduct to Pro. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.