The Instigator
TheReaping
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
squonk
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Should gay marriage be allowed legal in all states?

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 3 votes the winner is...
squonk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2016 Category: People
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 86922
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

TheReaping

Con

Should Gay marriage be legal or illegal in the united states? I am voting against because gay marriage used to be considered a mental illness in the 1960s..
squonk

Pro

"Gay marriage" was never considered a mental illness; I take it you mean to say that "homosexuality" was considered a mental illness. Science (including psychiatry) has come a long way since the 1960s. Today, we know that being homosexual is like being left-handed. Left-handed people aren't mentally ill; they're just different. Homosexuals aren't mentally ill; they're just different. Ask a psychiatrist today whether homosexuality is a mental illness.

In America, it's mainly Christians who oppose gay marriage. They cite verses from the Bible that say homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God, etc. According to Christianity, marriage must be between a man and a woman. But why should a certain religious group define "marriage" for everyone else? Should Muslims be allowed to impose their dietary restrictions on the rest of us, because their religion says it's wrong to eat pork? I think not. For the same reason, Christian must not be allowed to impose the Christian definition of "marriage" on homosexuals, or anyone.

There is no good reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal in all states. It's already legal in Canada (where I'm from) and many other places.

Debate Round No. 1
TheReaping

Con

Apologies. yes, you are correct. Honestly i didn't even come here for an argument and im new here so i suppose i should have made a poll instead of a debate. Sorry :)
squonk

Pro

Uh...OK then.
Debate Round No. 2
TheReaping

Con

TheReaping forfeited this round.
squonk

Pro

Round #3.
Debate Round No. 3
TheReaping

Con

TheReaping forfeited this round.
squonk

Pro

I have nothing to say here.
Debate Round No. 4
TheReaping

Con

TheReaping forfeited this round.
squonk

Pro

Thank God this nonsense is over.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 3RU7AL 6 days ago
3RU7AL
I'm pretty sure the New Testament says something about how a man should not put away their wife and a wife should not leave their husband.

Keeping this in mind, how would you justify a christian baking a cake to celebrate the marriage of two people who were previously divorced?

If your standards are to be considered reasonable, they should be at a minimum, internally consistent.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
It's also their basic right to not have to be forced to help aid somthing they know is evil. Remember every sin is equal, so techincally it would be no different than baking a cake in the celebration of a woman being forced against her will. Would you want to do that? Hell they are even celebrating the sin, that's like when the people were gambling in the church and Jesus actually flipped a table! Of course not out of anger towards the people but because of the act, we actually have a responsibility to try to stop these things. So in this case both sides are being wronged of their human rights.
Posted by squonk 1 year ago
squonk
@ Stonehe4rt

In Canada, there are 11 grounds of discrimination protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. These grounds include sexual orientation. Discriminatory practices (which are illegal) include "Denying someone goods, services, facilities or accommodation." So, a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual couple is violating their human rights.

The same rules apply whether we're talking about sexual orientation, or we're talking about gender, race, or religion. Racist business-owners should not be allowed to serve "whites only." Misogynistic business-owners should not be allowed to serve "men only." Homophobic business-owners should not be allowed to serve "straights only." It's the same thing.

The baker may believe that homosexuality is a sin, gay marriage is wrong, etc. That's fine. But your religious beliefs don't give you the right to violate anyone's human rights.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Stonehe4rt
you are well spoken, thanks for the respectful exchange
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well to be fair marriage did develop from religion but I agree after you commented earlier on me. That yes them marrying is indeed fine, however homosexual marriage cannot legally force anyone to aid the marriage. For that would be forcing someone against their religion like the two homosexuals who sued the baker for not baking the cake for their marriage. The baker had every right not to bake the cake but he was sued and tried for it. That was illegal. But if homosexuals will marry without forcing Priest to bless it under God and all then it would be fine
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
now it is 2016 look how far we have come

http://www.pinknews.co.uk...
Posted by Stonehe4rt 1 year ago
Stonehe4rt
Well i think one obvious fact is that "Marriage" is a religious institute that has nothing to due with law. It was developed by religion and even in the ceremony the priest has to say things like God blesses the marriage however this should have nothing to due with law. You cant make a marriage legal or not, It is simply whether the person has the qualifications to be married. Which homosexuals do not, in a religious manner, which is also the base for marriage the bible states that the Man or Husband represents God while the Women represents Church or Faith. Hence One Faith, One God. You cant have a homsexual marriage because that would represent Two Gods no Faith or Two Faiths no God. You see forcing a Priest to go against his religion and say that a sin is blessed by his God is not legal. Hence Gay Marriage is not legal because it harms our constitutional right of freedom of religion. They may "Union" which isnt much different than Marriage but homosexuals seem to want to attack religion and force themselves to be accepted by it. Which is not legal. Bottom Line: Marriage isnt a government nor legal action, it is purely religious. And too force someone to bless you with their religion for something they believe is evil is wrong.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 1 year ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Bi-sexual in the profile. Against gay marriage. Seems legit.

Next thing you know, people won't be using their real photos in profile pics. I hope we never sink that far. What's the world coming to?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
TheReapingsquonkTied
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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 11 months ago
lannan13
TheReapingsquonkTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
TheReapingsquonkTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in the 2nd round and then forfeited three turns. Therefore more convincing argument and conduct go to Pro.