The Instigator
HARMONS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should gay marriage be legal in all states

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 787 times Debate No: 55491
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

HARMONS

Pro

I believe it should be legal in all states because band go against the constitution. The declaration of independence states all humans have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that's what homosexual people are doing perusing happiness.
Wylted

Con

Here is a few definitions we might need to refer back to multiple times.
Legal
1. permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.
2. of or pertaining to law; connected with the law or its administration: the legal profession.
3. appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Marriage

I won't define this. I'm sure we'll have to get some semantics out of the way concerning this. Most dictionaries actually define marriage as between a man and a woman. The first definition when you type -define marriage into google, says it's between a man and a woman.

So if you say 2 people of the same sex should be married than it's an illogical statement.

It would be like saying " I should purple the round triangle".

It's just gibberish.

Anyway I accept the debate. Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
HARMONS

Pro

The definition is based on the current laws that are in place and can be reformed. The meanings of words are constantly changing. Take the word epic for example the original meaning of the word was a long narrative poem but it now defined as something that amazing or of great stature. The same can be done to the word marriage. Also in America we have The separation of church and state and the thought of gay marriage being immoral and wrong is based wholly on what the bible says and that is involving religion with politics.
Wylted

Con

I don't believe marriage should be legalized. This isn't just gay marriage this is any marriage. Marriage should be neither legal or illegal. My opponent already agrees that the government messed up when it came to being fair with marriage laws. Why do they get to decide who does and doesn't get married anyway? The government can't be trusted. They already try to legislate in a way that attempts to subject people to their preferred moral code.

Civil unions

Once we take marriage out of the hands of government, we can have the government enforce all types of civil union contracts. People could still get married it just wouldn't be recognized by the government.

In order for my opponent to win this argument he needs to show why legalizing marriage would be preferable to the government getting out of the marriage business.

We've already seen that we can't trust the government with this issue. Let the people from civil unions and they can privately marry and the government can't discriminate against them based on a person's sexual preference or other factors.

Conclusion

My arguments actually address every issue my opponent brought up, without legalizing marriage any kind of marriage at all.

Remember the definition of legal I gave. Privatizing marriage in this manner would give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. While keeping the government out of the bedroom.
Debate Round No. 2
HARMONS

Pro

First without the government being involved in marriage there would not be marriage because there would not be anything binding the two people together so you wouldn't have a true marriage. Second we would have twelve year olds getting married and divorced like thirty times a day so this country would be full of crap relationships and we also would have a rise in divorce rate. Third your belief that we shouldn't have the institution of marriage has nothing to do with this debate and no one asked what your plan is for if we don't because it is extremely flawed and not well thought out. We are talking about the fact that America practices legally binded marriage and the fact that we don't allow gay marriage in all parts of our country. So your argument is off topic to begin with but I still proved it to be unethical.
Wylted

Con

From round 1:

"I believe it should be legal in all states because band go against the constitution. "

You've shown nothing to prove that legalizing gay marriage is in the constitution.

"The declaration of independence states all humans have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that's what homosexual people are doing perusing happiness."

By privatizing marriage you do insure that homosexuals as well as many other groups can no longer be persecuted by the government. Privatizing marriage allows people more freedom to pursue the type of marriage they feel suits them best. The government would no longer be involved with or get to decide the rules of marriage.

From round 2:

"Also in America we have The separation of church and state and the thought of gay marriage being immoral and wrong is based wholly on what the bible says and that is involving religion with politics."

Some people view marriage as a holy institution. The only way to take marriage out of a political realm where religious ideologies are used to determine law, would be to privatize marriage.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I've shown a way to take marriage out of the legal realm. My opponent has failed to show why legalizing gay marriage would be superior to privatizing it and taking marriage off the government's hands.

From round 3:

"First without the government being involved in marriage there would not be marriage because there would not be anything binding the two people together so you wouldn't have a true marriage. "

That's a myth. Marriage can exist without the government's laws or intrusion. I already covered what would bind people together.

A couple ( or trio etc.) would be binded together by their love for one another. If the couple needs some legal protections and other things. They would then be free to form a civil union and write out a contract to each other. No government is necessary or even preferable for people to fall in love with each other and live happily ever after.

"Second we would have twelve year olds getting married and divorced like thirty times a day so this country would be full of crap relationships and we also would have a rise in divorce rate."

That statement is ridiculous and unproven. 12 year olds by law couldn't sign a contract and form a civil union. If they got married without the governments involvement it wouldn't hurt anybody. It would basically be a fun game of pretend at that point. Since 12 year olds don't have a ton of assets they could easily separate without involving the government at all.

I also have no ideal what you're referring to by "crap relationships". I think it's just you projecting your ideals of morality on others. It's you infringing on my right to have a "crappy relationship". The last thing we want the government doing is imposing their own personal morality on society.

My opponent has actually done nothing to support the hypothesis that the divorce rate would rise or even that the divorce rate rising is harmful.

"Third your belief that we shouldn't have the institution of marriage has nothing to do with this debate "

I'm sorry that you didn't get the argument you was expecting. Refer back to my definition of legal. Privatizing marriage would make marriage a right for gays. It would also take marriage out of the legal realm thus making it neither legal nor illegal. Marriage privatization is a reasonable counter argument to one proposing to legalize gay marriage.

" it is extremely flawed and not well thought out"

It's actually extremely well thought out, but since your arguments and rebuttals against it are extremely weak, the true depth of marriage privatization won't be shown in this debate. I don't mean that as an insult either, just a statement of fact.

"We are talking about the fact that America practices legally binded marriage and the fact that we don't allow gay marriage in all parts of our country. So your argument is off topic to begin with but I still proved it to be unethical."

It's not off topic at all. You have to prove gay marriage should be legalized. I have several ways to argue against this. I chose to show an alternative to legalized marriage that actually covered a lot of the reasons you wanted to legalize marriage. In order for you to win, you have to prove legalizing marriage is superior to privatizing marriage.

Back to pro.
Debate Round No. 3
HARMONS

Pro

HARMONS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
HARMONS

Pro

HARMONS forfeited this round.
Wylted

Con

Okay then.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Let's get it on. But not in that way. I'm opposing gay marriage.
Posted by 2Sense 2 years ago
2Sense
Make sure you watch your spelling, and don't use anecdotal verbiage like "I believe" too often. People won't take your debate seriously if you neglect use citations, facts, and an objective approach to the topic. Best of luck.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
HARMONSWyltedTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con address every issue that Pro brought up, and Pro ultimately forfeited. Pro loses S&G for his/her first round alone.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
HARMONSWyltedTied
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: I vtoed tihs way bcuesae HRANOMS did not pvordie any ppoerr agrmunet. Hpapy to cralfiy tihs in cmmoents.