The Instigator
sjrrj
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should gay marriage be legalized everywhere?

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 4 votes the winner is...
aburk903
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 65161
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

sjrrj

Pro

Gay marriage is not something that should be considered weird or gross or "sinful." It is a person's right to marry whomever they choose. Society should have no say in whether a man can marry a man. It's not a disease or a "sin" to be gay. People are born that way, there is literally nothing they can do to change it. All being "gay" means is that someone finds a person of the same sex attractive. There is absolutely nothing wrong or gross about that. People don't choose who they love. Being gay isn't a choice. It's time people step up and realize that being different isn't bad and being gay isn't different.
aburk903

Con

Because of the 2,000 character limit, I must be concise.
1. Many of my opponent's statements in his introduction are baseless restatements of his premise and can be disregarded as such.
2. "Being different isn't bad and being gay isn't different". This is not necessarily contradictory, but it seems to have no impact. It is easily seen as fallacious when one considers that being gay is in fact different from being heterosexual, even if my opponent finds these differences arbitrary and irrelevant.
3. It would be cliche to over emphasize the nature v. nurture argument on the origins of homosexuality, but I contend that 1) something may be done to change one's homosexuality and that 2) marriage and love are not synonymous.
4. My opponent twice claims that being gay is not a sin. There is a necessary difference between a sin and an immoral thing. Sin has a religious overtone and according to the Bible homosexuality is an abomination. This of course defeats my opponent's claim, because in a religious sense, homosexuality is a sin.
5. However, my opponent's most dangerous and immoral claim is the only one that even addresses his proposition and the topic of marriage. He claims that "it is a person's right to marry whoever they choose". This is his sole advocacy for the marriage of homosexuals. This moral claim justifies many variations of marriage that we must agree are immoral. Child marriage, non-consensual marriage, coerced marriage, bestiality, etc.,

My opponent has failed to support homosexuality in any way and has actually offered significant and damning claims against it. Nevertheless, this debate is not about homosexuality, but of gay marriage. No evidence has been offered to support it, and I simply conclude by noting that civil unions should have the same benefit as marriage everywhere and that marriage needn't be resorted to. Let marriage remain in the church and only in the church and let us remove this social convention for a more progressive one.
Debate Round No. 1
sjrrj

Pro

First of all, I'm not a he. I'm a girl so get it right. First of all... Why does the church get get to say homosexuality is a sin? Why? Why is it a sin? Why is it immoral? Who are they to say that? You don't understand what I'm trying to say because in your mind, no matter what I say, homosexuality will be a sin to you and it will be immoral. I never said anything about child marriage or coerced marriage. You know what I meant. You are just twisting my words. Let me spell it out. Marriage is not something that should "remain in the church." It should be something available to all ADULTS (let me just clarify for you). All adults. Not just a man and a woman. And don't twist my words to think I mean a marriage with like one man and 4 wives or something. No. I mean monogamy between two consenting adults who love each other. Why is homosexuality a sin? Why? Why? And why does marriage have to be reserved for a man and a woman? Why shouldn't it be legal for all consenting adults, without putting religion into it? Without including the church or God or the bible, why should a man and a man not be allowed to be joined in holy matrimony? They are free adults who love each other. They deserve to be able to celebrate their love in the same way as a heterosexual couple.
aburk903

Con

Pardon the gender confusion. It became somewhat difficult to predict the gender of one named Sjrrj who chose not to list their gender on their profile.
1. My opponent seems to confuse the concepts of immorality and sinfulness. The church has full authority to determine sin if appropriately based on the religious text of that faith. Since the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination, that makes it a sin. This does not mean that it is immoral, but it refutes my opponent's undeniably fallacious claim that homosexuality is not a "sin" (a religious term) when religious texts claim that it is. My opponent also claims that in my mind I cannot be convinced of her position because I believe homosexuality is a sin and an immoral lifestyle. As a liberal atheist this is a strange position for my opponent to take, and I am sure the unethical nature of my opponent's personal attack will be reflected in the assigning of conduct points.

2. I refuse to concede that my opponent's frustration at "word twisting" is legitimate. Baseless assertions must be proven or taken Prima Facie, and I cannot be damned for doing just this. This arbitrary definition of marriage alone should be enough to discredit my opponent. There is no real case here. There are only assertion of autonomous marital choice (this even was implied), the value of monogamy, and the importance of the formal institution of marriage.

3. Without the church, or god, or the Bible, why is marriage anything but a civil union? What value does marriage have that a civil union cannot? Until my opponent can justify these basic claims, the very foundation of her argument, then there is no compelling force to influence us to universally legalize homosexual marriage. My opponent argues from emotion, and that is fine- but it is not relevant when making ethical social reform. Until compelling evidence and sound logic are presented to justify my opponent's claims, it is merely an emotional tirade.
Debate Round No. 2
sjrrj

Pro

Just take the church and religion out of you claims. What is your argument at that point. What do you have against gay marriage beside saying the church says its a sin?

People who are gay should be able to get married because many of them are religious and marriage is a special moment for people. You say I don't have valid points. Obviously my points aren't valid to you. That is why you are opposing my argument. Your points aren't valid to me. And I am agnostic not Atheist there is a difference.

What is your reason, besides the church, that makes you against gay marriage?
aburk903

Con

Allow me to address the personal arguments first. The claim that neither of our points are valid to one another is simply fallacious, because (although I can speak only for myself) I know I do not complacently dismiss my opponent's points. In fact, if my opponent had observed my personal beliefs on the "big issues" on my profile here, she would see that I personally advocate gay marriage. This site does not require that I argue from conviction, merely that the logical progression of my argument is the superior one at the end of the debate, regardless of my personal belief. It is simply that the provided justifications for gay marriage here are insufficient. Also, I am aware of the difference between an Agnostic and an Atheist. I was referring to myself and why it was simply illogical that you might claim that I could view homosexuality as immoral because of its sinfulness without any belief in a religion to begin with.

Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has presented no valid or compelling empirical claims in support of the universal legalization of gay marriage. In this final round of summation, the sole support of gay marriage provided by my opponent is that many gay people are religious and that marriage is a special moment. Again, mere sentiment is in no way a justification for a thing in regards to ethics and social policy. My opponent fails to show the significance of marriage over civil union, and as such fails to counter my often repeated contention that civil unions are the most ideal option that we have for this. My opponent has also failed to provide any evidence, leaving all claims produced emotional and baseless. I thank everyone for their time in reading this debate and say absolutely that my opponent has failed to support the premise that gay marriage should be universally legalized. Vote Con.

Thanks for the debate, Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by 7adnarim 2 years ago
7adnarim
Yes, it should. To some people, marriage isn't about religion. Some people just want to make that promise to their partner and have that connect you have when married, and also, they feel they should be allowed the benefits given to spouses by the government. They should not be denied the ability to do so just because some religious people thing gay sex is a sin. It's none of their business and doesn't hurt them or undermine their religion or beliefs in any way. If anything, all it does is make their god angry at the sinners themselves, no one else. Also, why should government have the right to say who can and cannot get married? I think they government can just screw off. If they took out benefits for married couples and let people marry whoever they want, the problem would be only personal, between Christians and gays, and we wouldn't have to worry about it anymore because they've never really gotten along anyways and there's nothing we can do about it.
Posted by sjrrj 2 years ago
sjrrj
I can tell by the way you address me and my argument during our debate, cibro, that you do not think I understand things like this or something like that. I said society should not have a say because they shouldn't. Marriage should just be marriage and be legal for everyone. So no society should not have be able to say no you can't marry this person. I understand that is the way it is but that is not how it SHOULD be.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I agree with pro ever since i defeated myself in this debate. PRO position is resolved.
Posted by cibro 2 years ago
cibro
Maybe you should rethink portions of your argument. For example, "society should have no say in whether a man can marry a man." Society does have a say, and rightfully so. The fact that society has a say is the reason that gay marriage is even being considered. The fact that society has a say is the reason why gay marriage is being legalized through votes. America is a democracy, and "having a say" is one of our most precious rights. You may not like that the "say" society had in the past was not coherent with the beliefs of a future society, but the law is society. It changes as society changes. Please don't make the argument advocating for homosexuals having a say by opening with the idea that society (of which they are a part) should not have a say. You are contradicting yourself and downgrading one of the factors that makes your argument possible.
Posted by sjrrj 2 years ago
sjrrj
CayleURC, no I'm saying it isn't a sin at all regardless of religion or race or culture or anything. Not a sin. At all.
Posted by CayleURC 2 years ago
CayleURC
So you're saying if you are a "Christian" and a homosexual, then it is not a sin?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
sjrrjaburk903Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, I completely agree. However, you allowed personal opinion and emotion to get in the way of arguing. Con relied on mostly facts. Sources and spelling and grammar are tied. Conduct goes to con because of the personal emotion displayed by pro, and her borderline insults.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
sjrrjaburk903Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro relied exclusively on personal opinion rather than presenting valid reasons on as to why she advocates universal legalisation of gay marriage. Con successfully highlights the use of emotional assertion and lack of logical argument. For example, in Pro stating that gay marriage is not a "sin", Con outlines that sin is a religious concept and is therefore defined by religious belief. Pro continuously asks for Con to clarify their stance and reiterates the question "why"--even when presented with clear answers/arguments.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
sjrrjaburk903Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, I agree with your position, but you need to actually provide complete arguments in a debate, not simply ask "Why? Why?" to your opponent. As such con made better points by illustrating your lack of arguments and points go to him for that. Also pro, your conduct to Con could definitely be improved. You put words in his/her mouth and assumed his/her position repeatedly.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
sjrrjaburk903Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: remind me to vote on this later