Should gay marriage be legalized?
Debate Rounds (5)
I accept. I'll be playing devil's advocate in this debate.
I contend that gay civil unions are much better.
Go on ahead, my opponent.
One reason that we say that it should not be allowed is that the opposition to gay marriage is a subjective feeling. And as we know, subjective feelings are opinions and should be kept out of debates and political issues because they are personal views that cannot be proven or disproved. Objectively, there is no reason to prevent it from being legalized.
Now from the religious point of view, people say that their god says that marriage is between a man and a woman only. However, people have no justification why there religion is better than another, which brings up my point that personal views on religion should be kept out of gay marriage. However, similar to abortion, certain catholic churches should be allowed prohibit gay marriage within their specific church, but in the larger sense, they have no right to prohibit gay marriage outside of their personal and subjective beliefs.
Sources find that civil unions are far more supported than gay marriage.
As majority rules, the more moral option here would be choose the more supported option--the one that has the same exact benefits as marriage, and more people like it somehow. Gays don't need to marry--with civil unions, we'll be doing the more moral and more justified, and most importantly, most right/fair thing possible.
1. Why do you have the desire the not let these people get married?
2. Why do you feel that it is allowed for a straight person to say what a gay person can and cannot do since we have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
3. Why do you feel that you can cheat the gay community out of marriage and only let them receive civil unions? How does this not interfere with the Bill of Rights first amendment when it says right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
4. Why is it immoral to allow a man and a woman to get married?
My opponent hasn't rebutted Majority Rules argument. There is no reason to make something legal if most people dislike it.
I already stated that civil unions offer much more benefit to gay people. Here's another source showing you how it's almost exactly like marriage, except it's better,  especially since more people like it.
1. Civil unions are much better, and have much more liking than marriage
2. Because majority rules.
3. Because civil unions have the same exact benefits as gay marriage, only more people like it, and it isn't considered "immoral" or disliked by most religious people
4. This is kind of irrelevant to this debate.
Also, if civic unions have the same benefits as gay marriage and they do the exact same thing, why can't you just call it marriage? Are you just being homophobic? You claim it does the almost the exact same thing but you are just giving it a different name because you do not want marriage to also consist of gays.
The thing I meant by asking you why you said it is immoral is when you stated, "Gays don't need to marry--with civil unions, we'll be doing THE MORE MORAL AND MORE JUSTIFIED, and most importantly, RIGHT/FAIR THING POSSIBLE." I want you to explain what you meant by this.
For you rebuttal, I want to give me OBJECTIVE evidence for why gays should get civil unions instead of marriage. All you are doing is giving it a different name but it is the same thing. The reason that you give it a new name is probably that you want to make it seem different from "normal" marriage because you think gay marriage does not count and we need to give a different name to disguise it and make gays feel different.
To respond to my sentence about "Gays don't need to marry--with civil unions, we'll be doing THE MORE MORAL AND MORE JUSTIFIED, and most importantly, RIGHT/FAIR THING POSSIBLE." I meant my argument is from an ultitarianism perspective. If two things have the same benefits, but one thing is thought to be better than the other, then the thing thought to be better is the more moral choice and should be chosen if possible. I proved that, civil unions are just as good as marriage, beneficially speaking, except that people support civil unions more, therefore, ultitarianism-speaking, civil unions are more moral and the better choice for gays.
As to strengthen this further, I will bring out the big guns. I'll try to keep my arguments simple though, since my opponent only has one round left to rebut.
1. Being gay is not normal
I mean, even in a Supreme court case ruling Baker v. Nelson it was decided that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”  Moreover, in a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…”  It is because of such non-belief that many churches dislike the idea of gay marriage. It would be tough to convince so many churches to change their beliefs, especially since they now have to teach that gay people are equal to heterosexuals, which completely goes against the bible. 
2. It's destroying normal marriage as we know it--and thus, less people are produced
A few examples are within Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which all legalized marriage in the 1990's. According to a report by Stanley Kurtz, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's birthrate from people whom were not married to each other went from 39% to 50% and Sweden's from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and almost 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents. As Kurtz states himself, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia." 
3. People believe gay is wrong, why force them to pay taxes to support gay people? (Once again, MAJORITY RULES. The government should respect these people's choices and either not have them pay taxes to something they don't support or just rid of that "something" entirely.)
Gay marriage gives gay couples many marriage benefits which are mostly paid by the tax the government recieves. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as inheritance taxes or Social Security) would cost up to $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending in just 9 years. 
I have clarified my position and added on important arguments that contribute to why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized.
 Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson, www.marriagelawfoundation.org
 Joseph Card. Ratzinger, "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons", www.vatican.va
 Amber G. Marcellino, et al., "Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 2517", www.cbo.gov
You are just saying that straight people do not want it but it should not be their choice. If gays are ok with civil union then they can have civil unions but THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME RIGHTS AND HAVE THE OPTION MARRIAGE. Just because there is a majority does not mean that a group of straight people can choose for the group of gays. I understand that they have the same benefits but who cares what it is called. You can call it whatever you want but it is still marriage with a different name. Plus, your only reason for why not is because people think gays are immoral and gay marriage is wrong? Are you serious? That is the best you have got. Just make sure that you address the top question.
Marriage is different from civil unions. My opponent has failed time after time to address the fact that, with more support, unions are the more moral option and thus the only viable true option.
The supreme court has decided as I said in the previous round that marriage is marriage is marriage should not apply to gays. Again, normal marriage is being destroyed in the process. This argument is never refuted. As I said before, why force people who don't like gay marriage to support it? This point is not refuted either.
-Successful Devil's advocate once more
-I win with many un-refuted arguments. My opponent had his chances.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 18Karl 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||2|
Reasons for voting decision: This is a tie in argumentation in my opinion; con's premises were based on argumentum ad populum whilst Pro's premises just seemed to beg the question and his premises are left unsupported; it seems like he is stating his opinion, not what is factually there. Sources to con, as con was the only one who used sources.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.