The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
petersaysstuff
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should gays be granted the right to marriage with full benefits as a heterosexual couple?

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 5 votes the winner is...
petersaysstuff
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,651 times Debate No: 15625
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

kohai

Pro

Should gays have the right to marry, AND receive the full benefit as a heterosexual couple? That is the question!
Anyone ready for this exciting debate?

Religion says, "No. Homosexuality is against the Bible, and therefore gays should not be allowed to marry."

Science says, "Sexual orientation is genetic or pre-determined and you cannot change your orientation; therefore gays should be allowed to marry.
petersaysstuff

Con

Well first I must say that my opponent provided no definitions and thus I am forced to do so.

Marriage: "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life"[1]
note, this is different than a civil marriage which is defined thusly: "a marriage performed by a government official rather than by a clergyman" [2]

//Arguments\
1) Marriage is a religious rite and thus, as my opponent stated in his first speech, "Homosexuality is against the Bible"
(which is a bit western oriented but whatever) it is disrespectful to the ancient religious tradition of marriage to be shattered. Marriage was originally a religious rite between one man and one women and thus letting people who are not with in that box in, ie 2 men or 2 women, we are disrespecting thousands of years worth of culture.[3] It is synonymous with allowing non-Muslim's into Mecca which is disrespecting a culture[4]

2) In most religions, the main purpose (or almost number 1 reason to get married) was to procreate[3].
"Children are a prime goal of marriage..."[3]
Since the main purpose for marriage is to procreate, since homosexuals cannot procreate, they are not fulfilling the main purpose of marriage as well as disrespecting thousands of years worth of culture.

Counterplan:
We should give homosexuals the right to a civil union with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple.
A civil union is defined thusly: "a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex;" [5]
The net benefit is that gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals yet we are still preserving the purpose of marriage as well as respecting thousands of years worth of culture.

I turn it over to Pro.

============================================================================
[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[3] http://www.usconstitution.net...
[4] http://wikitravel.org...
[5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

First of all, Good luck! Here is my argument starting Round 2!

This will turn out to be a pretty interesting debate. Especially, because we share the same views (according to our profiles). To be honest, I am not really sure what you are trying to argue.

I believe that marriage is a legal union between TWO people that love each other whither it be two men or two women or one man and one woman.

Marriage: "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life"

Allow me to expand on that. It is the state of TWO people in the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life. It doesn't matter if it is two men, two women, or one man and one woman as long as they are joined together voluntarily and because they love each other.

"1) Marriage is a religious rite "
There are numerous religions, especially Christianity and Islam, that has marriage as a religious rite. However, just because there are religions that have marriage as a religious rite and those same religions do not allow homosexuality, does NOT mean that we should not grant them the right to marry; especially as the constitution has separation between the church (and all religions) and the state.

2) In most religions, the main purpose (or almost number 1 reason to get married) was to procreate
"Children are a prime goal of marriage...

I never get tired at laughing at this argument! "In most religions, the main purpose was to get children" that is true. However; I believe that two people should get married because they love each other, not for children.

If the sin was not homosexuality--but not being able to reproduce, then Jesus sinned because he never got married and had children and the married couples that don't have children are also sinning.

Counterplan:
We should give homosexuals the right to a civil union with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple.
A civil union is defined as this: "A voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex;"
The net benefit is that gays get the same benefits as heterosexuals yet we are still preserving the purpose of marriage as well as respecting thousands of years worth of culture.

Okay, a civil union with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple is basically marriage. The only thing that is different is what it is called!

"We are still preserving the purpose of marriage as well as respecting thousands of years worth of culture!"

I honestly disagree with this. I have spoken to many Christians who do not even want civil union for LGBT couples because, it is basically the same thing as marriage.

Good luck, and may the best man win!
petersaysstuff

Con

//I believe that marriage is a legal union between TWO people that love each other whither it be two men or two women or one man and one woman.//
I'm sorry if you BELIEVE that but that has no bearing on fact. I could just as easily say that it is a religious union of a man and a horse and that would be equally reliable seeing as it is just one belief against another.

//Allow me to expand on that. It is the state of TWO people in the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life. It doesn't matter if it is two men, two women, or one man and one woman as long as they are joined together voluntarily and because they love each other.//
Again you are just adding a word with no warrants behind it. I could say that it is the state of a man and a horse. You provide no counter definition and thus mine must be used for this round.

//There are numerous religions, especially Christianity and Islam, that has marriage as a religious rite. However, just because there are religions that have marriage as a religious rite and those same religions do not allow homosexuality, does NOT mean that we should not grant them the right to marry; especially as the constitution has separation between the church (and all religions) and the state.//
It is true that there is separation of church and state but the fact is that marriage is a religious event. It was started by religions as a union with for and by God and was not a state created thing so if you are going to argue separation of Church and state, you must argue that marriages should not be preformed by the state. This is where a civil union comes into play because it is done by the state.

//I never get tired at laughing at this argument! "In most religions, the main purpose was to get children" that is true. However; I believe that two people should get married because they love each other, not for children.

If the sin was not homosexuality--but not being able to reproduce, then Jesus sinned because he never got married and had children and the married couples that don't have children are also sinning.//
I never said that the sin was not being able to reproduce but the purpose of marriage was to reproduce so your argument about Jesus makes no sense because he didn't get married and thus didn't have to fulfill that.

On civil unions, they are different things because a marriage is a religious rite and was started as such whereas civil unions are a state thing and thus they are separate entities.

//I honestly disagree with this. I have spoken to many Christians who do not even want civil union for LGBT couples because, it is basically the same thing as marriage.//
It really doesn't matter what they feel about it. The fact is that marriage is a religious rite whereas a civil union is with the state. They are two separate things and thus my argument stands.

Keep in mind that my opponent provided no counter definition to anything I have said and therefore we must extend it.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Let me add a few arguments to my point of view
1) Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). The main reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that all major religions consider homosexuality a sin; however, the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that a person's religious views or lack thereof must be protected. Marriage by the state is a secular activity; the government cannot start making laws just because a religion says they should. What's next, should we make taking the Lord's name in vain a criminal activity because Christians consider it a breaking of a commandment?
2) Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. Marriage is more than a legal status. It affects many things in society such as tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, and agency law. It affects critical medical decisions. For example, if one member of a gay couple that has been together for 20 years gets critically ill, visitation may not even be allowed since the other isn't considered a "spouse or immediate family member". Also, critical medical decisions must often be made when one person is incapacitated; e.g. Should a certain surgery be done or not? It is completely unfair to deny these privileges to people because their relationship doesn't fit the state's definition of one.
3) Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. America was founded on the concept that the majority should rule, but the rights of minorities should be protected. It is the main reason we have a Bill of Rights as well as anti-slavery and equal protection amendments. Denying marriage to a homosexual couple is no different than denying marriage to Hispanic or black couples.
4) It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. A marriage is a relationship between two people. How does it hurt society or people not involved in the marriage? It is a personal commitment that really is no one else's business. Society shouldn't be dictating what two people can or can't do when no one else is hurt in the process. If the church or certain groups disapprove, that's their right, but it isn't their right to stop it.
5) The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. The number one reason that heterosexuals marry is not to establish legal status, allow joint filing of taxes, or protect each other in medical decision-making. They marry because it is the ultimate expression of a person's love for another. Marriage is a commitment that says "I love you so much that I want to live the rest of my life with you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake all others, and be together until death do us part." Should it matter that the couple doesn't fit into what society is used to? Some people talk about living wills and other legal contracts that can give homosexuals essentially the same rights as a married couple. If that is the case, why don't all heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers instead of marriage? Just maybe there's something more to it.

" is true that there is separation of church and state but the fact is that marriage is a religious event. It was started by religions as a union with for and by God and was not a state created thing so if you are going to argue separation of Church and state, you must argue that marriages should not be preformed by the state. This is where a civil union comes into play because it is done by the state."
-Marriage in this day can and is often secular in nature. You must get your marriage certificate from town hall, not the church. Having your service performed by clergy is purely optional. By this line of reasoning, atheists would also not be able to marry. And what religion is marriage subject to? How many more does that put aside? Isn't this a violation of church and state anyhow, if they were somehow intertwined and marriage required religion?

And about your argument about civil unions...
-If they were the same as marriages, they'd be called it. There are glaring differences, mostly in what kinds of benefits come with it. Civil unions don't carry the same weight when it comes to shared medical coverage, access to the partner's retirement funds if something should happen, life insurance, etc. They are not equals, if they were the issue would really be moot. Basically this is the same thing as separate but equal, which was already proved unconstitutional in Brown versus the board!

I turn it over to the con!
petersaysstuff

Con

On 1: Making it so gays can't marry isn't violating religious freedom at all. Marriage is a religious rite as I have proven and you have failed to negate (please extend) where as, as you admit here, civil marriages are separate which is essentially what the counterplan is. (I will touch on that later) The state conducts a civil union/marriage where as straight up marriage is religious. Telling the group of people they MUST let gays get married is violating their rights to protect their religion. Your argument falls.

On 2: The counterplan solves for this. I said that they would be given a civil union with all the benefits of a heterosexual couple and you have done nothing on this. Extend.

On 3: This would be true if marriage was not a religious rite but since it is this argument falls. Since a church or other religious group can exclude who they want, and marriage is a religious rite, they have the right to exclude whoever they want. Again, the counterplan solves. Your argument falls.

On 4: I'm afraid you missed my previous argument regarding disrespecting religions. That is what it harms. It is harming years of tradition and culture. And it is the churches right to stop whoever from getting married because marriage is a religious rite.

On 5: The reason heterosexuals don't use this type of contract is because they are partaking in a religious rite. If and when I get married I will do the contract thing because I am an atheist. Homosexuals can still express love, it's just not a religious rite that they are accepting.

On 6: It is true you get your certificate from town hall but the actual ceremony is religious. Just like a eulogy is religious yet you get your death certificate from town hall. The reason town hall is involved at all is for census purposes. Also, atheism isn't a sin, they are just fools.
//Isn't this a violation of church and state anyhow, if they were somehow intertwined and marriage required religion?//
What? I have shown you it isn't previously.

Civil unions: So you agree civil unions are different but here is where you miss a key phrase in my text. I said this:
"We should give homosexuals the right to a civil union with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple." Note the last 8 words, "with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple." You have done no work on why civil unions shouldn't be used and you never refuted my argument regarding religious respect and thus we flow that through.

Also, keep in mind you dropped almost everything from last round.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

Good luck in the final round.

"Making it so gays can't marry isn't violating religious freedom at all. Marriage is a religious rite as I have proved and you have failed to negate (please extend) where as, as you admit here, civil marriages are separate which is essentially what the counterplan is. (I will touch on that later) The state conducts a civil union/marriage where as straight up marriage is religious. Telling the group of people they MUST let gays get married is violating their rights to protect their religion. Your argument falls

The counterplan solves for this. I said that they would be given a civil union with all the benefits of a heterosexual couple and you have done nothing on this. Extend."

Okay, I understand what you are saying. However, as I have said time after time again this is a very simple case of "Separate but equal." However, the supreme court already ruled that separate but equal was unconstitutional! Please touch on that. Isn't this separate but equal?
Some religions do accept gay people and gay marriage. So, therefore, can't it be a religious rite in those religions?

"This would be true if marriage was not a religious rite but since it is this argument falls. Since a church or other religious group can exclude who they want, and marriage is a religious rite, they have the right to exclude whoever they want. Again, the counterplan solves. Your argument falls."

Religious is a religious rite in some religions. However, as I have said time and time again, the number one reason why people opt to get married in this day in age is because they love each other; NOT because of some religious ceremony. In this day and age, marriage has lost it's religious value; at least in the US.

"I'm afraid you missed my previous argument regarding disrespecting religions. That is what it harms. It is harming years of tradition and culture. And it is the churches right to stop whoever from getting married because marriage is a religious rite."

There are many other countries that are allowing full homosexual marriages and they call it, "Marriage." Is there any evidence in those countries that it is disrespecting different religions. What if there was a religion that allowed gay marriage. Shouldn't they have their religious rite as well.

I love your comment, "It's the churches right to stop whoever from getting married..." when have you seen an example of a church stopping/nullifying a marriage? Sure, a pastor or a priest can deny performing a wedding to heterosexual/homosexual couples, but that doesn't mean they can stop them from getting married at all. In fact, they their marriage licence and have a wedding in a secular setting.

Civil unions: So you agree civil unions are different but here is where you miss a key phrase in my text. I said this:
"We should give homosexuals the right to a civil union with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple." Note the last 8 words, "with the full benefits as a heterosexual couple." You have done no work on why

Now, as far as civil unions granting homosexual couples full marriage rights as a heterosexual couple, what makes this any different from marriage, except the fact they are calling it a, "Civil union"? Please touch on that. Again, classic example of separate but equal, which as I have already stated, is unconstitutional as proved in Brown versus the board.

Do what is right, vote pro!
petersaysstuff

Con

On separate but equal: This would be true if marriage was not a religious rite. Take the fact that you can have two conflicting churches in the same town, they are separate but they still are equal yet they are not unconstitutional. Also, take religious schools for example. They are separate from regular schools and they can be and often times are exclusionary yet they would be considered separate but equal. Separate but equal applies in situations involving the state.

On his 2: Just because love is important in a marriage does not diminish the fact that it is a religious rite. If it was a rite of passage into adult hood and you had to get married to be an adult then your argument would work but it simply doesn't in this case. Also, I provided evidence that says marriage is a religious rite whereas you just said it isn't. Which is more reliable, actual evidence or your word?

On his 3: What other cultures? You have given no examples. In most of Europe, same sex marriages are actually civil unions and are not marriages at all thus this argument falls. My claim that it is disrespecting the religion has never been refuted.

On his 4: They can not wed them. You admitted it right here: " Sure, a pastor or a priest can deny performing a wedding to heterosexual/homosexual couples. You proceed to say they can get a secular wedding but that simply then isn't a marriage. It is a civil marriage which is defined thusly: "a marriage performed by a government official rather than by a clergyman"[1] Here you have conceded that priests can stop marriages and the people can then get a civil marriage which is separate and not religious. My claim stands.

On civil unions: What is different about civil unions or civil marriages for that matter is that they are not a religious rite. They are purely a state thing. A marriage is a religious rite and thus it is the priest's right to not let X get married. You have done now work on why civil unions are bad and have not disproven the disrespect to religion and thus I urge all readers to vote Con.

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sottaceti 5 years ago
Sottaceti
Evidenccccce suggesssssst that gayssssss are even more adept to raisssssse children than heterosssssexxxxxxual couplesssss.
Posted by twsurber 5 years ago
twsurber
In our society of moral decay and virtually everything else being socially acceptable and completely justified by new age thought and special interest groups......why not!

Without folks getting totally anal or puffed up, they can mount up lickety split. :o)
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Best of luck to you.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
Coolio. I will post my argument later tonight.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Oops! Sorry for the grammar error in my comment.
What it should say is this, "I believe that gays should be given the right to marry."
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I believe is that gays should have the right to marry.
Posted by petersaysstuff 5 years ago
petersaysstuff
What is your stance? yes?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by twsurber 5 years ago
twsurber
kohaipetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Before & After are my personal opinion. Both were courteous and generally free of errors=tie CON presented sources and more logical arguments. CON wins.
Vote Placed by PervRat 5 years ago
PervRat
kohaipetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: It was difficult to find any point on which one side was ahead of the other, but con made a few spelling mistakes and I did not catch a similar amount from Pro, so Pro got my vote for 'spelling and grammar.'
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
kohaipetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Why is Con trying to insist that marriage is only a religious right??? Marriage is also a civil right and doesn't need to be religious to be valid and called a marriage. This is a civil issue, through and through, not religious.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
kohaipetersaysstuffTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted off the Counterplan. It accesses the benefits of the AC but avoids some religious backlash and other disadvantages with using the term "marriage"
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
kohaipetersaysstuffTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro dropped everything about 1/2 through the debate and almost "started over" from a different angle. Con was able to adjust and mention that his points carry though. I was reluctant to give Con the sources vote, but since Pro didn't give any, I gave those points to Con as well.