The Instigator
I_punt_TROLLS
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Should people of the same sex be allowed to get married.

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...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 36589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

I_punt_TROLLS

Pro

This is a debate covering the topic of gays and lesbians being allowed to get married, Why its even a question is sick, they should be allowed to get married, they are people capable of love just like straight people.
InVinoVeritas

Con

Eh, I'll accept for kickz.
Debate Round No. 1
I_punt_TROLLS

Pro

The thought of two people that's not allowed to get married just because they are the same sex sickens me. Just because some people are religious or some people think it's disgusting doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.
InVinoVeritas

Con

In the US, you can't receive government-provided disability funding if you don't have a disability. That isn't discrimination against the non-disabled; rather, it just happens to be a privilege for those who meet the criteria. Could we provide money to non-disabled people, as well--or could we expand the definition of "disabled" to include more people? Sure. But we don't, because we consider the privilege of receiving this kind of government funding to be exclusive. In the same way, marriage is an exclusive legal bond between a man and a woman--and we can keep expanding the definition until it becomes meaningless and EVERYONE gets the benefits of marriage, but that becomes extremely counter-intuitive.

Apparently, the opponent is interested in changing the definition of marriage. Please humor me by answering this: Are you okay with the legalization of polygamous marriage? Are you okay with marriage to animals? Are you okay with marriage to inanimate objects, like chairs? Are you okay with marriage to hockey teams?

You may say, "Of course a person shouldn't be able to marry a dog! A dog can't consent, and it's a non-human!" But when you say this, you are using the same logic as someone who says, "Of course you shouldn't be able to marry! You're of the same gender!" If you answer "no" to any of the above questions, explain why YOUR change in definition is superior to the polygamist or the guy who wants to marry his dog or chair!

And if you say "yes" to all of these questions, then you are okay with the constant redefinition of marriage until it becomes all-inclusive. This is the slippery slope to utter meaningless. Surely, an all-inclusive marriage system would enable anyone to receive marriage-related benefits and abolish the institution of marriage as we know it.

---

Opponent: The thought of two people that's [sic] not allowed to get married just because they are the same sex sickens me.

We cannot judge policy based on whether or not it "sickens" my opponent.

Opponent: Just because some people are religious or some people think it's disgusting doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to get married.

It is ironic that the opponent mentions "disgust" as an irrational reason to oppose gay marriage, because he uses it as a justification for his support of gay marriage. Anyway, plenty of people oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and simple disgust.

---

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
I_punt_TROLLS

Pro

What you're saying is a argument that people use when they cant think of good one.

A man marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a dog.
The man that wants to marry a dog is SICK. Its a disease. The dog cant say yes or no, Its not capable. Two men however are.
And when it comes to polygamists I just see a problem with a man marrying multiple women. I think most people do.

Stating that marrying a dog, and a man marrying another man, is the same, is insane. The dog is an animal and the men are humans.
Putting the two side-by-side as the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because.

It would not be changing the definition of marriage, it would be changing the definition of freedom. And even tho I live in Norway I look at the u.s. a a nation of freedom.

But comparing dogs and gay people is not a argument, its making yourself look stupid
InVinoVeritas

Con

Now, I will mirror my opponent's superficial points--and push them against his own stance. I hope you are entertained.

---

Opponent: A man marrying a man is not the same as a man marrying a dog.
Mirror: A man marrying a woman is not the same as a man marrying a man.

Opponent: The man that wants to marry a dog is SICK. Its a disease. The dog cant say yes or no, Its not capable. Two men however are.
Mirror: The man who wants to marry another man is SICK. It's a disease. A man can't be vaginally penetrated. A woman can, however, when with a man.

Opponent: Stating that marrying a dog, and a man marrying another man, is the same, is insane. The dog is an animal and the men are humans. Putting the two side-by-side as the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because.
Mirror: Stating that a man marrying a man is the same as man marrying a woman--is insane! The man is of one gender, and the woman is of another! Putting the two side-by-side is the same thing is like saying that a woman and a football is the same just because.

(And as an aside, I will note that the opponent states (almost poetically): It would not be changing the definition of marriage, it would be changing the definition of freedom.
Oh, then how come he is so interested in restricting men's freedom to marry dogs?

---

I have clearly depicted the contradiction between my opponent's support of gay marriage and his opposition of man-to-dog marriage. His shallow arguments can be just as easily used to counter gay marriage. Clearly, the points he has made are hypocritical.

Again, gay marriage is a slippery slope that leads to the destruction of the institution of marriage. By allowing gay marriage, we are enabling society to redefine marriage into oblivion... into meaninglessness.

---

Based on the arguments posed, I think this is a clear vote for Con. Please refrain from using your own personal opinions when judging this debate, because it's unfair to the debaters.

Thank you.


Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Funwiththoughts, here is my advice for you: 1) Read the debate that you commented on. 2) Take an elementary logic class.

Thanks!
Posted by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
Definition of marriage from dictionary.com:

"1.
a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.
2.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage .
3.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
4.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
5.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage."

None of these require heterosexuality. Some of them do however forbid bestiality, since a dog can't pledge itself, has no religion, etc. So Con's argument is ultimately groundless.
Posted by HorseGirl64 3 years ago
HorseGirl64
What con is saying is very clever using the mirror trick... But if you look at it more closely you will see he just turned it around. People should be able to marry whoever they want on the other hand marrying an animal is just sick. The person wanting to marry a non human being is mental so really con has no proof. I am going to go to the same old line that so many people used but now absorb it if a human being is in love with another one what right do you have to say no to it. To say its sick. Exactly you have no right because you aren't that person.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
I_punt_TROLLSInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO barely put up a fight. CON swept this and I believe this debate will go to him. I do agree about gay marriage being legal, but if you're going to debate it, use sources and actually put up a legit debate. I grant this argument to CON.
Vote Placed by DudeWithoutTheE 3 years ago
DudeWithoutTheE
I_punt_TROLLSInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct's a tie. Sources weren't used. CON had actual arguments.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
jzonda415
I_punt_TROLLSInVinoVeritasTied
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 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: Pro could not seem to refute the point that the reasons used for allowing SSM could be easily used for allowing a man to marry a dog. This, as Con stated, would make the institution meaningless (A point that Pro never even touched). Pro's fallacious reasoning and Con's very logical arguments make this a clear win for Con with arguments. Conduct to Con for Pro calling Con "stupid". Sources are a tie, but spelling to Con for Pro's many mistakes (No knowledge of when to use "an", "it's", "though").