The Instigator
Auragirl360
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 1 vote the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,539 times Debate No: 55894
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

Auragirl360

Pro

This is my first debate, so please go easy on me. I know it's overdone, but this is a test of my debating skills. I wasn't sure about the amount of rounds, so I just put 5.

First round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
Auragirl360

Pro

My main points:

- Same sex couples should be treated equally.
- Marriage is growing and evolving.
- Pseudo marriages, (such as having marriage rights, but calling it a different name), are unfair.
- Christianity should have nothing to do with marriage.
- Church officials should have the decision to conduct the marriage or not.

I will now ask Con to state their main points.
Fanath

Con

Alright then. In this debate I'll be defending three basic points:

1. It is not marriage.

2. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue; it is a question of whether or not there exists enough interest for the government to subsidize and encourage gay marriage.

3. Gay marriage leads marriage further away from its original pro-creative purpose.


Thanks, I look forward to seeing Pro's arguments.

Debate Round No. 2
Auragirl360

Pro

Same sex couples couples should be allowed to marry, but before they can marry, they need equality. A same sex relationship only differs from an opposite sex relationship in terms of the way they have sex and whether they can have a baby. Sex, however, is not a crucial component in love, neither is a baby, and that's what marriage is all about. If two people love each-other, which is undoubtedly better than hating each-other, they should have the right to be married.

Many Christians and religious officials would argue that marriage is a religious concept and that, based on bible quotes, a man and a woman should only be able to marry. However, marriage, though traditionally Christian, has grown and evolved into more than that and is no longer strictly a religious concept. Also, if marriage remains strictly a religious thing, then wouldn't that mean that only religious people can marry?

Many places across the world have tried to combat the dispute by allowing same sex couples to have marriage rights, but call the marriage a different name, such as a 'civil union', but that still doesn't generate equality. Think of a gay couple explaining their relationship stance. They wouldn't be able to say 'we're married' or 'he's my husband' because, by many people's views, those are religious terms associated with traditional Christian marriage.

I believe that Christianity should have nothing to do with marriage. Obviously, there are religious officials who would rather not perform the ceremonies due to their beliefs and that is absolutely fine, they should have the choice to do so or not. Marriage also doesn't require any religious officials to carry out the ceremony, as there are other people with the power to do so.

To summarise this round, I believe that same sex couples should have equal right and be able to get married, but religious officials with differing views should have the right to refuse to carry out the ceremony.
Fanath

Con

"Many places across the world have tried to combat the dispute by allowing same sex couples to have marriage rights, but call the marriage a different name, such as a 'civil union', but that still doesn't generate equality. Think of a gay couple explaining their relationship stance. They wouldn't be able to say 'we're married' or 'he's my husband' because, by many people's views, those are religious terms associated with traditional Christian marriage"

If the term "marriage" is associated with Christianity, then legalizing Gay Marriage won't necessarily fix this problem because the people who say that base it off of religious reasons, not legal ones. Furthermore, Pro downright lies in saying that people can't say "He's my husband". Anybody can say this, it isn't as if someone will automatically die if they're gay and say "I'm married".

Pro makes up facts to support her argument in this paragraph.

"I believe that Christianity should have nothing to do with marriage"

Here, Pro is again just stating her beliefs. She is suggesting that Christianity can't have anything to do with religion., there are religious officials who would rather not perform the ceremonies due to their beliefs and that is absolutely fine, they should have the choice to do so or not. Marriage also doesn't require any religious officials to carry out the ceremony, as there are other people with the power to do so"

"I believe that same sex couples should have equal right and be able to get married, but religious officials with differing views should have the right to refuse to carry out the ceremony"

It's okay for Pro to believe this, but just because she "believes" it should be legalized doesn't mean it should happen. For example, just because someone believes they should be the dictator of the universe doesn't mean that they should be. Plus, homosexuals have the exact same rights as everybody else. Both can marry someone"

When we look at Pro's arguments, we don't see any solid reasons for it to be legalized. The words she wrote are purely her opinion, made up facts, or are attacking straw men. She clearly hasn't met her burden of proof. I'm going to focus on my case next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Auragirl360

Pro

Of course they can say that, but it would be legally wrong. I'm not saying that they should care if they're saying a wrong thing or not, but I'm saying that it should be a right thing. They should have the right to have equality like everyone else and be able to get married.
That was not a made up fact. The dictionary definition of a husband is 'a married man considered in relation to his wife.' MARRIED. If two men enter a civil union, they are not husbands.

I believe you made a mistake. Saying that 'Christianity should have nothing to do with religion' makes no sense. I stated one opinion in this debate, which is fine to do so, in order that peope have a full understanding of your stance. I then gave a FACT that is that marriage doesn't require a religious official, so if Christians have a problem with gay marriage, it shouldn't matter because non-religious officials can carry out the ceremony.

It's only partly my opinion, here. The fact is that we have, (at least where I live), the right to free speech, so religious officials have the right to refuse the ceremony.
This isn't all my opinion, though you seem to have read it as so.

Maybe both can marry SOMEONE but they can't marry people of the same sex, so that is NOT equality. It's the same as black people sitting at the back of the bus. It's still the bus, same journey, same experience, but they have to sit at the back. That's inequality, just like the Civil Union thing.

I have lots of solid reasons in my argument and my argument was not only made up of opinions. Also, these facts you say are made up are real. If you need me to spell out my reasons:
- Equality.
- Tolerance of other people's sexual views.
- Freedom and having rights.
Fanath

Con

Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Auragirl360

Pro

Con has forfeited this round, and therefore has forfeited the debate.
Fanath

Con

My opponents logic that I FF'd the debate makes no sense. There was no rule set up that said this, and my opponent is clearly making up a rule for an easy win. I forfeited *one round* due to a busy schedule, I'll show why pro's case fails then explain who you should vote for.

Refutations:
"Of course they can say that, but it would be legally wrong"

False, there is no law against this. Pro is making up a fact.

"They should have the right to have equality like everyone else and be able to get married"

As I've already explained, we can all marry someone of the opposite sex. Gay people can do this to, so we all have equal rights. People who are gay can still marry someone. Because everyone (in places that haven't legalized it yet) can't get married to a person of the same gender, and it isn't just limited to homosexuals, they have equal rights.

"That was not a made up fact. The dictionary definition of a husband is 'a married man considered in relation to his wife.' MARRIED. If two men enter a civil union, they are not husbands"

Pro simply makes up more facts here. I'll provide a link to the very trustable Merriam Webster dictionary and show what our definition of marriage actually is:
"the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife

a similar relationship between people of the same sex

a ceremony in which two people are married to each other"[1]

This negates her point here. Also, the made up fact was the point that gay people are unable to say "he's my husband". People are physically capable of doing that. The police won't stop them.

"I believe you made a mistake. Saying that 'Christianity should have nothing to do with religion' makes no sense. I stated one opinion in this debate, which is fine to do so, in order that peope have a full understanding of your stance. I then gave a FACT that is that marriage doesn't require a religious official, so if Christians have a problem with gay marriage, it shouldn't matter because non-religious officials can carry out the ceremony"

I made a typo on this one. I meant to say marriage, not religion. I was pointing out that people can marry for religious reasons if they want to, contrary to your point that "Christianity should have nothing to so with marriage". I never disputed that she said a fact in this debate, so if anything my opponent is attacking straw men here.

"It's only partly my opinion, here. The fact is that we have, (at least where I live), the right to free speech, so religious officials have the right to refuse the ceremony.

Yep.

"Maybe both can marry SOMEONE but they can't marry people of the same sex, so that is NOT equality. It's the same as black people sitting at the back of the bus. It's still the bus, same journey, same experience, but they have to sit at the back. That's inequality, just like the Civil Union thing"

False. It's like saying "You can all sit on the bus, but you can't stick your head out the window because X". If someone wants to stick their head out of the window, it isn't as if they have less rights than someone who would prefer not to. Everyone has the same rights. We can all marry people of the opposite gender, just like blacks can all sit in the same seats as whites. The analogy fails and isn't logical because we technically have equal rights to gays,

Who you should vote for in this debate:

Pro simply hasn't met her burden of proof. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. Pro thus had to prove that gay marriage should be legalized in order to win this debate, which she didn't. I only needed to refute her contentions in order to win, which I clearly have.

Conduct: Pro. (for the ff)

Arguments: Con. (Because her contentions have all been refuted and are illogical)

Sources: Con. (I was the only one who had used sources to verify my facts for this debate. Pro didn't support her arguments with one single spec of evidence)

Spelling/Grammar: Tied. (Both sides made mistakes, but nothing was to major in this debate.

Vote Con, and have a nice day.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
If you don't care, why did you bring it up? You could have just left it.
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
I admit to doing bad things, because that is my belief. As a Buddhist, there is no point in intentionally lying to seem better. What's the point in that?

Could do without the sarcasm.

I CORRECTED that sentence. Take a look at the words AFTER the asterisk. I said, accusing me FOR making a mistake. That means that you were accusing me for a reason based on the mistake. I said the thing about forfeiting, which was a mistake because I was too ambiguous, and you accused me of using that against you.

Once again, could do without the sarcasm. I don't really need your approval, only my own, thanks.

ONCE AGAIN. I posted the thing about my busy schedule in the comments so that it didn't have to have any influence on the vote. I already said that. Besides, how do you know that your schedule's busier than mine? You don't know me.

Sarcasm everywhere. Doesn't suit you.

I already explained why that wasn't a personal attack. You believe what you want, but I'm telling the truth. Once again, I don't need your approval.

Arguing isn't the same as debating. What makes you think that?

Sure, the comment is there. Not denying that.

"OH EM GEE I DIDN'T MEAN TO POST THE COMMENT OH MY GAWD I SOWEE GUYS, I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE ME SLANDER MY OPONENT BECAUSE A HERPADERPDERP HE/SHE FORFEITED DA ROWND SO I MUST WIN AHAHAHA."
No.
That's just pathetic. The comment is obviously there and why would I lie? That makes my case a lot worse. Everyone knows that direct attacks are just pathetic.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
And I honestly do not care either way, I'm not going to argue about the comment.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
"No, it was a misunderstanding. Otherwise, why would I be wasting my time explaining to you when I would know that I was wrong?"

Who admits to doing something bad? If I tell a criminal that I know what he's doing, the first response is undoubtably going to be that he doesn't know what I'm talking about.

"I have a tendency to say ambiguous things, that's just how I am"

Cool?

" I speak and type without thinking, we all make mistakes, stop accusing me of making a mistake"

I'm not accusing you of making a mistake, I'm arguing that the comment was fully intentional. Also, you contradict yourself in the sentence by admitting that everyone makes mistakes then acting like you hadn't made a mistake and that I should stop. Nicely done.

"I had my A level exam period and homework on at the time of this debate, but I still managed to finish it"

I'm so proud of you?

" without resulting to forfeiting as a result of my business"

Again, nothing to do with the actual debate. I have a busier schedule than you do obviously, so this isn't the same thing at all. Stop trying to fabricate logic lol.

"You want to see my exam timetable as proof"

Nope.

"This has nothing to do with you"

Cool.

"it was to do with me actually finishing something before I got too stressed about not being able to finish it"

Cool.

"Besides, I wouldn't result to a personal attack like that"

Lol you already did.

" I am a peace promoting Buddhist and I don't like to get into arguments"

Right, so you start a debate so that you can argue lol.

" so I refrain from slandering my opposition"

Cool.

"I would never use the fact that you forfeited a round as a reason to win because that's cheating and dishonourable"

You can't pretend the comment isn't there, it's clearly you trying to get votes because of the FF. Sorry.
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
*for making a mistake.
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
No, it was a misunderstanding. Otherwise, why would I be wasting my time explaining to you when I would know that I was wrong? I have a tendency to say ambiguous things, that's just how I am. I speak and type without thinking, we all make mistakes, stop accusing me of making a mistake. I had my A level exam period and homework on at the time of this debate, but I still managed to finish it without resulting to forfeiting as a result of my business. You want to see my exam timetable as proof? This has nothing to do with you, it was to do with me actually finishing something before I got too stressed about not being able to finish it.

Besides, I wouldn't result to a personal attack like that. I am a peace promoting Buddhist and I don't like to get into arguments, so I refrain from slandering my opposition. I admit, you had me stumped a few times with your answers and you debated very well. I understand that time can be busy and I would never use the fact that you forfeited a round as a reason to win because that's cheating and dishonourable.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Lol, it isn't a misunderstanding at all. Stop trying to switch it into that. When you say "As i didn't FF", that's your reason for your claim. It was your reason to vote for you. as =/= and. Stop lying...
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
I said it may SEEM that way. I don't care if you forfeited and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying that I didn't. Besides, I'm a strong believer of quantity over quality. The forfeiting thing wasn't referring to you, it was referring to the fact that I completed my first ever debate fully. I'm proud of that and I don't see it as a problem. You've just misunderstood my words and I admit that I can be ambiguous. I apologise. Don't accuse me of lying if you misunderstood me. Again, these comments don't matter and I already stated that I don't want them to influence anything.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
"I'm not using the fact that you forfeited as a reason, really,"

Again, stop lying...
"Vote for me, as I completed every round and didn't forfeit"
Posted by Auragirl360 2 years ago
Auragirl360
I'm not using the fact that you forfeited as a reason, really, although it seems that way. Even if you completed every round, I would still be proud of completing all of the rounds in the short time I had. And I wasn't using noob as an excuse, I just wanted people to know that so that they wouldn't comment too harshly, that's why I didn't put the noob thing in the debate, but outside of it, so it's not a deciding factor, much like how the comments aren't a deciding factor. The comments completing my case are there because I don't really have a choice. I have to finish what I started.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Auragirl360FanathTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct pro: FF. Arguments: All of pro's points--pertaining to equality--were refuted by con. Why? His position rests upon the argument that SSM isn't truly marriage. If this is the case, there can be no homosexual appeal to equality of marriage because they cannot apply for marriage--unless with a woman. They dont have a claim to something which definition does not apply to their sect. Plus CON's point of BOP is valid. PRO has the BOP and did not make a significant argument in order to prove that we should change the status quo.