The Instigator
HostileBelief
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
GodChoosesLife
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Should the United States Embrace Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
HostileBelief
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 42127
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

HostileBelief

Pro

Hello Everyone and Welcome! You clicked on this Debate because you were interested in the discussion for this debate. A discussion that has swept internationally. The discussion that has offended many but also gained many. One that has engaged you the viewer. Today's debate is "Should the Untied States Embrace Gay Marriage?" I will take the position of being In favor of gay marriage in the untied states whereas my opponent and also friend here on DDO, GodChoosesLife will be against the motion for Gay Marriage in the United States. Here will be the Agenda for the Rounds
Agenda
Round 1: Intro Acceptance
Round 2: State arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal arguments (New Arguments Optional)
Round 4: Rebuttal arguments (No New Arguments)
Round 5: Closing Arguments (No New Arguments)

This will be the agenda for this debate. If you think that this is unclear please pm me and will negotiate for a possibly new debate and where this one will be replaced by a new debate and the old one no longer paid attention to. I look forward to debating with you.
GodChoosesLife

Con

Hello Pro/ Friend, I accept and understand the Rounds Agenda. Look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
HostileBelief

Pro

Before I state my arguments, I would first like to thank GCL for allowing me to have this debate with her. I also want to say before I begin my arguments, I would like to give both my opponent and the audience my background history. Mostly, I want to do this because I feel that it has relevance towards the topic that we are talking about. Of course my name is Alex and yes, us Canadians do live in Igloos. Despite not me being an American, I do feel that I'm heavily watching American Politics. I'm also involved in the Community Worker Program which involves heavily working in communities using social activism and some practices from the social worker program. One of course topics that was brought up by my excellent professors was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rightfully so. The UDHR is one of the most important documents in human history, It focuses on basics that human beings have and are entitled to. The UDHR is a document that brings us together. Unfortunately, a book of desert fairy tale stories based 2000 years ago and written 500 years later is what separates us. (REF)

According to Article 16, The UDHR states the following

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

This is in fact a document that the U.S has signed and the fact that there are states that still ban gay marriage is absolutely insulting. The U.S. has promised these and while it is legal in some states, it is not in all as promised. By being against the article, you are technically being against the UDHR whether you intentionally or unintentionally knew it. I personally find this very odd an unorthodox compared to what was also promised by the founding fathers of the U.S. Founding fathers promised every human being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, The U.S. has made both of these promises and has failed to deliver to everyone.

Of Course, Gay Marriage is not infringing on your personal right on your right to marry whoever. Gay Marriage is consensual between two males or two female individuals who decide that they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. What's wrong with that? How is that different compared to what a man and women couple? How is that choice that a gay couple chooses to live infringing the rights of a straight couple? It isn't. Not even in the slightest.

The Religious usually say that expressing yourself homosexual self is a sin. I would for a moment like to critic the word "Sin". The "Sin" is specifically targeting people who broke God's law. The question that is dependent in order for GCL to win this debate is "Does a god exist?" You you were to take the scientific community's opinion into account, you will find that we cannot make a decision of whether god exists at this time. With that being said, I fail to see the bible as credible.

The only thing that has been in the way of Gay Marriage is this intentional/unintentional hate speech which is nothing more than an appeal to tradition. I would like to argue that while some traditions are good, most have a problem of usually being outdated. Back in the middle ages, we would put gay people to death. As science developed and became more advance, we now have a huge understanding of our world. We now realize that we are not the only animals that engage in sexual activity with the same sex. Appeal towards tradition for the most part is because of emotion and I say that emotion is the appeal to ignorance.

If you are religious, you will have to make a choice. Can keep the traditions that have kept this nation separated in human rights or I propose another alternative. Let us put our differences aside and have human rights for all. Thank you.
GodChoosesLife

Con

Hello Alex and thank you for asking me to have this debate with you.

I was interested in your background history, sounds rather intriguing. Thank you for sharing although I realize you were making a point in what you shared. So thank you for that.

You mentioned the UDHR and how it rules and handles things. I appreciate the info and your forward concerns.

To your questions, I realize that you are referring towards the Bible as a means of criticism, but why only view things one sided? It doesn't even have to pertain to the Bible. We can even go as far as looking at things from a moral point if view. How natural do you believe it to be right for "homosexuals" to be united in marriage? Marriage takes two opposites to provide children. How will same sex marriage provide this? Hate speech is only taken as hate because no one likes to be told their wrong and also because the truth stings the heart.

So I say tradition is ridiculous but doing whats right is better. Tradition is more of a prideful thing and just agreeing just because a person wants acceptance isn't right either. Two wrongs don't make it right.

(Sorry so short and a bit vague, but I didn't wanna forfeit either. Been a bit busy).
Debate Round No. 2
HostileBelief

Pro

I would like to thank your comments and for your compliments in the last round. I would like to let my opponent know that I acknowledge that you are probably stressed with school here and there while trying to get your arguments on the table. I've been there too. Just do the best you can.

In the last round, I had described my reasons as to why there should be Gay Marriage in the United States. I feel as if I didn't provide the proper sourcing so I'm putting my sources below and more after I'm done refuting your arguments here. Also I would like to clear up a mistake I made. It wasn't the constitution in which we are guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but it was in the declaration of independence.

http://www.archives.gov...

Now that I got those out of the Way I can start my rebuttal

First of all, I find it kind of shocking that my opponent would be surprised by me criticizing the bible. I find it kind of disappointing that my opponent would automatically claim my view point is one sided all because I criticize the bible. I would like to give GCL an opportunity as to why I chose to criticize the bible and make it part of my arguments. I made it part of my arguments for the notion because one of the major reasons as to why people oppose gay marriage in the United States is because it doesn't reflect their religious beliefs. So yes, Maybe I could have used the Koran as an example but I chose the bible as an example and I don't regret it. There's 2 reasons for that. 1, the majority of U.S. citizens are Christians so I figured also why not use an example that people can relate to. 2, When you look at the statistics of Christians and people who are opposed to Gay Marriage, you will find that there is a correlation between the two. There are very few arguments against the notion of gay marriage to people who are Atheists or Secular. With that comes to mind, I do not consider myself one-sided. If anything, your viewpoint of people simply criticizing the bible is one-sided. There are plenty of political books (from the left included) that are open to criticism. What makes your book any different?

Second, When you asked how natural do I believe it right for homosexuals to be united in Marriage? I feel pretty natural about that. How natural does it feel to believe in something? I'm just being smart with you but I know what you are trying to get across. This is probably one of the very well known arguments. To respond to this, this argument is a meaningless one. The definition of Marriage predates the definition of what Marriage means to you coming from your religion. (1) If we were to define what marriage is, it wouldn't be between the one man and one woman (Which contradicts with
Genesis 4:19 here which allows polygamy) but rather it is defined by an alliance to one another.

Third, just because two are of the same sex does not necessarily mean that you should ban gay marriage. As I've said in the previous round, I've said that we are not the only species on this planet to have sexual intercourse with the same gender. Many animals take part in this. Monkeys, Giraffes, Dogs, Mallards, Dolphins, Lions, you name it. So what does that tell us? It tells us if someone were homosexual, it would be completely normal. (2) (3). Just because you can't pro-create, doesn't mean that we should let that stop people from getting married. So are you telling me and everyone watching this debate is that you can only get married unless you can pro-create a baby or have to pro-create a baby even if your straight who prefers not to have children. As a side note, I'm also getting the feeling that you also don't think that if these people were to adopt, you would be disgusted by that. I don't know about you but I would very much rather have two kind fathers or even two kind mothers than have one male and one female parent, one of which would be sexually abusive towards me.

Fourthly, I find your tough love argument hypocritical because the same could be said if the roles switched. Let me propose to you a scenario. The fundamentalists Christians have been against gay marriage but let's say that wasn't true for a moment and imagine a world. Imagine a world where gay marriage was accepted by Christianity and was the majority of what most people would do whereas if you wanted a straight marriage, you were forbidden from doing so. You may say "I demand straight marriage!" and I can easily say "Tough Love! become part of us." In other words, it's easy to say that when you haven't stepped in the person's shoes.

Fifthly, in your last 2 arguments you say that the truth stings. I'm also assuming you also have other truths that you claim to know like that God Exists but your religion is not the only one that claims to have this universal truth and how is it that all of these truths are claim that they are the correct one. How is it also that none of these truths that GCL claims to know show up? If it's not religious reasons as you say, than what other reasons other than religious do you speak of?

There are some of my previous argument that I have mentioned that I feel have not been answered and I would like for you to rebuttal those arguments. For example, I would like to see you try and tackle if you can my not infringing your personal right argument. To add to my argument, the gay marriage that I'm asking to legalize is not demanding that churches have to have that option but make civil marriage open to the public so that gay couples can get married at their local city hall. On that note as well, there are surprisingly churches in the catholic church that do allow gay marriage in the states that have Gay Marriage but are forbidden from doing so. Why does your particular denomination of religion have to control what the rest of what others believe and want to do?

References

(1)http://bigthink.com...

(2) http://www.sciencedaily.com...

(3)http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org...
GodChoosesLife

Con

GodChoosesLife forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
HostileBelief

Pro

Due to GCL not being able to respond to my argument in time, I'm willing to let her rebuttal me but in exchange can't rebuttal me in her closing remarks.
GodChoosesLife

Con

Hello and thank you for understanding and being very considerate. :) I really do appreciate it.

Now as of me being surprised it is because you dd not mention in your intro that you would be relating the topic to the bible. But my apologies for being critical and not nearing in mind that you would be using all resources as possible and as I suppose as you mentioned I was being closed minded in thinking you wouldn't. So again, my apologies to you.

I see your points regarding the two reasons and thank for sharing then, however I must say, if you are going to use the scripture please keep them in context. Although I see what your attempting to say, however were talking about homosexuality not polygamy. :/

The point of marriage is to procreate, although some couples don't want to have children. So to your question yes I do believe that. And that's why I stand with one man one woman marriage.

I'm sorry, "tough love"... i understand, but common sense should show that a man is meant for a woman and a woman meant for a man.. Since you've been using the Bible, genesis 23-24,
then the man said, "this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, and they become one flesh.

Ephesians 5:22-23 & 25-27, wives submit to your own HUSBANDS, as to The Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself it's Savior. Husbands love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave hisself up for her, that he mighty sanctify her, having cleansed her by washing of water with the sword, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

So, with that, I cannot visually see how a man can pretend to be something he is not because he was made to lead his bride/wife. And I cannot visually see how a woman would pretend to be something she is not because she is meant to follow what is being lead to her by her groom/husband. A woman was made for man. Not man for man or woman for woman ... If that is the case God should've made two men in the beginning or two women instead... But He didn't, he created ONE man and ONE woman, as it should be...

Seeing that I've given other thoughts or suggestions regarding your 5th question maybe you did not catch it... I was basically pointing to (morals). Because morally speaking, it's not normal... Same gender is exactly that, the same...

And your last question, I'm sorry I don't see how Christianity is "controlling" homosexuality... If anything I believe homosexuality is progressively trying to control straight people just because of the laws that have been passed (just my opinion though).

Thank you for giving me the chance to still post my response I really do appreciate it. :)
Debate Round No. 4
HostileBelief

Pro

For my rebuttal arguments, I would like to make it clear seeing as my opponent has missed the point that I was trying to make. The point that I was trying to make which I put in brackets was the in Genesis 4:19 it claims to allow polygamy which as I was saying that it contradicts with the relationship between one man and one woman if you were paying attention. The point that I'm trying to make here is that if the bible is contradictory towards it's definition, how reliable than is they're definition? We can bounce bible verses all day and we would still be in the same place that we are now. Verses contradicting each other Therefore the religious opinions of GCL should not be taken seriously(which should never have been in the first place).

You are Incorrect GCL. This is not a debate homosexuality but rather a debate about Gay Marriage. There is a difference. If you were actually paying attention towards the whole debate, you would realize that this is not about a gay person just wanting attention but this a person, a human being who just wants to be like everyone else. Whether or gay,lesbian, black, Hispanic, poor, doesn't matter. We are all entitled to these rights and yes GCL, I did use scripture in context, you just didn't choose to think about how the that verse could relate.

Again, the definition of marriage predates your opinion of what marriage means. GCL claims to know that "The Point of Marriage is to procreate". It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters are the facts. For example, I could say in my opinion but that wouldn't be honest with the facts. Therefore, I can't take what my opinion is and claim it to be fact.

When you say "Pretend" in regards to those who are gay/lesbian, I have the feeling now that you like most republicans think that being gay is a choice. This is rhetorical nonsense. If this was true, than we wouldn't have any gay republicans coming out of the closet. (1) I'm going to move on to the points that do matter in this debate but first I'm going to be disturbingly straight up with you by saying the idea of someone thinking that being gay is a choice is not only ignorant but also insulting. I'm fascinated about how stupid this sounds and degrading to those who are just trying to get the things that everybody else wants.

No, I got your point GCL and again, it's not a matter of your moral system because the moral system that your preaching is Christianity. Islam is also a religion that claims that homosexuality is wrong but also claims that theirs is the right belief? Do you see where I'm going with this? Religion has nothing valid to say in the debate. The reason this is the case is because we don't know if a God Exists and me being an Agnostic Atheist, I'm comfortable with saying that. We as a species cannot wait for any invisible big brother figure while we demand human rights now because at least with human rights, it's a materialistic need that everyone needs, not wants, needs. This is what the majority of gay people need in order to be like everyone else.

Let me explain how Christianity is controlling Gay Marriage. The catholic church has a huge influence in the far right wing of politics. This is obvious. By using Christian Ideology, they are forcing the beliefs of others by banning Gay Marriage even on the civil level or even churches that do allow gay marriage in their congregation but decide to ban. How is this in any sense democratic? It isn't. Now how exactly is homosexuality "Controlling" straight people. That's what I want to know. I've already mentioned the fact that getting married is not infringing on your personal right to get married so I won't harp on that. What else is there?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I've said in my first arguments that the bible is what is separating us from loving one another and treating everyone equal. After reading both sides, I'm sure you can agree that that is what I meant and you understand the grasp of the situation.

From what I see in GCL, I genuinely see unintentional hatred for the LGBT community. Her entire arguments have seemed like she was disgusted by saying and I quote "how natural do you believe it to be right for "homosexuals" to be united in marriage? Her arguments in this debate have been too vague to prove an actual point. She tries to take the phrase "Common Sense" and then applies it to her religion when in reality, it makes no sense because homosexuality has been normal throughout the history of the animal kingdom. I know you only listen to gospel music as your profile says but I would really like you to check out the YouTube video that's in the references down below.

That's it for my closing statements, As I've mentioned to GCL that she is not allowed to rebuttal the arguments that I've mentioned in this round but is allowed to use arguments from round 2. Only closing statements, thank you.

References
(1) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

(2)
GodChoosesLife

Con

Hello Hostile and thank you for your final comments and rebuttals.
My apologies to the ff, if any misunderstandings and that I didn't expound much on my part of this debate. I do appreciate the fact that you asked me to debate you. It was definitely educational. Thank you.

In my closing, I will just say that I did not mean to come off as a "hate" speech person because then that would go against my conscience and beliefs. Again, thank you. Good day to you!
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
Anytime. I would also like to play devil's advocate for a moment to suggest that would we have had the same amount of signatures signed by nations if the bills were called the Universal Declaration of LGBT rights? Probably not but defending my point, I feel that it was necessary in order to contain peace and equality to all nations.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Thank you
Posted by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
I know the song I posted for those who know is kind of cliche but you know what? Still good and don't care.
Posted by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
There's also another great video that tackles this very issue which I will post here
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
The scripture should say genesis 2:23-24
Posted by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
Alright because you missed this round unfortunately, I'll let you rebuttle me on the forth round but you can't do that on the last round but I will be able to rebuttle on the last round.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Well, idk either? :/ it's up to you though..
Posted by HostileBelief 3 years ago
HostileBelief
I was close to doing that before in round two but now I don't know what to do considering how round 4 is the last time to rebuttal and I haven't really got an opportunity to respond to your recent arguments.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Man, I had my post done and about to sen it wen it said it wasn't my turn anymore :(
I had everything written out... I'm sorry hostile...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
HostileBeliefGodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments pro stated America was a Christian nation then failed to show why a Christian nation should embrace anti christian principles. I'm counting the bible quotes as good sources because pro calling the united states a Christian nation opened him up to his opponent using those sources and those sources being as a result good sources. Pro's arguments were better, but then he would shoot himself in the foot by lending his opponent credibility for arguments that wouldn't be credible any other way. I'm giving pro conduct points for cons forfeit.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
HostileBeliefGodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had arguments that weren't adequately responded to by con, and pro had sources. Also, con forfeited.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
HostileBeliefGodChoosesLifeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: The reality is that Pro set this debate up to put the onus on Con. Con therefore had to describe why gay marriage is harmful. Unfortunately, Con took a much larger burden, and tried to argue that homosexuality itself was immoral and abnormal. That's not an easy thing to prove outside the Bible, and it was just unnecessary to the argument. The relative lack of argumentation on the part of Con didn't help, nor did the dearth in response to many of Pro's points. Pro had some issues with grammar, but also had the only sources in the debate.
Vote Placed by ChrisF 3 years ago
ChrisF
HostileBeliefGodChoosesLifeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct went to both. Spelling and grammar went to Con, only because Pro had a few small errors. Arguments and sources both went to Pro. By the way, that's a pretty good song you posted in your last round :)