The Instigator
jenna41192
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tucker21492
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Should we legalize gay marriage on federal grounds?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 2 votes the winner is...
tucker21492
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,624 times Debate No: 21551
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

jenna41192

Pro

Gay marriage in the United States has been a struggling debate for many years. Although some states recognize gay marriages as legal, the federal government does not, and still some states only recognize gay couples as "civil unions". Being in a civil union restricts the benefits that a normal married couple would ultimately receive. With that being said, same-sex couples would be denied even simple rights such as medical decision making. In a country that cherishes its freedom and liberty and encourages differences, why are we discriminating against the gay minorities? Love should be the only thing that matters in a marriage, and if it's between two people of the same sex, let it be. This form of marriage isn't hurting anyone so why stop it? I strongly believe that the federal government should legalize gay marriage and stop discriminating these people in this way.
tucker21492

Con

The United States of America, as well as the rest of the world, is in a current state of change. In the past century we have found ourselves in an ongoing battle between moving forward and preserving America. We have seen the creation of new inventions, technologies and ideologies that have brought about different kinds of changes; some for the better and others for the worse. Gay marriage is one of the most controversial of the ideas presented, and for good reason. As a modern, industrialized nation we walk a thin line between progress and preservation and by legalizing gay marriage we would be failing at doing so. The United States is built on a set of principles, and we serve as a model nation to the rest of the world. One of our core principles, and laws, is that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. Though we can not influence what everyone does in their personal lives, we can set forth a set of laws that represent what America stands for. As our world continues to change around us, Americans must know that we are unyielding on certain grounds and that they can be assured stability in a climate as unstable as the one we are in now.
Debate Round No. 1
jenna41192

Pro

You mention that America is in a current state of change. Throughout our nations history, we have embraced many changes that have led us to where we stand today. What is a society without change? Laws in society have not always remained the same. They have been nullified as well as extended based on certain political and societal standards. We have added amendments to the constitution, such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th which address the issues of racism and equality for African Americans. Why can't we do the same for homosexuals? Discrimination will never be omitted in any given society, but the federal government should not be the one discriminating. What people need to understand is that homosexuals are people too. They are the same species as us, human, and all humans should be treated equal. Recent studies have shown that the strongest evidence for homosexuality comes from biological dispositions. No one should be discriminated against based on the sexual orientation they were born with. Homosexuality isn't something new in society. It has been around for ages. Some of the most famous people throughout history were gay, or at least thought to be gay, including: Michelangelo, Walt Whitman, and Elton John. In all fairness, denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a violation of religious freedom, which is what America stands for.
tucker21492

Con

The idea of marriage being between a man and a woman is not solely a law but an American staple. America is a nation of strugglers and fighters and our forefathers and those after them fought to create an America that we live in today. Marriage, by law, is a union between a man and a woman and I believe we owe it to all those before us to preserve the values they instilled on one of the greatest nations in the world. I understand that homosexuals are people too and feel that our country is being influenced by religion and Catholicism, but the reality of our nation is that it WAS built on many Catholic and Christian values. Our Pledge of Allegiance, the hymn that our nation is guided by, preaches of 'one nation, under God'. Though we do not rule our nation with the bible, we do rule it with morality, tradition and a pride in what our forefathers did before us. With divorce rates higher than they have ever been, allowing homosexuals to marry would only contribute to an ever-crumbling institution. Marriage is sacred and unfortunately is taken lightly by homosexuals that see it as something they do not have rather than something that will be in jeopardy if they do have it. If we allow this, this will be a gateway for other forms of marriage and sex to become legal. Things like incest, bestiality and polygamy.
Debate Round No. 2
jenna41192

Pro

I understand the points that you make regarding American principles about marriage. However, I do not agree. Our Pledge of Allegiance may state 'one nation, under God' but it also ends stating 'with liberty and justice for all'. America is not a country of one religion. Roman Catholicism may be the most popular religion thus far, but America has always been religiously tolerant. In saying this, Catholic practices should not govern the way society works. Our government is a democracy, not a theocracy. Therefore, if anything, religion and state should remain two separate entities. Roman Catholics and the Bible describe marriage between a man and a woman. This was solely for the purpose of reproduction. Consequently, two people should not marry for the sake of reproduction. Love is what should wed two people together, regardless of the sex of the people who are being married. Many people fear that gay marriage will hurt the morals associated with "straight" marriage. An argument can be made for this as well. Gay marriage can actually strengthen the ideologies of marriage by providing a positive model and example for others to follow. It is all too common to see marriages ending in divorce, and this hurts the marriage reputation. Thus, stating that allowing gays to have full marriage benefits will weaken the values of traditional marriage is inconclusive. Speaking of divorce, although it is looked down upon by the church (such as gay marriage), it still occurs. The church may not acknowledge the fact that a marriage ended in divorce, but both the federal and state governments do. So why can't the government acknowledge gay marriage outside the church? The church and the Bible are poor excuses to deny same-sex partners the right to marry.
tucker21492

Con

Though I understand what you are you saying and agree that our nation is religiously diverse, than you must also acknowledge that there are countless other religions, that thrive in our very nation, that also denounce homosexuality. Religious groups like the Presbyterians, Muslims, Baptists and the National Association of Evangelicals, all deem the marriage of homosexuals a sin. We are a country of many, and all must be represented, whether they have the most 'liberal' opinion or not. The reality is, is that America is home to many religions, many of which are against gay marriage. All of those against this, no matter their religion, are tax paying citizens of the United States, and passing a gay marriage bill would take money out of their pockets. To ask these individuals to pay for something that not only do they not support, but something that is against their religion, is morally, ethically and financially corrupt.
Debate Round No. 3
jenna41192

Pro

You seem to overestimate the amount of people who actually denounce homosexuality. Passing a gay marriage bill will indeed upset tax paying Americans who are against same-sex marriages, but I'm sure gay citizens don't approve of paying taxes that go to church or other means in a society in which they are discriminated against. America's "morals" may ironically be it's downfall. The morals that marriage must stay between a man and a woman makes gay minorities seem inferior, and a society that allows others to become inferior just causes problems and eventually makes them look bad. The point is, if it doesn't directly affect your personal life, then don't bother worrying about it. Many people don't understand the hardships that gay couples have to face because they have never walked in their shoes, or they don't personally know someone going through what homosexuals have to endure. Most people change their opinions on a subject when they can put a name to a face. People's ignorance should not limit homosexuals from what they should have equal rights of having.
tucker21492

Con

I find it strange that you say do not worry about something that does not concern you. By following that advice, our world would be in a total state of disarray. Gay marriage, though yes does not directly affect me, will affect our nations future. Our nations future is dependent on the children of today. When we allow gay couples to marry, it will be easier for them to reproduce, which is not what our nation needs. Children raised by homosexual couples are not raised in the most ideal type of living situation. It is said that females that grow up without the attention of a father are more likely to experience trauma as a teen and possibly even a young pregnancy. As I said earlier, our nation is dependent on our youth, and the last thing we need is a corrupted youth. These children are also exposed to more than most children are. By being around an alternative lifestyle as a child, these children have a greater chance of either experimenting with people of the same sex, and dating someone of the same sex. It is a domino affect that I feel our nation sadly can't afford to experience.
Debate Round No. 4
jenna41192

Pro

Gay marriage does not lead to an argument that our future youth will be corrupted. Studies have shown that children who grow up with same-sex parents still have the same values and morals as children raised by straight parents. Studies have also shown that since homosexuality seems to be a biological cause, and same-sex couples cannot reproduce, the chance of them "passing on" the preference for the same sex is not possible. Although it seems logical to assume children of same-sex parents would be more likely to be homosexual, no evidence supports such reasoning. Gay marriage will also help provide orphaned children with homes. At the rate at which unwanted pregnancies and adoption are occurring, gay marriage could pose a possible answer. Because gay couples cannot reproduce, more orphaned children will likely be adopted and given a home for care. This would actually be solving one of the social problems occurring in American society today. Overall, gay marriage proves to have many positive benefits that seem to outweigh these so called "negative" ones.
tucker21492

Con

You talk about solving this so called 'social problem' but seem to ignore the fact that allowing gay couples to marry would cause one of its own. For someone so invested in the gay community, you seem to forget that by allowing homosexual couples to get married, we are further dampening a culture that they feel is special. Homosexuals have fought to create their own place in the world and in doing so have fashioned an entire culture. By throwing them in the same category as heterosexual couples, we are stripping them of some of that uniqueness. We are not creating opportunities by allowing them to get married, but actually diluting the chance for homosexual and heterosexual individuals to interact and share their cultures. In a time where conformity seems to have become a priority, I find it funny that homosexuals who have fought to stand out so much would settle for blending in. Homosexuals in America today are not barred from doing most day-to-day things that heterosexuals enjoy. They are still allowed to vote, own property and go wherever they want, however they focus on the one thing they are not allowed to do rather than acknowledge the rest that they can. Marriage, for centuries, has been said to be between a man and a woman. Some call these Civil Unions 'unjust', however I call them a compromise.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Catalyst 4 years ago
Catalyst
This debate seems to have strayed from the initial argument which was "Should we legalize gay marriage on federal grounds". The implication is that the matter should be decided on a federal level rather than a state level. The debate so far has concentrated on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized in general rather than what level of government should have the power to do so.

I will support the CON position - Gay marriage should not be legalized on federal grounds
Utilitarianism-

Although the country is split somewhat equally on this issue, individual states have a more pronounced bias in one direction or another. Allowing each state to decide on the issue itself will allow the greatest percentage of people to live in a place where gay marriage is or is not legalized according to their preference.

Scenario 1:
If 25 states have 80% of the populace PRO gay marriage they then make it legal in those states
The other 25 states have 80% of the populace CON gay marriage they do not allow gay marriage
80% of the overall populace will live in a state that does or does not allow gay marriage according to their opinion.

Scenario 2:
Same number of states and percentage of opinions as scenario 1. The federal government steps in and makes gay marriage legal in all states.
Only 50% of the populace would live in a state that supports their position on gay marriage.
Posted by Bingo100 4 years ago
Bingo100
Homosexuals are people too, and they should have EVERY right that a heterosexual person has.
Posted by logicrules 4 years ago
logicrules
"Federal Grounds" is all federal real property. Any other use of the term is pure nonsense, and since the Fed has no authority delineated in the Constitution over marriage it has no business therein.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
jenna41192tucker21492Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Such a poor debate.
Vote Placed by Islam_Forever 4 years ago
Islam_Forever
jenna41192tucker21492Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01