Solving the Gay Marriage Issue on a way that everyone can agree
Debate Rounds (3)
That which disturbs me, and likely for other heterosexual married couples is that to most, marriage is a sacrament, between and man and a woman, and blessing by God (stay with me). It is and has been recognized as a unique, challenging and rewarding experience to share, live and be intimate with a member of the opposite sex. (staaaay with me ). I want the world to know that when I say that I am "married", that I am a member of one of those unique relationships, I work hard at it, and I reap great rewards from my lovely wife. (alllmost there).
I can't imagine, on so many levels, how one could hold a stable relationship with a member of the same sex. But let me be clear here. What I don't understand I have to respect. I can barely stand my male friends for more than a few hours; I don't know how the ladies do it, and I certainly don't know how men can hold stable and loving relationships with other men. (stay with me). Because of this, if I were in a same sex relationship and wanted it to be recognized, I would want the special bond and challenges that go with that relationship to not be confused with a heterosexual one. That is, the same reason I want the understanding of marriage be recognized as a blessing by God, a connection between man and woman, is the same reason I want gay marriage understood : for some same sex bonds should be recognized by society, understood or bond blessed by God, to others something else, and to each, well.. as is with heterosexual marriages, to each their own.
Anyone today could go down and do the appropriate paper work with the county to have all of the privileges associated with being married bestowed upon any individual (wills, health decisions, etc). But this is a pain, I agree.
So, as simple as it it sounds, let's just change the titles. I am married. I am married to a member of the opposite sex. My relationship is recognizable by individuals and society who are willing to support, appreciate or judge me if they choose to do so.
Let's agree upon another recognizable title, I don't really care and I am not trying to be flippant, but for example : garried (from gay-married). This way, homosexual relationships, which possess an entirely separate an unique set of benefits, blessing and tribulations, can also be recognized, supported, appreciated and yes, judged. This "garriage" would have all of the "rights and benefits" of marriage.
Does this make sense? I love my friends and family, gay or not. We have a more oppressive society to be worrying about right now. Let's get this done.
For starters, I am a Catholic, and I am a liberal. I think that gays should be given the same rights and privileges that are given to whites when it comes to marriage.
My argument is based upon the "Separate but Equal" clause that was shot down in Brown v. the Board of Education, because the Supreme Court ruled that separate was inherently in-equal. It is the same case when it comes to gay marriage. They should be given the same rights under law that are given to strait people, and they should be called the same also.
To me, the term "garriage" is a derogatory term based upon the sexuality of the people involved. Marriage is called marriage, not because of the sexuality of the people involved, but rather because it signifies a loving bond between two human beings. Homosexual people are more than capable than loving each other with the intensity and intimacy of strait people, because that is the way that their brain is wired. Gay people don't wake up one day and decide to be gay. It is a scientific fact. People should not be denied happiness over something that they have absolutely no control over, just because of religion, which has no place in the affairs of the state.
Gays have the same rights as whites. They also have the same rights as married people. Marriage is not a right.
But none of this matters because I was clearer than day on all of this and it seems that you have simply responded with the things I would read on poster boards if I were to go to a pro-gay Marriage rally.
You have already labeled my word "Garried" derogatory, when I was very clear that it was intended as a place holder; is there something wrong with calling a union between a man and a woman different from a union between two men or two women? Somehow by doing that I have been derogatory and have denied people happiness?
Aren't gay people proud of their sexuality? When a gay man says he is married, does he always want to follow it up with "...with a man."? Conversely, when you ask someone you meet and you ask "are you married?", are you prepared to follow it up with "boy or girl?" The very question is necessary to understand the fabric of the person before you, yet requires an extra question about sexuality that I really don't care to ask.
Gays have all of the rights that straights do. The typical arguments I hear about not being able to visit someone in the hospital is just made up; no one has ever been turned away from seeing a loved one at a hospital because they were gay.
Besides assuming that the word I proposed as "derogatory", I see nothing in your argument that refutes anything I say. So, come up with another word and we will close this : "Joined, communed,..."
I will now start my rebuttal.
"You have already labeled my word "Garried" derogatory, when I was very clear that it was intended as a place holder; is there something wrong with calling a union between a man and a woman different from a union between two men or two women?"
I was merely making the point that this an extremely derogatory term when it comes to dealing with the marriage of two homosexual people. That is all. As far as your second point, I do believe that I clearly put forth a statment of fact refuting that fact in my last argument, namely that it violates the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education, when the Supreme Court ruled that separate is inherently unequal, which is exactly what you are proposing against them.
"The very question is necessary to understand the fabric of the person before you, yet requires an extra question about sexuality that I really don't care to ask."
The point that I am making is that it should not matter whether they are gay or strait. Whether that particular person is married to a person of the same, or opposite sex should make absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is a learned habit that makes people think the way that they do about gay people that can change, but the laws have to change first.
A good example of this is the dying out of racism in the United States. Compared to 50 years ago, there are markedly less racists in the United States today. The same can and will be the case should gay marriage be legalized throughout the nation.
"Gays have all of the rights that straights do."
This is an absolute and unequivocal lie. It has been well documented that gays do not have the same rights as straits. On the news the other day, they had a special about how a number of Fortune 500 companies have a "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the company.
In addition to this, there are gay couples who have been in Civil Unions for as much as 20 years, but should one of them die, the other, in most cases, is left with no financial support, even after their grievous loss. Here is a story of a gay couple, which I think you'll find quite disturbing.
In closing, I have addressed all of your arguments and look forward to your response!
patrickdengler forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.