The Instigator
a.truck
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jayvon
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

gay marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 158 times Debate No: 88789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

a.truck

Pro

I believe that gay marriage is a human right, it shouldn't be banned or criminalized. for scientists say that it is not a choice but happens to a person between the first 2-6 weeks of his/her life. so it is IMPOSSIBLE to change a person sexual preference. if they are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or any other sexuality or gender.
jayvon

Con

Well we have to first decide what the definition of marriage is. Since we are discussing the legal aspects of marriage then we should look at the legal definitions. Currently, in the United States, it is unlawful for a state to deny marriage licenses to any couple, regardless of gender, after the decision of Obergefell v. Hodges. So from a strictly legal standpoint, focusing on specifically the United States, it cannot be banned or criminalized. So in the applied aspects of society, the decision has been made according to legal protocol.

Now the real question becomes if a state should be required to legalize same-gendered marriage as well as opposite-gendered marriage. The answer on that comes down to two major foundations of a state: whether or not that state is guided by a specific religious philosophy and whether or not that state ascribes to guaranteeing equal freedom under the law.

If a state is founded on religious principals or does not guarantee equal protection to all of its citizens, then that state has every right to criminalize same-gendered marriage, though it may not be moral. One who lives in such a nation should either change the people's interpretation of that religion, or work to free the state from the religion which persecutes them.

But to the first point, the United States's First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall pass no law restricting a person from the practice of their religion as long as those practices do not conflict with common moral decency. This separation of state from church requires just what it said. The question then becomes whether or not same-gendered marriages hurt society. It has been a long standing belief of biblical literalists that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if it is not, as in a same-gendered marriage, it would cause any set of consequences ranging from increased lust-like desires to the wrath of God against that state which allows the "abomination." Therefore, to these people who believe that homosexuality brought down Sodom and Gomorrah, they have a legitimate standing to say that same-gendered marriage should not be allowed as it would harm society; to them it is like legalizing spousal abuse because the Qur'an, or an interpretation of it, allows for such a thing.

In a democracy there is such thing as the tyranny of the majority, which forces the minority to follow the beliefs which are popular and electable of the time. If the majority of an electorate votes against same-gendered marriage, that becomes the law.

The questions I pose to you are
---How would those persecuted by such a law hope to stop it?
---Are Christians who genuinely believe such a decision will bring the wrath of God persecuted by the majority if such a law is passed through popular vote?

I look forward to an excellent debate! :)

Sources:

Conservative Interpretation of Biblical Marriage:
http://www.frc.org...

Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States from Obergefell v. Hodges:
http://www.supremecourt.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
a.truck

Pro

a.truck forfeited this round.
jayvon

Con

jayvon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
a.truck

Pro

a.truck forfeited this round.
jayvon

Con

jayvon forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.