The Instigator
marg2003
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
thedude346
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,019 times Debate No: 14511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (7)

 

marg2003

Con

This Argument has nothing to do with religion,(on my side, you may use it, if you like) as I know that many religions have different ideas about same-sex marriage.
Sorry, but I cannot italicize my words for titles.

Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized because,even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it does not really change the overview opinion of everyone. It will still be seen as a wrongful practice.

In the book "same-sex marriage pro and con a reader," there is an article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by Paula Ettelbrick, Paula clearly states that, "First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men" (Ettelbrick 123). She shows that just because same-sex marriage is legalized, it won't mean that it wont be frowned upon, and the main goal that she wants gays, as she herself is one, is to be accepted.

Being able to legally marry will actually constrict and undermine, rather than strengthen the gay community. "In fact …make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream... the goals of gay liberation" (Ettelbrick 123). This goes against the main goal of the homosexuals, which is to be accepted; and what this really does is silence the gay movement.

Since marriage is a big practice in almost any country, there are bound to some sort of restriction. Many people just marry just to marry. this also includes gays because, "After all, those who marry can be instantaneously transformed from ‘outsiders' to ‘insiders'"(Ettelbrick 123). She claims that people just want same-sex marriage to be legalized so that one can marry, and feel accepted.

Many gays are in favor for same-sex marriage. But not all them. This is because if same-sex marriage is allowed, one would not "consider the relationship among people with the love and respect for one another" (127). The main thing in this quote is that, those who are gay, and are finally allowed to marry, will run to the altar to be accepted. So gays and lesbians, who don't need any type a legal bonding marriage, will put their beliefs aside because of the sexual oppression that the couple will now have to overcome.
thedude346

Pro

I respect your opinion and am grateful you are also being respectful towards the LGBQT community, not bigoted or hateful. I also thank you for using respectful language and clearly stating your point while acknowledging the opposition.

However, I would like to counteract your point by saying, yes, marriage would be helpful to homosexual couples. Couples are essentially recognized as being joined in the eyes of the law through marriage. Spouses may receive consumer, housing, family, death, educational, government and tax benefits. Spouses have benefits like joint adoption and parenting, domestic violence protection orders, and are basically granted all the rights listed under DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act.) That's over 1,400+ rights! In the eyes of the law, this would officialize marriage, and finally allow the same rights of "traditional" marriage to apply to same-sex marriage.

This is my argument, that it would allow homosexuals a boatload more rights, and would not constrict them in any way. True, however, it will not lead to homosexuality being more widely accepted. Only time can do that.

Debate Round No. 1
marg2003

Con

This Argument has nothing to do with religion,(on my side, you may use it, if you like) as I know that many religions have different ideas about same-sex marriage.
Sorry, but I cannot italicize my words for titles.

Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized because,even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it does not really change the overview opinion of everyone. It will still be seen as a wrongful practice.

In the book "same-sex marriage pro and con a reader," there is an article "Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?" by Paula Ettelbrick, Paula clearly states that, "First, marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men" (Ettelbrick 123). She shows that just because same-sex marriage is legalized, it won't mean that it wont be frowned upon, and the main goal that she wants gays, as she herself is one, is to be accepted.

Being able to legally marry will actually constrict and undermine, rather than strengthen the gay community. "In fact �€�make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream... the goals of gay liberation" (Ettelbrick 123). This goes against the main goal of the homosexuals, which is to be accepted; and what this really does is silence the gay movement.

Since marriage is a big practice in almost any country, there are bound to some sort of restriction. Many people just marry just to marry. this also includes gays because, "After all, those who marry can be instantaneously transformed from �€˜outsiders' to �€˜insiders'"(Ettelbrick 123). She claims that people just want same-sex marriage to be legalized so that one can marry, and feel accepted.

Many gays are in favor for same-sex marriage. But not all them. This is because if same-sex marriage is allowed, one would not "consider the relationship among people with the love and respect for one another" (127). The main thing in this quote is that, those who are gay, and are finally allowed to marry, will run to the altar to be accepted. So gays and lesbians, who don't need any type a legal bonding marriage, will put their beliefs aside because of the sexual oppression that the couple will now have to overcome.

how do i post for the next round.
thedude346

Pro

Well, yes, I understand it will not exactly "liberate" homosexuals, nor will it suddenly change people's opinions about homosexuality. As I said, only time and education may do that. However, I do not see how the right to marry would constrain homosexuals in any ways. As I explained, it actually increases their rights, allowing their relationship to be legally recognized. Of course, there are those who argue against marriage itself, believing it to be constraining. Most of your sources seem to be of that philosophy. While I disagree with that particular philosophy, I respect their point of view and will not debate that topic, for the topic of our debate is one entirely different. Although you argue that marriage may constrict them, it will in fact not. Remember, homosexuals won't be forced to get married. And allowing homosexuals to marry would show children that same-sex marriage is normal, and in fact legal. Legalizing a marriage makes it be official, and shows people there is no difference between a same-sex or "traditional" union. Of course, everyone won't immediately embrace homosexuality, as I said, only time can do that. However, it can increase their rights, and help build tolerance.
Debate Round No. 2
marg2003

Con

I know when one gets married with another, benefits are passed on to their partner. However, it does not appear to seem to work that same way when it comes to a same –sex marriage. In the article Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation, Ettelbrick says, "For women… who tend to occupy the low-paying jobs that do not provide health-care benefits at all… will not matter one bit if they are able to marry their women partners" (Ettelbrick 126). She sees that it does not matter if same-sex marriage is legalized or not, because it will still leave women at a disadvantage when getting health or other benefits. This would not only occur in women same-sex marriage, because it also affects same-sex marriage to men. In the article Black Same-Sex Couple Households in the 2000 U.S. Census: Implications in the Debate Over Same-Sex Marriage, it states that according to the 2000 Census data by the anti-same sex marriage, " state and federal constitutional amendments will… affect black same-sex couples… they are already economically disadvantaged compared to black married opposite-sex and white same-sex couples" (Align and Somjen). Ettelbrick, as well as Align and Somjen, show that both genders in same-sex marriage do not benefit as much, or at all, as in a woman and man marriage; but it also shows that with or without legalizing same-sex marriage the couple will be at an economical disadvantage.

The main point that I am trying to point out is that if we are allowed to marry our same-sex we will not really find the value of "love" as easy as we do now. Many do just marry just to get married. I do know that there are studies shown on the reasons on why people get married, and in both homosexual and heterosexual marriages, a lot have said that they get marry so that they can stop feeling the pressure of having to marry.

I my self am gay 100%. I see that allowing people marry, will cause disadvantages. The divorce rates, and the problems that the society will give when two same-sex couples adopt a child. and how bad of influence we would be giving to them. while i was dating my ex boyfriend i remember going universal studious, and being in a ride holding hands, a lady told me, "I have nothing against gays, but you need to stop holding hands; it is wrong and a bad sign to the public." Just because one is okay with gays or allow same-sex marriage, it does not liberate us from the separate but equal idea.

Thank-You for debating with me, and I apologize for not knowing how to post for round 2.

-marg-
thedude346

Pro

I see your point and agree: in some cases, same-sex marriage may offer more disadvantages than benefits. This may have to do with the rights of married people overall, a totally different topic. I agree, in some scenarios, it may not be beneficial for the parties involved to marry their same-sex partner. That is understandable, and no one is forcing them to marry. However, many other homosexuals may want to marry for other reasons, and they should be allowed to. I would suggest a sort of organization to be founded to warn people, homo/hetero-sexual, whether or not marriage might or might not be the best option for them. Of course, no one is forcing you to marry. ALLOWING gay marriage would allow those who want to and can marry to marry, and those who don't wish to don't have to. That is my solution offered, and other concerns are completely valid, but do not belong in this debate. This is the solution I offer: allowing gay marriage cannot hurt anyone, only help. It will be optional, but it WILL be an option.

Once again, thank you for the debate, your good conduct and calm, logical demeanor. Good show, I say. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
True, society isn't ready to accept it. I see where you're coming from with your vote on my debate now. But I'd like to know, when would America have given blacks their rights if blacks hadn't taken such a strong and firm stance on getting their rights? Likely never. Why would any whites consider giving blacks right, when they're perfectly fine with how their society was as is? Sometimes, you have to press the issue. That racial attitude often still exists today, though it is not at all the same as it was years ago. And because it won't be accepted is still no reason to be against it, because there's nothing wrong with it. Some people will never accept it, that's just a fact, but there are those who can see the truth behind it if they're shown it. I always hear the same arguments, and oftentimes the proside argues what I consider additional reasons that it should be legal, but miss the most important.

There's always going to be opposition to gay marriage marg, and no amount of time will change many people's views. The most stubborn of people remain so. Stick with what you believe and fight for it.
Posted by marg2003 5 years ago
marg2003
I am not sayin that it should be illegal forever, but we as a society are not ready to accept same-sex marriage yet. Do not forget I am 100% gay and I know that just because the law is passed. More worded problems are bound to occur. Thank you again for debating with me. <3

-Marg-
Posted by tymel1120 5 years ago
tymel1120
Gay marriage should be legalized, because saying it isn't legal is writing prejudice right into the constitution. Which should make us all wonder, if thats where it starts, and people are ok with it, what's next. Kinda reminds me of Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Posted by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
Good debate, and unfortunate that con was unable to post round two. Pro upheld that it should be a right for homosexuals to marry, but con's arguments were some of the best I have seen for that position. Thanks both of you.
Posted by allretardsshoulddie 5 years ago
allretardsshoulddie
Honestly the sanctity of marriage was ruined when divorce was legalized and when vegas started letting people get married when they were drunk so this doesn't even compare lol
Posted by marg2003 5 years ago
marg2003
oh damn it >.> how come this web page is not to articulate on its rules on how to post for a new post for round two, when you get pulled up to the previous round.
Posted by marg2003 5 years ago
marg2003
How is that illogical, it shows that even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it would not make everyone view the fact that people will still see homosexuals different than heterosexuals.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
SpeakYourMind
"Same-Sex Marriage should not be legalized because,even if same-sex marriage is legalized, it does not really change the overview opinion of everyone. It will still be seen as a wrongful practice."

Really illogical viewpoint in my opinion. Just wanted to point it out.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by marg2003 5 years ago
marg2003
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 
Vote Placed by thedude346 5 years ago
thedude346
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Vote Placed by wiseovvl 5 years ago
wiseovvl
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Cobo 5 years ago
Cobo
marg2003thedude346Tied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Yvette 5 years ago
Yvette
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tymel1120 5 years ago
tymel1120
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 5 years ago
gavin.ogden
marg2003thedude346Tied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03