The Instigator
conbot10
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
paul_tigger
Con (against)
Winning
55 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/9/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,741 times Debate No: 187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (23)

 

conbot10

Pro

No matter what gender you are, you should be able to get married. Religion and state need to remain separate. I'm not satisfied with the status quo because there is no good reason for gay marriage to be illegal.
paul_tigger

Con

Well let's first start at the premise of what marriage is:

According to Wikipedia, "Marriage or wedlock is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual. Created as a contract, or through civil process. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage.

The most common form of marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife.[1][2] Other forms of marriage also exist; for example, polygamy, in which a person takes more than one spouse (marriage partner), is common in many societies.[3] In some jurisdictions marriage has been expanded to include same-sex marriage.[4]

The reasons people marry vary, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love; or to obtain citizenship.[5][6]

A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony,[7] which may be performed by a religious officiator, through a similar government-sanctioned secular officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants. The act of marriage usually creates obligations between the individuals involved, and in many societies, their extended families." http://en.wikipedia.org...

Based upon the premise that it is a religious officiatory or a government sanctioned officiator, all in all it depends on the government or the religious organization to make that final decision on whether to grant marriages which I believe they hand out all too easily. Each religious organization has established their own doctrines to which they adhere to. As such, if that religious group has disavowed bethrothing people of the same sex based upon their religious beliefs, who is one to demand that they change their ways to accomodate two people of the same sex who wish to marry. For example, the rights of the church and of the people to make policies that govern their belief system, as long as they do not advocate violence and anything contrary to the beliefs of the US government, have the rights to establish whether or not they choose to accept membership of two gay couples into their body of believers. As such, for the Christian doctrine which has a policy on homosexuality finds the practice immoral and any person who actively engages in that practice are not operating within the church boundries. Thus if a homosexual couple knowing that they are in violation of the tenements of the belief system which was set before them and they wish to ignore those tenets simply because they feel it does not apply to them is like asking a devil worshipper to continue practicing his belief in a Christian church. Simply speaking the two notions run contary to each other and thus cannot support one another.

As for the government, the Constitution was established that separated state from religion and as such governments will not impede on the rights of the church and vice versa. Since the government views marriage as a religious event and if religious groups choose not to allow the wedlock of two gay couples, the government is in no position to mandate a policy that impedes on church practice. Likewise if the government did pass a law legalizing gay marriages, religious institutions do not have to abide as the rules threaten their rights to practice their faith accordingly.
Debate Round No. 1
conbot10

Pro

conbot10 forfeited this round.
paul_tigger

Con

Hello Conbot:

You must be busy. I await your next reply in order to set up the next round of arguments. I hope to have a friendly debate with you. Good luck and I hope to see your comments soon.

Paul
Debate Round No. 2
conbot10

Pro

conbot10 forfeited this round.
paul_tigger

Con

Hello Conbot10:

This is the last of the round so I had hoped to see your final rebuttal and closing argument. The topic of gay marriage is one that affects our community. It will continue to be a sensitive issue and I do hope the people of the US can find a solution that is favorable to all people whether it is through civil union or through religious acknowledgement. Yet for the time being, I believe we are at the junction where we must agree to disagree.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by maimuna261 8 years ago
maimuna261
I must agree with Paul that the United States court system has no right to force any religious authority to conduct gay marriages. However it also does not have the right to ban any religious authority from conducting gay marriages. That is the perfect separation of church and state. The Church should have no influence on the actions of the state and the state should have no influence on the actions of the church.

I believe that a person's decision to marry someone of the same sex is their own decision and in a free democratic society that prides itself on the basis of freedom from religious persecution and equality one should be able to marry whomever he/she chooses.

As far as their exceptance by a religious authority, lets leave that up to the religious authority to decide.
Posted by shlh1514 8 years ago
shlh1514
i not right, because it can be in the usa
Posted by paul_tigger 8 years ago
paul_tigger
Sorry Rob:

Hell Rob should read hello Rob. I apologize profusely for the error.
Posted by paul_tigger 8 years ago
paul_tigger
Hell Rob:

It's exactly my point, the US government cannot interfere on the rights of religious organizations who choose not to endorse gay marriages. Therefore the separation of church and state is in effect. Now as to the question of the government and whether they choose to allow gay marriages is another point. We need to visit the stance that the US government takes on the subject. Currently I believe it is in debate whether to make the language of marriage to be more specific in that it identifies marriage between a man and woman. The results remain to be seen.

I do believe that the government has left the choice of marriage ultimately to the hands of the individual states to decide. There is certainly a lot of wrangling occuring even between states about how to best go about making the decision. Ultimately, I think most states boil this issue down to dollars. Now conbot declares there is no good reason why gay marriage should be illegal. It all depends on how we define two words: legal and law. According to dictionary.com, legal is defined as something that which pertains to law and law as any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Currently in a recent poll cited on gmax.co.za, a majority of Americans still view marriage as a religious passage between a man and woman. Our governement as a democracy allows its citizens to create the rules to which the people must abide. It is not a perfect system, but it is our system. In time perhaps the rules will change and I hope so too as you see my cousin is gay and I hope him happiness with his partner. But until we do, a good reason for now is to pay respect to a legal and constitutional system that the forefathers fought so hard so that the people may have voice in how we decide the future of this country.
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
Paul Tigger, your discussion ignores civil marriage. Marriage is not exclusively religious; it is also a legally binding, governmentally-regulated insitution. How do you justify denying legal rights to homosexual couples on religious grounds, when you acknowledge the separation of church and state?
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 9 months ago
U.n
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by ginashin 8 years ago
ginashin
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 paulsckwon 8 years ago
paulsckwon
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 JohnnyAppleseed12 8 years ago
JohnnyAppleseed12
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Sludge 8 years ago
Sludge
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Partyboat 8 years ago
Partyboat
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 conbot10 8 years ago
conbot10
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Chob 8 years ago
Chob
conbot10paul_tiggerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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