The Instigator
Kahvan
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Sky_ace25
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

gays should be allowed to marry

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Sky_ace25
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,269 times Debate No: 10608
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

Kahvan

Con

I'm probably gonna be crucified for taking this position but oh well. People of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. Here is one reason and that is the definition of marriage. This plainly says husband and wife. Husbands are male and wives are female.

1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Sky_ace25

Pro

I am looking forward to a good debate, so good luck.

My opponent's entire case revolves around some mysterious definition that he appears to have plucked out of mid-air, to offer a counter definition I offer from the Princeton word-net dictionary:

Marriage:
the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

Thus we see that all definitions of marriage point to a a union between two individuals or a couple. It is never actually stated that they must be a male or female. Further more who are we as human beings to say what one can and can not love. Who are we as humans to say one is wrong in their beliefs and therefore I will take away your rights.

Gay marriage is to be allowed simply because two individuals should not be forbidden the right that is offered to other people who are in a committed relationship.

Personally, when we have about a 50% divorce rate I really think it might be a good thing to try something that might be new. I mean hey, we might actually get people who want to stay married =].

Further more marriage offers benefits to couples that before would not be entitled to such extras and privileges.
If we deny these benefits we are being selective and oppressive.

Thus as of right now, not only does my opponent lack an argument because his definition has been nullified, however he must also refute all of my arguments to win this debate.

In the big picture one must ask this simple question, should we take the first step? Deny gay marriage?

If you answer yes, I ask you what is the next step, Censorship? Lynch mob anyone who is gay? or should we just deport them? We must stop the slippery slope at the beginning and for all these reasons I urge a strong affirmation on the idea that gays should be allowed the right to marry.
Debate Round No. 1
Kahvan

Con

Firstly I would quote something my opponent has said "If you answer yes, I ask you what is the next step, Censorship? Lynch mob anyone who is gay? or should we just deport them? We must stop the slippery slope at the beginning and for all these reasons I urge a strong affirmation on the idea that gays should be allowed the right to marry."

I would like to say right now that I do not hold any negative feelings towards someone who is gay. I simply do not think they should marry.

"Further more who are we as human beings to say what one can and can not love. Who are we as humans to say one is wrong in their beliefs and therefore I will take away your rights."

To this I say that I love my family. And guess what? I have brothers and a father. I would even say that I love many people who are both male and female. I've even loved the pets I've had.(including my non living pet rock I had!) So I'm not deciding what it is for you to love.

Now let me make some more points. For as long as I can remember a marriage makes two people husband and wife. This has been this way for literally ages. Humans made marriage To be between a male and a female. By participating in marriage a male becomes a husband and a female becomes a wife.

So marriage has always been between a male and a female. Having said this I do believe in improvement and change. But lets also look at something else. Males and females are DIFFERENT! we have physical differences between us and marriage was created to officially pair the two together. Marriage IS the joining of a Male and FEMALE.

In my opinion gays who pair off should be given the same legal rights as that of those married.(inversely those who are not married and of different sex should also be able to get these) But it IS NOT marriage.

On another note humans developed marriage AND THEN gave special privileges to those who were married. In my opinion gays that pair off should be given the same rights and privileges but should not be married. That is the distinct difference I am implying. Give them the rights but don't marry them.
Sky_ace25

Pro

First my opponent doesn't respond to my definition of a marriage and therefore it can be assumed he accepts it.

As of right now the definition of a marriage for this round is:

Marriage:
the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

Again remember that it is never specified that the marriage must be between a man and a female and thus his argument definition wise can be ignored.

He continues on to say that marriage is between a man and a woman for as long as he remembers, well sir I don't know how old you are but I doubt you are old enough for you to have an accurate account on the creation of marriages and their intended purposes. Hence forth because we are both biased toward our sides we need a definition of a marriage that can be applicable in this scenario. Again remember my opponent has not responded or refuted my definition and thus BY DEFINITION a marriage is a partnership between a couple and does not specify the requirement of a male or female.

Further more my opponent agrees that gays have the right to love. However, when it comes to the ultimate expression of love, a marriage, my opponent refuses to give this to gays. Thus my opponent contradicts himself because even though he says "I'm not deciding what it is for you to love" he doesn't allow a marriage which by definition is a "close and intimate union".

I do not deny males and females are different, however my opponent is not thousands of years old and thus he/she can not make the broad statement that marriage was designed for only males and females. Again remember my definition you see that any combination can apply.

Finally, my opponent agrees that gays deserve the rights that are entitled by marriage. However, the whole point is that they are denied these rights because they can not marry. Thus my opponent must either deny rights to gays which is un-ethical as stated in the first round, or he must allow the marriage of gays to ensure they get their rights which is the moral and just thing to do.

To sum up my case, by definition a marriage is between any combination of males and female. My opponent doesn't refute this. Further more gays have the right to express their love and joy, which my opponent agrees too,. So their is no reason why they should not be allowed a marriage which is an ultimate expression of love. To finalize, gays also deserve their rights in a marriage and the benefits that come hence forth.

Although, some people may still disagree with the idea that gays should be married; their is no moral or realistic warrant for such a reason other than personal bias. My opponent only presents personal bias based on his own history, and he is entitled to his opinion. However, he has no right to trample on the rights of other people who wish to express their love and new found happiness by utilizing a marriage. Thus a vote for the Affirmation of this resolution is strongly urged and justified.
Debate Round No. 2
Kahvan

Con

Kahvan forfeited this round.
Sky_ace25

Pro

My opponent concedes all my points, he has no case, thus I have affirmed the resolution.

For further review of my arguments just look at the rounds previous.

A strong vote for the Pro is advised and justified.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
Ahh...kk that explains a bit....
Posted by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
I am sorry that I did not respond. Some unforeseen events occurred in my life that required my attention. Having said this I happily surrender the debate over to you since I did not respond. Although my personal opinion remains unchanged.
Posted by studentathletechristian8 6 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Well, the debate is about gay marriage. Obviously, the "definition" of marriage is going to be debated. Therefore, it really is not an argument unless you do something with it, which you failed to accomplish.
Posted by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
and what question would that be? :)
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
CON's first round is begging the question.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by spear49 6 years ago
spear49
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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 Vaibanez 6 years ago
Vaibanez
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Mangani 6 years ago
Mangani
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Sky_ace25 6 years ago
Sky_ace25
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
KahvanSky_ace25Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05