The Instigator
wierdman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thedude346
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

legalize gay marriages

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
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: 2/7/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,898 times Debate No: 14702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

wierdman

Con

The round i hope will run in an orderly fashion.

The rules shall follow:

Round One: introduction and greeting

Round two: opening statement

Round Three: clash/questioning period

Round Four:clash2/answering period

Round five: closing statement
thedude346

Pro

Okay, hello. I am the thedude346 and am looking forward to a good debate. First, let us make sure this debate is as unobstructed and efficient as possible by laying down some ground rules:

1) In this debate, we will not be arguing whether or not homosexuality is wrong, whether by religious or moral reasons, we will be arguing about whether or not gay marriage should be legalized.

2) We will use these definitions for the debate:

gay - homosexual, attracted to the same sex exclusively

marriage - a legally recognized union between two partners

3) This debate applies EXCLUSIVELY to the United States. Cultural and religious complications in other nations will make it difficult, therefore, this proposed law would only apply to the United States.

4) The proposed law legalizing gay marriage would make it legal nation-wide, and in the form of an amendment, prohibit any state or county from discriminating in marriage based on sex (i.e. you cannot pass a New York law saying "gay marriage is illegal.")

5) What we are aiming for is to debate WHETHER or NOT the legalization of gay marriage will improve American society overall, or at least HELP it more than HARM it.

6) Absolutely no bigotry, hatred, racism, etc. I know this is a touchy issue, but we are simply debating whether or not gay marriage's legalization would improve society. We are not arguing whether it is right or wrong, and I urge voters not to vote based on who you agree with, for that is ultimately a matter of taste, but on who made the best arguments, had the best conduct, etc. Again, no hatred, bigotry, no arguments like "Homosexuality is evil" or "Gays are just wrong." please

Thank you, and I look forward to this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Con

i disagree with my opponent first rule simply becuase you need to prove homosexuality as a wrong doing in an effort to neglect its legalization.Other than that, i completely agree with him.

+++MY CASE+++
i will be arguing that homosexual marriages are indeed immoral as well as a religious upset.

Contention one>><< Religion
Virtually any religion in the United States is against Homosexual marriages, the reason been that homosexual marriages. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. We must also recognize that the passing of this law will be in clear violation of the government boundaries. The government is not allowed to interfere with the church, and by legalizing homosexual marriages, the government will be interfering with the churches believes as well as the society believes. Many might argue that the first amendment offers every individual the freedom to religious believes; however when looking into this topic and its parallel to religion, we find that homosexuality is not a religion but a personal choice.

http://www.prnewswire.com...
Contention Two: Society
Like i mentioned earlier in my speech, homosexuality is a personal choice. Everyone has the right to personal choice; however your personal choice cannot interfere with others believes especially when it comes to religious believes. The fact that gay marriages alter the traditions of one's believes, it should not be allowed. The Government mistake in consideration that they work for the people, and if the majority of the people disagree with their decisions, they cannot pass it thus in turn refuting the resolution to legalize homosexual marriage.
http://www.prnewswire.com...
Altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken the threatened institution of marriage and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages.
www.gaymarriage.procon.org.

Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples and to pay for the social costs resulting from the increase in illegitimacy. We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and care for children. Why should homosexual couples get the same benefits as men and women raising children? Moreover, providing financial incentives for homosexual unions would be doubly counterproductive. First, taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging destructive behavior. Second, we then would pay for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.

Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual "widows" and "widowers."

Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases) which will likely increase if we approve same-sex marriage. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples (there's sure to be some judge somewhere to order that!).

http://www.allaboutlove.org...
thedude346

Pro

Argument 1:

Of course, you choose the side of religion. I would rather not debate this aspect, but I shall have to.

My opponent states "virtually any religion in the US is against Homosexual marriage, the reason been that homosexual marriages." I am not sure what the second part means, but he uses little statistics to back this up. I can name several churches accepting or at least tolerant of homosexuality, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, select Mennonite Churches, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Moravian Church, the Old Catholic Church, Quakers, the Roman Catholic Church and several others. The entire religions of Buddhism and Hinduism arguably condone homosexuality, not to mention several "queer churches" that fully embrace it.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...


In addition, in what way would allowing two people of a certain sexual orientation infringe upon some religion's freedom of religion? That statement is not coherent at all, a simple fallacy. It is not offensive to allow homosexuals to marry. What if I founded a church that found it offensive for heterosexuals to marry? Would marriage laws be offensive then? @"The government is not allowed to interfere with the church," I believe the separation of church and state happened long ago. Religion and politics? That never turns out well. "Homosexuality is not a religion but a personal choice." Yes, but not allowing gay marriage is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which should be prohibited along with discrimination due to gender, race, ethnicity, etc. Almost half the states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in both public and private jobs: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. It is time to extend that to marriage as well. This is clearly a case of discrimination, and it must stop.

Like i mentioned earlier in my speech, homosexuality is a personal choice. Everyone has the right to personal choice; however your personal choice cannot interfere with others believes especially when it comes to religious believes. The fact that gay marriages alter the traditions of one's believes, it should not be allowed. The Government mistake in consideration that they work for the people, and if the majority of the people disagree with their decisions, they cannot pass it thus in turn refuting the resolution to legalize homosexual marriage.

Just because someone has a "religious belief" against something, it doesn't mean that person can't do that. I have religious beliefs against violence, and yet I don't see a law against guns. That's fine, I accept that, and yet still retain my beliefs. It is up to the PEOPLE, to the VOTERS to decide the laws of this nation, not the priests or the churches. Separation of church and state. Moreover, your claims of financial incentives are not logical once more, as I heavily doubt anyone would marry another person of the same gender, against their will, for financial benefits. And if they do, why not? Why can't gays get the same benefits, the same rights as heterosexuals? Just because they cannot sexually reproduce doesn't mean they cannot help society, are rendered incapable of returning every extra tax dollar spent to society.

Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased) in order to pay survivor support benefits to homosexual "widows" and "widowers."

Well yes, doesn't saying to a heart-broken widow "Sorry, no benefits for you, you are gay." seem a little wrong to you?


"Medical insurance premiums will rise to offset the higher health care costs associated with homosexual behavior (i.e., AIDS, colon cancer, hepatitis and other diseases) which will likely increase if we approve same-sex marriage. Medical premiums would rise further if insurance companies are mandated to cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples (there's sure to be some judge somewhere to order that!)."

There is no more risk to being gay than to being heterosexual. A gay man is equally likely to transmit an STD to another gay man as opposed to a woman. And once again, what if we lived in a world where heterosexual marriage was banned, and heterosexuals wanted to marry. We'd say, oh, taxpayers would have to pay for it in the end! And the heteros would say, but why shouldn't we be guaranteed the same rights as gays? We're not that different! Now apply this to this debate. Why shouldn't homosexuals get the same rights? The same debate happened every time we wanted to guarantee a minority the rights they deserved. This is no different.

I am not saying you should start loving homosexuals, and give up your beliefs. No one is. But tolerance is what we need in this society, the ability to recognize that homosexuals are humans as well and deserve the same rights as us. It is not wrong to preach against them and all, (freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc.) but to cast legislation denying them their fundamental human rights is. Denying rights to any group based on sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. always is. African American rights, women's rights, minorities' rights. It was always the same argument.



Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Con

I thank my opponent for his case.

MY CASE:
My opponent made a good argument by stat ting that many churches as well as other religion in the United States fully accept homosexuality; however, this debate has nothing to do with homosexuality but the "MARRIAGE" between the same sex. Not only that but my opponent also stated a handful amount of religions "mainly Christian churches" who accepted homosexual marriage; however, he failed to back this up with a reliable source. Wikipedia is not reliable simply because any fool could alter thus changing the text completely. I on the other hand will state the religions that are against homosexual marriages as well listing the sources in which I got the information.
RELIGIONS:
The three biggest religions Christianity, Islam and Judaism have traditionally been against same sex marriage.
(http://socyberty.com...)

Hindus are prohibited from homosexual acts (maithunam pumsi), such as in Manusmrti 11:174, which mentions both men and women.
(http://www.religionfacts.com...)

Buddhist monks do not perform marriages of any kind, we are in fact forbidden by our rule to do so.
(http://www.arrowriver.ca...)

Sorry but i can't say anymore because i have a lot to do but i will be able to state my point in the other round.
thedude346

Pro

thedude346 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
wierdman

Con

wierdman forfeited this round.
thedude346

Pro

thedude346 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
wierdman

Con

wierdman forfeited this round.
thedude346

Pro

thedude346 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by thedude346 6 years ago
thedude346
Wikipedia CAN be reliable because IT cites ITS sources. I fact-checked each and every one of those by going to the legitimate website wikipedia directs you to. If used knowledgeably, wikipedia CAN be a credible site
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
wierdmanthedude346Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: FAIL DEBATE, as both sides dropped out... (checking the voting period debates, from Least To Most votes. By giving this one, it won't be prioritized in the system anymore.)