same sex marriage should be legalised in the countries where it is not
Debate Rounds (3)
That is the end of my first argument
we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature.
we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage.
also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.
this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child.
Others might ask why gay marriage should be legalized, but my question is this: why should other people be able to choose who marries who? If a man and a woman get married, no one seems to care. They are two people who feel affection for one another and those two people want to start a family. If we change the scenario a little bit and a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, try to get married it causes uproar. They are not allowed to be married or raise a family together.
Imagine waking up one day to a world that was completely opposite from the world we went to sleep in, meaning gay people are now straight and all straight people are now gay. Do you think the newly straight people would fight for the newly homosexual people"s rights? America is the land of the free, but we are not free to marry whomever we would like. After everything straight people have put homosexual people through, in this scenario, homosexual people would most likely vote for their rights because they would want their rights to be voted for. We are equals in this world whether we are Black, White, Hispanic, Indian, or any other race for that matter. Why should we not be equals based on sexual orientation?
The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person"s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God.
In a marriage there is one thing that truly matters: love. Yes, other things are important too, but not one couple would make it to even asking someone to marry them if there was not some love. Las Vegas, Nevada is also known for being the place where many weddings occur which are annulled within one week. These marriages are not based off love, but simply a drunken night in Vegas. High divorce rates weaken what a marriage is defined as. Why are we not able to rewrite what a marriage stands for and make it include a homosexual marriage? The definition of love, according to dictionary.com is as follows: "Very strong affection: an intense feeling of tender affection and compassion." If gay people feel this way then why shouldn"t they be able to be married? If they are happy with each other, said persons should be able to marry.
California, Hawaii, New York, and the District of Columbia all have domestic partnership laws and civil partnerships meaning it is almost a marriage without the matrimony. Civil partnerships also give couples the ability to have joint bank accounts, live in the same house, and pay bills together. Homosexual couples are not entitled to this in most states.
Marriage benefits should be available to all couples, no matter what. In places where gay marriages are banned, the gay couples are not able to have the same benefits as others. When filing for health care or insurance through a job, gay couples are not able to add each other on. Most loved ones, such as a spouse or a child, in a straight marriage, can make life altering decisions in a hospital if need be. Since gay marriage is not legal, said person"s spouse is not recognized as their next of kin and care is delayed.
Who would be affected if homosexual marriage was legalized? No one. Everyone believes there is one person who is out there to love us. Gay people feel the same way. Parenthood is a benefit of marriage and gay couples cannot have children by themselves, without some type of help, so they look to adoption agencies. In some cases gay couples are put on longer waiting lists or denied completely. There are other benefits to being married as well, such as tax breaks. On the website professorshouse.com it reads, "When we hit our mid-thirties, we wanted only true friendships- friendships that were durable." This is a perfect example of matrimony and what it should be based on. . According to dictionary.com a marriage is, "The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities." If this is a marriage why are gay people not included in this?
Even though gay marriage should be legalized, some people have different beliefs. In most religions including, Christianity, Islam, and Orthodox Judaism same sex preferences are a sin. People believe in procreation to repopulate the world, but are against gay marriage and homosexuals adopting children because they cannot procreate on their own. If this is a stand point on making or breaking gay marriage then only people who are fertile and want to procreate should be able to get married according to this bias. America has never really given gay marriage a chance, but they believe gay marriage will weaken its institution by leading to high divorce rates. On loveandpride.com I read, "One reason legislatures are denying gay marriage is because they are fearful that opening the door to allowing gay marriages will open the door to polygamy as well. This would also mean reopening cases about polygamy in the past which they are not willing to do." Others are fearful for children"s futures and they fear being raised by two fathers or by two mothers may compromise children"s mental capacities.
Even though to most people gay marriage should be illegal and should stay in its current state, I believe we need to change the world for future generations. We feared that different religions were going to clash, but now all of the religions coexist. White people had Black and Hispanic slaves, but we overcame the odds and now White men, Black men, and Hispanic men can be equals. If it is possible to overcome such fierce obstacles then we can overcome the boundary obstructing gay marriages and straight marriages alike. Gay marriage should be legalized for these reasons. Evolution will always continue and at any given point in time, something will occur that we will not like in this world, but we can overcome this. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it.
that is the end of my second last argument
dairygirl4u2c forfeited this round.
hyperthermicreaper forfeited this round.
"why should other people be able to choose who marries who?"
because we all have a stake in how our units of society are structure. they should be prone to kids and hetero familes. with noting all the stuff I said about infertile couple above.
church and state mainly means there can be no state or otherwise government religion. and it doesn't preclude structuring laws according to morality. that it has been hetero marriage for so long is proof enough of that. that every state in the union had anti sodomy laws shows that there's something to enforcing morality. I personally wouldn't go that far, banning sodomy, just gay marriage. but the proof is that the authorotity to do this stuff is there.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a valid and interesting, well sourced case based on both logical and ethical considerations. Con's 'case' as put forward seemed illogical and based on prejudice.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.