The Instigator
adray8181
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

should same sex marriage be legalized

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Marauder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 635 times Debate No: 33659
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

adray8181

Pro

I think same sex marriage should be legalized bc we should have the same rights as any other couple as long as people are happy who are people to judge the way we should live or raise our children your sexuality dosent change who u are as a person so therefore equal rights should be in place for people who want to marry the same sex
Marauder

Con

Before responding to any of my counter arguments I am about to list below; I request my opponent gives me his opinion and stance on the issue of whether polygamy (more than two people married to each other) should be legal. If my opponent refuses this simple request I ask it be considered poor conduct and the voters take that into consideration when they vote. I promise your answer may have relevant bearing on this debate if your's is the same as most people who want to promote same sex marriage.


Now for my Rebuttal....

We should have the same rights:
We do have the same rights. I cannot have the state recognize me in homosexual union any more than you can. And you are not denied the right to have the state recognize your enterance into a heterosexual marriage any more than I am allowed to have it recognize one I enter into. The fact that you personally choose not to enter into what is allowed to both of us equally does not logically mean your being denied a right to something I'm allowed. That you do not want to marry someone of the opposite gender while I would is your personal choice as well it would be mine if I got married. It would be denying you the rights I have if you went to go get married and they asked you if you either of you were a homosexual and one of you said yes and they said 'well you cant get married then because you would never end up having sex while once your married.'

wouldnt it be so absurd if they told you that went you went to the court house. And thankfully they don't. freedom prevails here.

As long as people are happy who are people to judge how I live?:
If this statement was actually true you could basically get away with anything in terms of moral and legal room for any 3rd party to step in and stop you from doing whatever you want to do. "as long as I'm happy smoking crystal meth, who are you to judge and take it away from me?" "As long as I'm happy selling crystal Meth, who are you to...." "As long as I'm happy when I 'use' my purchased sex slaves, who are you to judge..." "As long as I'm happy when I'm shop-lifting..." "...when I vandalize public property...' and so on and so on.

My point of course is not that same sex marriage is the same or as bad as any of those things. Its that a persons happyness is not suffecient to make things okay in a moral, or legal since. In fact, if people could do whatever they wanted just because they wanted to do it, it makes them happy after all, then there would be no basis for having any laws at all since the whole point of a law is to restrict you from doing something you would otherwise do, or compel you to do what you otherwise would not be expected to do.

Your Sexuality does not change who you are as a person:
Could you define and explain what you mean when you say "As a Person" because I suspect even you dont know what you mean when you say that, it just sounds good out loud. Use the phrase 'as a person' with the same meaning but in a different context if you could to help explain what you trying to say. Just what is a 'Person' and just what is not 'being changed' about them?

Some further arguments of my own:

Building on the 'who's to judge' thought:
If we dont care about the judgements of others then why do we push for state recognized marriage. Just have sex and live together. you cant be stopped, and even if you could thats a seperate issue from the marriage one. The whole demand for state recognition is built on the premise that the accaptance (judgment) of socioty is important. If you want judgment of the state to recognize your union, then you should only want the state to give it too you when socioty completly approves and endorses your union and not a moment before. and no where near enough of the population does for one to fairly be able to say 'socioty approves' so it makes no sense to legalize it as though it does.

Taxs:
You will probably bring up tax's to respond to my above argument. that its not just about a legal symble for social approval of your homosexual union, Its about a homosexual couple getting the same tax treatment as those married heterosexual ones right? Tax laws targeting married couples though are for trying to encurage certain social behaviors in socioty. the goverment wants kids to get married and produce and raise children within the institution of marriage over them remaining single all there life, or having children without the commitment of a marriage.
This means that the same argument as above in princapal applies to a desire for equal treatment in tax's. Socioty treats marriage in a different way from single status because we want to encurage something. So long as we do not as a whole want to encurage your behavior it makes no sense to allow you the married status that gives you those tax breaks. Actually even there was social accaptace of a homosexual union to the point it legalized same-sex marriage, it still would make sense to treat that marriage without the tax benifits of the heterosexual ones because your union does not create the same benifits to socioty in the form of the children one produces union produces and the other does not.

I think thats all will cover this round. good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
adray8181

Pro

adray8181 forfeited this round.
Marauder

Con

Marauder forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
adray8181

Pro

adray8181 forfeited this round.
Marauder

Con

My opponent forfeited twice, I once because the 1 day time limit caught me off guard. however the point is it is my arguments that stand right now without having been countered while I have offered a counter to my opponents.

Vote for Con, cause even if you disagree with me, it obvious i have won this particular debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
I'm going to noob snipe this if nobody takes it in 3 days.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 3 years ago
vmpire321
adray8181MarauderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate, spent much of my time reserved for homework looking over this issue. In my final decision, under very much pressure, I believe that the con has won by a slight margin.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
adray8181MarauderTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF