The Instigator
ABoleman
Pro (for)
The Contender
budding_demonologist
Con (against)

Gay People Should Have Equal Rights As Straight People Regarding Marriage and Adoption

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ABoleman has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 116852
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

ABoleman

Pro

I"m not really expecting a debate on this subject, As I feel the majority of people support gay rights. However, The more I use the internet the more I"m surprised or even shocked at how some people view the world (this applies to extremists on both sides of the political spectrum).

If anyone believes that gay people should not have the same rights as heterosexual people, Specifically in regards to marriage and adoption, I"m interested in hearing your opinions and (hopefully) engaging in a respectful debate on the subject matter.
budding_demonologist

Con

Okay. I have a few things to say about this topic, And I"ll start off with the fact that I do not 100% disagree with you on this, And I don"t regard homosexual people any less than heterosexual people. One things I do not agree with is them being allowed to get married (specifically married. ) I agree that they should be allowed to adopt children (as long as those children already have no parents) because any parents that are loving and together are better than no parents

Now marriage. For many centuries, Marriage has been made as a conscious decision between two people to become unified in a way that would support the benifit and growth of children and each other. This was made between a man and a woman for quite a few reasons. Biologically, And through evolution, The mother and the father of a child have important roles that they need to be filled. A child thrives best in an environment where there are both their biological father and mother. The decision of marriage has never been purely about love, But it has always been a conscious decision for the upraising of offspring. This is, Of course, Not to say that two men, Or two woman, Are the absolute worst environment to raise children, But rather that the best happens to scientifically be a mother and a father (Brown, S. (2010). Marriage and Child Well-Being: Research and Policy Perspectives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1059-1077. Retrieved from http://www. Jstor. Org/stable/40865595).

The union between two people of the same sex is simply not the same as the union between a man and a woman. This is not to say that their love is any less than a heterosexual couple (it could just as much be more) just that by calling the union of two people of the same sex "marriage" is simply just not true. Rather we could ulternitavely create these people their own unique type of union, For calling a triangle a three sided square is not truth. By constantly changing this word, "marriage", We a slowly degrading it. The meaning and value of the word has significantly decreased over the years. First the permanency, With the legality of divorce, And now the meaning itself.

Just because two people love each other does not mean marriage should occur. For example, Many parents love their own children greatly. . . But parents have never needed to marry their own children. People may love their pets, But don"t marry them either. I"m not denying the fact that two homosexuals love each other greatly, Just why they truely need to get married. The reason it originated as just man and woman is because homosexuals can"t naturally produce offspring (without the use of a third party), And by nature heterosexuals were the ones who really need marriage. Just this fact shows that it"s not just about love, It"s about the thriving of children and the family. Once homosexual marriage is legalised when do we stop? Will we legalise the marriage of three people? Or perhaps that marriage of humans and other animals or plants? If love is love than why can"t this occur? Sometimes just because people love each other does not permit the "right" to marriage.

Thank you for reading this and I"m greatly looking forward to debating with you! I"m sure this will be fun!
Debate Round No. 1
ABoleman

Pro

I"m glad to hear that you look at them as equal to heterosexual people, At least we can agree on that base topic and just debate solely on the marriage aspect.

I understand what you"re saying regarding the origins of marriage, However it is important to note that ancient marriages had other goals outside of child rearing such as creating arranged family alliances with other families. Arranged alliances often involved young pre-teens/teenagers who had no say in the matter & also often involved family members such as cousins. In some ancient cultures, Men would get wives by kidnapping them. I think it is important as a progressive species to change traditions as we become more educated, Most people in progressive societies would agree it is wrong to arrange our children into marriages, Especially with blood relatives, At such a young age without giving them the choice to marry who they want when they are of age. The decision of marriage has never purely been based on love and while now that is perhaps the most common reason for marriages, There are still many other factors such as tax benefits, Financial reasons, And many other rights that people get when they are legally married such as hospital visits. Unfortunately, The link you provided wouldn"t let me see the content unless I purchased it but I would be interested to read another article. I personally think that a child"s well-being is not dependent on having a married mother and father and more dependent on the quality of parents they have. For example, A married husband and wife who don"t love each other and are constantly fighting in front of the kids, Parents who are too busy to really spend time with their kids, And let"s be honest, Some people are just bad parents, Period. I think that having loving parents who go above and beyond for their children, Will be the best for a child"s well being. I don"t think the sex of the parents holds the most value.

The current definition of marriage is a : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, B : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock, C : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage. I don"t think an accurate comparison would be calling a triangle a three sided square, A more accurate comparison would be comparing equilateral triangles with obtuse and acute triangles. They are still triangles, They just differ from each other in some aspects. Changing the definition of marriage is not degrading it, For reasons I mentioned above. Marriage has been degraded mainly be heterosexual people for many decades not just with divorce but with infidelity, Marrying for immigration papers, For money, Etc. In my humble opinion, Most of the gay people I know are actually doing the word marriage a favor.

As far as marrying children and animals and plants, Please see the above definition of marriage. Before all else, Marriage has envolved to be a consensual union, As it should be. Children, Plants & animals are not consenting, By either legal or literal terms. This argument is not something you should use in the future because not only is it offensive to gay people, But it is honestly just not an equal comparison. This exact same argument was used during Jim vs. Crow about letting blacks marry whites & it is absolutely no different using it for gay people. Two consenting adults is completely different than children, Plants and animals. As far as polygamous marriages, I"m not sure the reasons why it"s illegal, It"s honestly something I"ve never put much thought into, But centuries ago it was accepted in marriage so it doesn"t really fit your argument. I personally don"t see anything wrong with a polygamous marriage as long as all parties are consenting, But I will admit I haven"t researched it or looked into much so that is an argument for another day.

By saying marriage should only be allowed for reproductive reasons, We would be denying many people the rights to marriage. People who are infertile, People who do not want children, People who are old, Etc. Unless you want to only allow people to get "married" who have signed a formal agreement that they will be reproducing, I really don"t think it makes sense or is fair to have to use a different type of "union" for gay people unless you want to do the same for all other people who cannot naturally reproduce and also grant marriages to first cousins and minors in arranged marriage, As that fits the old definition of marriage. Combined with loving someone, There are many reasons to want to get married such as the legal rights and tax breaks granted to married couples.
budding_demonologist

Con

It"s great to have a person willing to discuss this topic intellectually!

In respond to your comment on the history of marriage, I do agree that in some cultures it was based on uniting two families, And I do agree that it has changed over the years. . . But some change is always beneficial, Too much change is never good. Take, For example, The analogy of corn chips. I"m making a batch of corn chips and I decide to slightly change the recipe, I reduce the amount of salt. The outcome of these chips are great. I then decide to change it further, I replace the corn with apples. Now I"m no longer eating corn chips. The same thing can be applied to marriage. There is always wriggle room (in this case the decision to make choice more important) but we shouldn"t change it so much that all reminence of the original meaning is gone.

In response to your definition. I do agree that this is the current definition, But what I don"t agree with is the definition itself. I quote an article by Michael F Bird -

"If marriage is the legal recognition of an emotional bond between two people then why don"t I need a license to have an emotional bond with all sorts of people like family, Friends, Or co-workers?

If marriage is the recognition of a person"s regular sexual partner, Then why don"t I need government permission to hook-up or to simply have a sexual relationship with any person of my choosing?

If marriage is the recognition of my domestic living arrangements, Then why don"t I need government permission to get a roommate, A housemate, Or live-in nanny?

If marriage is about my designated heir and preferred carer, Then why don"t I just fill out a power of attorney form and change my will? "
Marriage is the unique, Long lasting, Relationship of the male and female persons. This is what sets it apart from other relationships. (Not to say that homosexual unions are any less than heterosexuals. ) This definition is, What I believe to be, The truest definition of marriage. I have nothing against two homosexuals being wedded and granted all the benefits of married couples, It just should not be called marriage. Why? For a very simple reason. . . It just isn"t. The same way that a female is a female, And a male is a male. They are both equal, But not the same. Females don"t (and shouldn"t) need to be called males to be considered equal, The same way that homosexual unions shouldn"t need to be called "marriage" to be equal to heterosexual unions.

Also a statistics show that fatherlessness does show increases in poverty, Which shows that both the mother and the father have equally important roles to play as parents, And homosexual parents can"t fill those needs as well as heterosexual parents. I do agree that good homosexual parents are better than bad heterosexual parents, But by having homosexual parents you just opening up the amount of possibilities for bad parents! Now you can have a bad mother, Two bad mothers, A bad father, Two bad fathers, A bad father and a good mother, A good mother and a bad father. . . Etc.

In response to your response on my comments (try saying that ten times fast. . ) on the marriage between plants, Animals, And children, I wouldn"t like to clarify that when I said "children" I meant "child of the person" not necessarily someone young. (A 50 year old mother marrying her 20 year old son. ) You also stated that ". . . Not only is it offensive to gay people but it is not an equal comparison. " In all respect many years ago people would say the same thing if their marriage was compared to a homosexual one, So in the future your comment might be considered offensive to those who have relationships with plants, Animals ect. Also, If homosexual marriages were legal for the insentive of "love" than surely incest marriage should be allowed to take place as well?

There will also be various, Radical new laws to be put into place to correspond to this new legislation, These laws are taking away things like religious freedom.

84% of the entire world population has a religion and various religion forbid Sam sex marriages. Whilst these religion may or may not be correct, It has always been a priority to respect the opinions of others. With homosexual marriages taking place religious freedom is slowly being squandered. People are being prosecuted for not catering, Or providing flowers for homosexual marriages. I believe that, Yes it isn"t correct for people to discriminate, But I don"t believe that they should be prosecuted based on their opinion.

This new law will also slowly leak into the education system. In countries like Australia where this new laws was just passed, A contriversious new program was launched called "safe schools. " This education program was to be implemented into every school by the end of this year. This program forces unscientific theory into the minds of children when they are most vulnerable to misinformation. This program includes false statistics, Unscientific "facts", And political theory. This entire system was described as being a "packaged deal" with homosexual marriage. We should take Australia as a warning of the things that could amount from a legislation like this.

Sources:
https://www. Washingtontimes. Com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/
https://www. Acl. Org. Au/what_if_i_told_you_there_was_a_reasonable_case_against_same_sex_marriage#splash-signup
https://www. Studentwellbeinghub. Edu. Au/docs/default-source/all-of-us-online-version-may-2016-v3-pdf2af89fb756c645d9b8492a68a39765f6. Pdf? Sfvrsn=0
http://youreteachingourchildrenwhat. Org/safe-schools-coalition/
https://billmuehlenberg. Com/2018/04/19/safe-schools-and-the-war-against-children-and-parents/
https://blogs. Spectator. Co. Uk/2015/06/if-love-now-rules-supreme-should-incest-and-polygamy-also-be-legalised/
http://www. Fathers. Com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/
Debate Round No. 2
ABoleman

Pro

Too much change can be a good thing when it comes to people having equal rights. I don"t think it"s fair comparison to compare chips to gay people being allowed to marry. But for the sake of comparison, It"s probably healthier to eat apple chips instead, My local health store provides veggie chips, But for the people who want to eat regular corn chips with lots of salt, That option is still on the table for them. Broadening the types of chips gives people more option without taking away the choice for other people to eat what they want.

For family there aren"t licenses and legal titles. That"s why parents have custody of children, Business partners form partnerships bound by law, Employees sign agreements with their employers. If I wanted to marry my friend for those legal benefits I could as well. It"s all about consent.

Marriage is not the recognition of someone"s regular sexual partner. Some people get married that are asexual. Some people have lots of casual sex but see the person as nothing more than a fun sexual experience and would never even want a relationship with that person. I"ve hooked up with people that I wouldn"t want to be with romantically, Most certainly wouldn"t want to share finances with or have legal control in the case that something happened to me. That"s fine, Marriage is a consensual contractual union.

You are correct in that marriage is unique. It is not solely inclusive of male and female. You believe that to be the truest definition of marriage, But that"s simply your preference. As that is your belief, You should never have a same-sex marriage.

Fatherless households statistically show increase in poverty, But those statistics are based on single households. Gays are still a minority so gay marriage and adoption doesn"t do much to sway the statistics. These statistics are based on single income households, Which of course have more poverty because there"s only one adult bringing in the finances. Homosexuals can fill those needs just as well as heterosexuals and better in some cases, It"s all on a situational basis that depends on the quality of parenting, Not the sex. I have gay marriages in my family and they are some of the best, Most loving and accepting parents. Gay people have fought long and hard to have these rights and as a result they are well researched in many areas involving child rearing. People who have to adopt are people who have spent a lot of time, Waiting and money into having a child. It"s not the same with people who accidentally reproduce and decide to keep it and are more ill prepared.

My apologies, When you said children I took it as the literal definition. Incestuous marriage is actually legal in many states, I think the main issue arises when the parent already is legally the parent, So that is the conflict of interest. Cousins get married all the time and I"ve read cases about fathers marrying their daughter because they weren"t legally recognized as the father. I personally don"t agree obviously, But fortunately I will never have to have an incestuous marriage so I"ll just look the other way here.

Years ago the main argument against interracial marriages was the same "what next? ", Gays were not a focal point in that argument. It is offensive to compare interracial and gay marriages to plants animals and kids. Again the big difference here is consent, Despite the reasoning for the marriage.

The laws put into place are regarding discrimination laws. As someone running a business to serve the public, You can"t descriminate. Be it against religions, Race or sexuality. If you"re running a business you are agreeing to serve the public, This is not so much about marriage but about an agreement with the government in business operations. If you run a private business not open to the public, It should be different. I"m also torn on them being prosecuted, But that is an argument for a different day. That has more to do with our discrimination laws.

Our legislation has been in affect for 3 years, Australia"s is very new. I don"t think that it is a warning for us as it hasn"t happened here. Personally, When I have children I will teach them that gay people are normal and equal. From what I understand there are programs as such in the US but it is up to the parents on whether to enroll their children in these courses, Not mandatory. The same way as sex ed. I haven"t researched Australia"s policy enough to know how their program will work, But when I am informed I"ll get back to you on that.

Marriage is not just about love or sex but a combination of many things and many legal rights and benefits. There"s no reason to give marriage a different name for gay people. We"ve learned that seperate but equal is not equal. I"ve already provided you the legal definition of marriage. Just because your definition is different and you have a different point in which the change to the original definitions and reasonings for marriage should stop, Does not mean your definition to marriage is the universal one that should be applied to all persons. I respect that you have that opinion, I suggest you never have a gay marriage. Same with people who are against interracial marriages and inter-religious marriages- don"t have one. As long as the parties are consenting and no one is getting hurt in the process, To each his own. We all deserve the same rights.
budding_demonologist

Con

"Equal rights. " When you say the are you referring with the financial and legal aspects, The word marriage, A wedding. . . Or all of them? If your referring to the financial aspects, People can be recognised as being in a civil union and be allowed to have the same financial and legal advantages as married couples. If your referring to the word marriage. . . Calling something what it's not is not benifial for anyone. I do understand the current definition of marriage has changed in recent years, And what I'm tryin to say is that it should be reverted to what it was, For that is the definition that has been most widely accepted, And the definition that has lasted the longest. When I was a referring to the apple chips, The point I was trying to make was that if you can change something enough it no longer means the same thing. Now the so called "corn chips" I made aren't corn chips at all but rather "apple chips" called "corn chips. " Not that I have anything against apple chips, I'm sure they're just as good as corn chips, Just that they shouldn't be called corn chips. The same way I'm not against homosexuals being "wed" and having all the legal and finantial benefits, I'm just against the calling of it as "marriage. "

You keep bringing up things like interracial marriage, Which I'm fine with because it stays true to the (primarily) universal definition of marriage. I'm sure that those who pushed for that to be legalised made the case that it's "still a male and a female that love each other" which I'm fine with, But I think it's wrong to compare interracial marriage to homosexual "marriage", The same way that you think it's unfair to compare it to plant/animal marriages. I understand that you believe marriage to be consential, But in the future, This may be changed to include things like animals and plants. The same way, If I may add, That the law was changed to incorporate homosexual marriage. Just because laws and definition are changed does not mean they are always "correct. " When drawing boundaries you wish to stop at consent, And I wish to stop at "man and women. " The reason this definition was changed, In America anyways, Was because of the majority. So the definition of American marriage was elected by the people (by my understanding, Please correct me if I am wrong) therefore the definition that you brought up was elected by the people, And I may add that people are wrong some times. If I may bring back the "chips" analogy. Just because the people wish for the law to be changed so that the term "corn chips" can incorporate "apple chips" doesn't necessarily mean that "corn chips" are "apple chips. " ( Honestly I will never think of chips the same way again. . . )

I do understand that gay parents who choose to adopt, I'm sure, Are good parents and as I stated in the first round, I believe that loving adoptive gay parents are definitely better than none. Although I am against the use of a third party to biologically produce children, But that's an argument for another time.

Just to clarify, This is about Americas laws right? I do have to admit that personally I am not American, But I understand that this is an American website. The laws about American same sex marriage were changed three years ago, And it may not have dinted the American education system. . . But many other countries (such as Australia) that were influenced into following with the change in these laws are not coping the same way. The influence that these new laws have on America may not be extreme, But the impact on other countries are. As I did talk about in the last round, Australia's education system is being changed to incorporate mandatory education, Not even about same sex marriage essentially, But on things like "gender theory. " I do suggest that you look into this, It is actually quite fascinating what some governments want to teach children. Same sex marriage laws don't just affect people nationally, But rather internationally as well.

You also mentioned that "seperate but equal is not equal. " I, Like I'm sure many people who are reading this, Greatly disagree with this statement. Are you implying that everyone should be the 'same' to be treated equally? I would make the case that males and females are different, But should be treated equally. I would say that African Americans and White Americans don't have to be the same to be treated equally either. If your making the case that no one who is seperate can be related equally than what do you say about the Paralympics compared to the Olympics?

My true objection to "same sex marriage" is the changing of the word marriage. Homosexual couples can have all the financial benefits of marriage, Have a wedding, Adopt children, I have no objection to that. The definition of marriage just should not be changed/should be reverted back to the original definition. The reason being this simple: would you think it's just to allow non-Americans to celebrate the Fourth of July as theirIndependence Day? Would you think it's just to allow non-Australians to celebrate Australia Day? Would you believe it is just to allow unhandicapped people to compete in the Paralympics? Do you think it's just to give woman the right to go into the men's toilets? Difference is good, And we should respect and admire that instead of pushing for definitions to encompass everything, Degrading and devaluing diversity. There is no reason why a homosexual union is any less than a heterosexual marriage, As long as they they're not denied access to the same civil, Legal, And financial services or "disadvantaged" in anyway from heterosexual marriage.

We should stop endlessly broadening definition of words to cover everything. Difference always rules over sameness. At what point does a mechanic get to call himself a "car doctor. " I think no less of same sex couples, Rather that their uniqueness should be respected for what it is, Instead of what society says it should be.
Debate Round No. 3
ABoleman

Pro

I was referring to all of them in regards to your first question. It is a marriage, By definition. We"ve already both agreed that the definition of marriage has changed many times, I would argue that arranged marriages have been around longer than traditional marriages but that doesn"t make it more correct. You agreed that some of the changes made regarding marriages are good changes, It"s not really up to you to decide where those changes should stop, That"s merely your opinion. I respect your opinion and you still have the rights to excericise "traditional" marriage and that"s completely fine.

No theyre not corn chips, They"re chips. There"s potato chips, Corn chips, Veggie chips, Different flavors of chips, They"re all different to suit the needs of different people but nonetheless they"re chips. I still think the food analogy doesn"t really compare to talking about marriage.

I wasn"t bringing up another argument on interracial marriage, I was just responding to what you said in the last response. I only think it"s unfair to compare consensual marriages to marriages with animals and organisms who can"t consent. It would be near impossible for people to marry animals and plants because they will never be able to consent. Marriage is a contractual agreement, Animals and plants cannot sign off on this agreement. The law (in the US) was that gay people couldn"t get married, When it was taken to the Supreme Court, They came to almost a unanimous decision that it was unconstitutional to not include gay people in the rights to marry. There was no new law put in place, The old law just became void because it was incorrect.

Here in the US we are having a lot of debates on gender theory as well, But that is completely irrelevant for the topic of gay marriage. I have mixed views on gender theory, I understand transgender people and what they are fighting for, I"m a little confused on all the other genders and I don"t agree with mandatory courses on the subject to children- I think this should be up to the parents to decide lol we can have a whole new debate on this subject lol but it"s not related to gay marriage.

I never said everyone should be the same to be treated equal. I said there"s no such thing as " separate but equal", Not "different but equal". Separate means separating things that are different and calling them equal even though you are keeping them separate. Separate but equal is like saying women& men or blacks & whites can"t go to the same schools or get the same jobs etc. , We have to keep them separate but "equal". In the US we had these separate but equal laws a while ago, And while they were supposedly "equal" they really weren"t. If two things are equal, They should have the same opportunities & not mandatory to be kept separate. As far as the olympics vs the special olympics, Someone with disabilities could still potentially be in the regular olympics if their disability didn"t hold them back from being able to compete with the best athletes in the world. For example, I could never be in the olympics because I"m not fractionally as good as an olympic athlete. I"m still equal as a person, I"m just not equal as an athlete, I would never meet the qualifications. The special olympics were created for people who couldn"t compete with an olympic athlete but are still good enough to compete in a competition better suited for them. Likewise, I can still join a local sports team, I just wouldn"t meet the qualifications to be on a professional sports team.

I think homosexuals should just have regular marriage. It makes no sense to create a new union that is supposedly exactly the same, Because that leaves loopholes for it not to actually be the same or its creating something exactly the same which would make no sense to change the name and create something new for it, Simply because some people are held up on a definition that has changed in a bunch of ways since it was created. I think it"s just for non-Americans to celebrate July 4th independence day. Here in the US we celebrate cinco de mayo and St Patrick"s day as our own. Why can"t non-Australians celebrate Australia day? I would love to celebrate that day too, But there are honestly too many countries to celebrate but I think everyone should celebrate as they wish lol. I think handicapped people should compete in the olympics if they meet the qualifications and can fairly compete with them, As stated above. I use the men"s bathroom half the time I go out because there"s always a long a** line for the girls bathroom. I was in Europe for a month recently and many of their bathrooms are completely unisex, I had zero issues with it. I"m not degrading and devaluing diversity. I love diversity in almost every sense. That"s why I believe gay people rightfully should have access to marriage just the same as anyone else, Different but equal <3
budding_demonologist

Con

I'm grateful that you respect my opinion, And I respect yours.

From what I've read of your arguments it seems to me that you stance on this argument, And correct if I'm wrong, Is predicated on the idea that categorisation will inevitably result in discrimination, And that things that are truly treated equally should not be different in name.

In response to your comment on my chip analogy (once more):
I agree there is all different flavours of chips, And I agree they are there to suit the taste, And perhaps needs, Of different people. Yes, Nonetheless they are still chips. The same way that, If we were to have a different union for homosexuals, Both marriage and homosexual unions are still considered under contractual and consensual unions.

In response to your comments referring to "separate but equal:"
I did do some digging onto the Internet and I learnt about the "separate but equal" legislation. I agree that it was terrible, But I don't agree that just because there is a chance of discrimination we should take that as absolute certainty. By your own words you believe that "separating things that are different and calling them equal" is "not equal. " Whilst I do agree that in that particular case that may have been correct, I don't agree that the population should base their stance on issues because of a possibility to be discriminated against. Take the Paralympics again. There are specific "qualifications" to join the Paralympics. A regular person can't just join such a team, But must fit all the criteria. If a person doesn't fit said criteria, Then they should be kept separate. That doesn't make you any less equal than the Paralympians, It's just means you don't fit said criteria. This doesn't mean we should change the definition of the Paralympics to incorporate those who have perfect health, For there is already the Olympics.

The Olympics, Might I also add, Is separate from the Paralympics, But no less equal. The view that anything that has the potential to be discriminated against based upon separation is simply not sustainable. Just because homosexual couples didn't fit the said criteria for marriage did not give any valid reason to change the definition to incorporate such couples. There are already civil unions, Which I believe, Should carry all of the benefits of marriage.

Also, I am not quite sure why you brought up the "separate but equal" legislation. If I remember correctly I said that it's not the "same" but still equal. Difference is really not the same as separation. I just don't believe that they should be recognised as the same, Not that they should be physically separate. They shouldn't be classified the same way because they simply aren't the same. The same way we distinguish ethnicity. I'm sure you don't consider White Americans and African Americans the same, But still equal. The point is, We shouldn't call anything something that it isn't.

In response to "Someone with disabilities could still potentially be in the regular Olympics if their disability didn"t hold them back from being able to compete with the best athletes in the world. "
I agree with this statement, But as you've stated, This requires the athlete to meet the unchanged criteria. In this case the criteria was that "their disability didn't hold them back. " Changing the definition of marriage would be synonymous to changing the criteria to include those who may still be "held back" by their disability to ensure that they still aren't being discriminated against. You may feel that this redefining of the Olympics is more inclusive but I would make the case that this new format may become almost unrecognisable transformed.

In response to ". . . Mandatory to kept separate. "
In the same way that a disabled person who's "disability didn't hold them back" could still participate in the Olympics, Such could a homosexual person get married before the redefinition. Whilst it may not have been at all ideal, It certainly wasn't mandatory that only heterosexuals could get married.

In response to your comment ". . . That is exactly the same. "
Which brings me to the point where you said they were "exactly the same. " Marriage of two people of the same sex is simply not the same as marriage between a male and a female. No less, But not the same. They would only possibly by the same if males and females were the same. . . Which they aren't. The fact that homosexual marriage wasn't legal proves that it is different from marriage. By calling it something else (maybe not something as derogatory as a "civil union") we are recognising the difference and accepting it. We are being more diverse by calling it something else instead of just broadening the definition. What you seem to be saying is that things that are treated the same should be called the same. Men and woman are recognised as being both separate (not literally) and different, Yet equal.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by ABoleman 2 months ago
ABoleman
@What50 gay marriage was legalized in the US 3 years ago by the Supreme Court, Who came to the consensus that it was unconstitutional to denied gay people the rights to marry. However, This ruling was controversial to many people who disagree and also, There are still a few first world countries in which same-sex marriage is still not legalized and they are still trying to gain this right. This is why I initiated this debate, To understand why some people feel as though they should not be able to marry.
Posted by User01 2 months ago
User01
@ABoleman, I totally agree with you. Sexual Orientation should not be a cause to label, Or treat someone as if they are a second class citizen. We should all have equal rights no matter what race we are, Religion we are, Gender we are, What we identify as. It just should't matter. If more people lived by the deceleration of Human Rights our society would rise up as one, Instead of against each other.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 months ago
John_C_1812
Okay so here is a Constitutional argument of debate seen with the principle of Equality of Gay and Lesbian perspective as representation for the United States Constitution looks to be missing.
First: the United State is not made between Gay man and Gay man to marriage. They do not qualify as a couple that can create offspring naturally as a citizen of a Country holding United States Constitutional Right.

Second: the United State is not made between Lesbian woman and Lesbian woman to marriage. They do not qualify as a couple that can create offspring naturally as a citizen of a Country holding United States Constitutional Right.

The United States Constitutional argument which was alienated by use of legalities in civil court action as public filed grievance before judicial constitutional separation. The gay and Lesbian condition apply as both accusation and admission, the accusation that can be made as either constitutional right, or constitutional wrong. By the understandings translated in both admission and in accusation publicly.

So on agenda of United State the first order of union would have been made in a constitutional comparison of equality between the accused form of gay, and the admitted public form of gay as joke, truth or points of view. This never took place in the legislation process as the Constitutional right. Civil Court filings moved directly to addressing forms of credit set in place with the use of plagiarizing principle not understood. Not United State was set by Government, and none by any public affirmative action group.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 months ago
John_C_1812
As a person who has been accused of being gay in a non-malicious act would have Constitutional right which are different than malicious intention, and those who are confessing to all set different legal precedent.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 months ago
John_C_1812
As a male accused of being Gay as a malicious act.
Some problems become apparent with couples of the same gender as they cannot be legally married as a united state right without it drawing the legal witnesses of the union in to perjury. A crime is created and transferred on the public if not set as an impartial public description. This meant a clear understanding should have been made at the beginning on the ramification of the plagiarism being used publicly before any United States Constitutional court or the general welfare under its care of common defense.

First issue is discrimination disappears with two conditions. Condition one: the couple be placed in a union which honors the likely-hood of Marriage, this means a Gay man and lesbian woman are united as couple though the license process, as though not likely by choice to produce a child which will be a citizen of a Nation they are capable as all male female couples to do so. Second condition: When the witness account is made without sexual innuendoes. Meaning the burden of witnessing is by child, minors, or person under a set age group, the witness account does not set or require full understanding of the complex relationships of adults. A male Union between two men can be explained impartially publicly as Binivir, a union made between two females can be identified publicly as UnosMulier, or MulierFemina. The third issue is that being gay and lesbian are a public accusation with legal consequence and a may have require legislation of law set on its own merit.
Posted by What50 2 months ago
What50
Don't they already do have Equal Rights?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.