The Instigator
tsmart1770
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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: 10/18/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 14 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 37,812 times Debate No: 13
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (27)

 

tsmart1770

Con

As there are many sub-topics that can be debated within this broad subject, I am choosing to focus purely on the question:

Does the United States government have the power to pass legislation that obligates the catholic church to accept gay marriages within their cathedrals?

It is my sound opinion that the government does not hold this power. If we look at the principles that the US was founded on, "freedom of speech, press, religion..." we must realize that this directly contradicts our founding ideals. By passing a legislation that forces religions to accept a principle - no matter what that principle may be - we limit the rights of our people to freedom of religion. We cannot allow the government to usurp the principles of the bible and to contradict the very document that gives it power; the Constitution.
Harlan

Pro

Your not forcing anyone to practice something against thier religion when a gay couple get married. You can get married in a place that's not a cathedral. Do you really think that is the motive behind prohibiting gay marriage? No, its because of the christian fundamentalists up top. Because there all loving god, is against Homosexuals existing (even though he created them), they are not allowed to have legal bondage. Now to put this from your perspective, consider this: What if there was a religion that prohibited heterosexuals from being together. Would you make the decision not to be married because it might make them uneasy. Your mind is not treating homosexuals as equals. You may or may not be familiar with the UDHR (universal decleration of himan rights). It clearly states that all people should be given the RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. As far as I see it, this should also be seen as protected by the ninth amendment of the bill of rights (It states that people have rights not listed in the constitution. What is the real reason that you are against gay marriage?
Debate Round No. 1
tsmart1770

Con

Harlan,
You must realize that I am not challenging the rights that homosexuals have to get married, but am purely asking whether or not the "the United States government has the power to pass legislation that obligates the catholic church to accept gay marriages within their cathedrals?"

Now, in between the assertions about the inconsistency of the Christian religion, and the alleged attack upon my character, you did mention the ninth amendment to the constitution. As this is a potentially relevant argument my original question, I will depict a new perspective of your interpretation. You stipulated that the ninth amendment "states that people have rights not listed within the constitution." Though, you focused purely on the perspective of homosexual's rights to marriage.

Looking further, you must realize that this amendment also influences the rights of the church – allotting them the right to deny marriage to those they deem sinners. (Harlan please remember that we are en rapport in regards to the irony of the Christian religion. Also remember that Christianity is not the topic of our debate.) This new perspective validates the churches decisions to deny homosexuals the right to be married.

The bill of rights not only authenticates the actions of the church, as you have pointed out to me, but also ensures the separation of church and state (first and ninth amendment). So long as it respects its underlying principles, the government, should in no way be allowed the privileges of forcing any religion to accept something they deem incorrect, or sinful.
Harlan

Pro

Harlan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bren07 2 months ago
Bren07
I believe that equal marriage is something important in society because just as heterosexuals have rights to share benefits with their partners, So do all types of couples regardless of gender or sexual orientation because from birth they have to comply with the duties of society and because now it is not possible to give the same treatment to a group of people who want their rights to also be fulfilled, Because the marriage of a homosexual couple will not affect any other couple.
In addition, Equal marriage brings many good things to society with the clear example of the adoption of those children who are homeless, That their parents leave them to strangers because they do not want to take care of them.
Posted by jonny1 3 months ago
jonny1
I was just thinking about what would happen if the whole world became gay? Will humanity be destroyed anymore!
Posted by Eric.perez 5 months ago
Eric.perez
In addition one last comment on the subject
What does matrimony mean?

Matri monus
The right to be a mother.

No man can ever ever have that right. . . .

And the homosexual relationship between two woman is impossible for themselves to be mothers. . . . .

It is proven scientifically that a child needs a father (a real masculine man) and a woman ( a real feminine woman) create the balance in a child.

Without one of the two then the child grows psychologically insecure.

That is a fact.

Homosexual unions as well as the other deprivation gender ideologies should be entirely forbidden in every single capacity.
Posted by Eric.perez 5 months ago
Eric.perez
There is nothing ever more disgusting and disturbing.

I hope one day it gets forbidden but the likelihood and chances actually seem to diminish with the current candidate

Either or we are toast( meaning both candidates were just as bad in different ways )

However Trump was prolife for the babies. (which that aspect is goodwill)

Regardless I do not like neither case because one was inhumane with hispanics as well as foreigners and treated ukranians wrong

While the other is humane with foreigners but creates murders against babies and give money donations to abortionists organizations which is a betrayal and he helps give funds to degenerative causes such as LGBT, Gender ideologies which they said they will try to push as far as they can.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to have unions, They need spiritual counseling and if that does not work and is a mental instability then then need psychiatry.

Hopefully homosexual unions become completely forbidden entirely
Posted by Eric.perez 5 months ago
Eric.perez
Part 2 if a man denies his place of birth and says he is from somewhere he is not he is betraying himself

Similar yet different case is a homosexual if a homosexual denies that God made him a man from birth he is betraying himself he needs revaluation and be helped to bring back realify. . . .

Nor be hindered nor crippled more than what he already or she already is.

And what is worse nowadays we as a society hear about a new trend the degenerates are heading they are changing the gender of their children with legal documents

This is the worst moments of degeneration. . . .
And that even birth certificates as well as passports are changing their gender designation.
I know this because previously I used to work under a goverment contractor that helped people guide on how to apply for passports and gave general information.

Ideally this would be entirely forbidden and never allowed.

Now switching topic to light things up

If a person admits where he is born naturalizes on another country is not an issue nor betrayal.

The problem becomes when a person denies his place of birth and does nto admit the truth of his origins.

Same situation is for the homosexuals

The difference is he cannot change. He must be loyal to the way God made himself
A real man and accept it and embrace himself. . . .

Likewise a woman a woman is born a woman and she must learn to embrace it.

What is worst is that politicians accept the excuses and lies and even deceive these people to accept their ideological lies of being homosexuals (A. K. A. Liberalism)

And never help cure the people at the root cause.

One ocassion without naming names a lady called me repentant that she changed her gender designation in the passport
And told me the following
" in reality men are born with X and Y chromosomes and a woman will never be able to change that in herself. "
" thank God I cam e back to reality"

She said these 2 statements and I am glad she was on
Posted by Eric.perez 5 months ago
Eric.perez
I completely oppose homosexual unions.

Marriage is between a lady and a man blessed by God in holy matrimony with his blessing.

Homosexuals are not marriages.
Is a direct abomination and degeneration.

Homosexuals are the type of people that betrayed their gender.

No goverment in their right state of mind should ever dare to support homosexual unions.

Goverments that supported homosexual union are creating a mental sickness and instability,
When men are fully conceived, God created them men which means they should be masculine
Woman when fully conceived, God created them feminine. (Not the same as feminist nor feminsim)

They should be grateful the way God created them by the expression of love between their parents, Babies are sacred and should be rightfully defended their original way that God made them

Ideally they would go to a spiritual priest for guidance, Of the psychological levels seem that they are mentally unstable then they would need a psychiatrist to help them get cured from the disease.

When goverments support homosexual unions they create an complete instability and are endorsing a betrayal of their way God made the children.

No man in his right state of mind would ever have a 'union' with another man
And no woman in her right state of mind would ever have a 'union' with another woman

God created a perfect balance between Adam and eve and made her from the side of Adam to show the proper balance and compliment that a man and a woman together makes a beautiful harmony

But when the corruption and degeneration begins to twits mind and affect them psychologically to the point of complete utter confusion they need a doctor, A psychiatrist, A priest that can guide them and restore them to embrace the way God created them.

Just as a man cannot switch his place of birth so thus a man cannot switch his gender.

A man can change his citizenship but must admit the way he was born and where he was born.
Posted by Ihsieman 7 months ago
Ihsieman
Gay marriage is fine, Just don't force anyone to wed gay people and you should probably separate gay marriage from regular marriage in law, So nothing foes wrong
Posted by David_Nichols 11 months ago
David_Nichols
Sodomite marriage is impossible because the consummatory act (intercourse) is impossible.
Posted by sanz 12 months ago
sanz
Gay marriage must not allowed in law. That would make the world so terrible that people get confused. It is beyond a natural law. Only Man-Woman marriage is genuine. It's essential purpose of the marriage.
Posted by FacelessDebater 1 year ago
FacelessDebater
I think The Instigator did not actually answer the topic on debate, The question is, Should gay marriage be allowed? As a heterosexual male and not being of direct benefit if ever gay marriage will be allowed, My answer is still es, Gay marriage should be allowed, The Instigator's premise was how the US government would be able to adhere to the marriage needs of gay marriages. I think this in it's own is fallacious, What would be the purpose of separation of church and state if church will directly influence the constitutional and natural rights of their citizens? If that would be your premise then the country must be a theocratic state and the constitution must be directly from the church which on its own is not beneficial to anyone. First, The religious diversity in the United States would mean that religious oppression would be more evident. Second, Not all the doctrines of the church are beneficial to the citizens of the States such as not allowing homosexual acts as forcing Church doctrines on people would make freedom of religion, A basic human right ineffective. Why should we force religious doctrines on people not following the same religion? You got it wrong when you said that the American government must pass up a legislation to force religious institutions to allow gay marriage, But again, Why do we need religious institutions for gay marriage when in fact there is the separation of church and state? People must be able to express their love in any form they want as long as it does not hurt any other people. Now, I have read some arguments that the reproduction rate of humans would be lower if gay marriages would be allowed. First and foremost, That is fallacious as not everyone is homosexual, Allowing gay marriage does not mean that everyone will be gay and that heterosexuals will diminish, It just means that heterosexuals can still have kids. On the other hand, Gay people can adopt orphans and this would be more beneficial for everyone.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 5 years ago
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 years ago
fire_wings
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by SirMaximus 5 years ago
SirMaximus
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct, because Pro forfeited 1 round, but Con didn't forfeit any rounds. I was able to read what both of them said pretty easily, so they tie for spelling and grammar. Con made the argument that same-sex marriage goes against some people's religious beliefs, and since the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of religion, and since people shouldn't be forced to accept a principle that they disagree with, we shouldn't allow same-sex marriage. This is a legitimate argument, since the 1st Amendment indeed guarantees freedom of religion. Pro made the argument that the 9th Amendment guarantees that we have some rights not mentioned in the Constitution. This is also a legitimate argument, as the 9th Amendment indeed guarantees unenumerated rights. Therefore, they tie for convincing arguments. Neither side used any sources, so they tie for reliable sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 years ago
dsjpk5
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chucknorris5799 6 years ago
Chucknorris5799
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Allowing gay marriage does force churches and other religious institutions to do something against their faith which destroys americans rights to religious freedom and also gets rid of the separation of church and state clause of the Constitution
Vote Placed by danhep 6 years ago
danhep
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit + better fulfilled BoP
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
lannan13
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by NiamC 7 years ago
NiamC
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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 
Vote Placed by 16kadams 9 years ago
16kadams
tsmart1770HarlanTied
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:13 

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.