The Instigator
Ross
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
dulinl
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

Gay marriage

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/13/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 13 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,976 times Debate No: 367
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (24)

 

Ross

Pro

Gay marriages ought to be allowed because we need to respect them at rational and consenting human beings with the right to life liberty and property. Moreover, the right to marry does not impede our rights in any way and therefore it is not the governments place to prevent equal treatment.

Furthermore, the tradition of marriage has been a fluent and evolving beast that will not be deteriorated by the allowance of free individuals to commit to each other in the name of love and commitment.
dulinl

Con

"Gay marriages ought to be allowed because we need to respect them at rational and consenting human beings with the right to life liberty and property."

Not relevant to the point. Gays, have the right to all 3 as is. That was just an attempt to distort the argument to seem as if having no gay marriage some how is robbing ppl of those 3 basic rights. (Very dishonest.)

"Moreover, the right to marry does not impede our rights in any way and therefore it is not the governments place to prevent equal treatment."

Agreed, it does not impede our rights, however it is not an issue of equal treatment. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. This issue is adding another right on top of the ones currently available.

"Furthermore, the tradition of marriage has been a fluent and evolving beast that will not be deteriorated by the allowance of free individuals to commit to each other in the name of love and commitment."

Marriage has been fluent and evolving, but becoming more strict in definition not broader like you would like. In fact the change you propose would "deteriorate" marriage as an institution. It would be the first time that marriage would become broader in definition.

Additionally, were would you draw the line there after? Can a man or woman have 2,3, or 100 partners? Their all adults and "free individuals". That's the problem when you begin to expand the definition of marriage rather than clarify it.
Debate Round No. 1
Ross

Pro

"Not relevant to the point. Gays, have the right to all 3 as is. That was just an attempt to distort the argument to seem as if having no gay marriage some how is robbing ppl of those 3 basic rights. (Very dishonest.)"

I only listed the rights as an elaboration of how I feel we need to see gays in our society. As individual with those three rights ought to be respected as such. They are consenting individuals with their own motivation and self interests-these are just some of the many things people within our society are considered as having. If the elaboration was somehow taken as dishonest, maybe you assume to much.

"Gays have the same rights as everyone else. This issue is adding another right on top of the ones currently available."

Do gays have the right to marry? Nope. And this is ought to change because gays, like heterosexuals, are consenting and rational human beings within our society and needed to be treated as such.

"Marriage has been fluent and evolving, but becoming more strict in definition not broader like you would like."

If you consider allowing the opportunity of marriage between an african-american and white person do be a "stricter" regulation-then that's your business. If you consider allowing african-americans to marry AT ALL to be a more strict definition-then so be it. If you consider allowing for divorce, completely throwing out the idea of eternal vows to be a stricter regulation on marriage-that's fine. If you feel that allowing for children to not have their marriages decided for them by their parents a stricter law-go for it. But you'd be wrong in each case. The reason all of these RESTRICTIONS were eliminated is because we realized that the individuals within marriage must be respected as rational and consenting human beings (with natural rights) and by enforcing these restriction we were violating this respect.

"Additionally, were would you draw the line there after? Can a man or woman have 2,3, or 100 partners? Their all adults and "free individuals". That's the problem when you begin to expand the definition of marriage rather than clarify it."

If you can give me one good reason why we shouldn't allow for polygamy, because as you said, "they are adults and free individuals" that need to be treated with respect as rational beings. Also, the only reason polygamy has such a negative connotation is because it used to be forced on women. Polygamy was bad for the same reason a ban on gay marriage is bad-it violated an individuals rights as a rational and free human being.

If you feel expanding he definition of marriage is wrong, maybe we should go back to the days when a african-american couldn't marry a white. How about we go back to when citizens weren't anything but white land owning males. I mean, where do we draw the line at citizenship-at monkeys?
dulinl

Con

"Do gays have the right to marry? Nope."

Again. Yes they do. They don't however have the additional right to marry same sex. That would be an additional right as already stated.

"If you consider allowing the opportunity of marriage between an african-american and white person do be a "stricter" regulation-then that's your business."

No, I consider that clarification. The law never prevented inter-racial marriage. Ppl took the law into their own hands preventing it.

"If you consider allowing african-americans to marry AT ALL to be a more strict definition-then so be it."

Again I consider that clarification. There was a debate at the time of what level of humanity Blacks possessed.

"If you can give me one good reason why we shouldn't allow for polygamy,...that need to be treated with respect as rational beings. Also, the only reason polygamy has such a negative connotation is because it used to be forced on women. Polygamy was bad for the same reason a ban on gay marriage is bad-it violated an individuals rights as a rational and free human being."

I asked you were would u draw the line. Your unable to do so, that is why we do not continue down this slippery slope, as a society.

"If you feel expanding he definition of marriage is wrong, maybe we should go back to the days when a african-american couldn't marry a white. How about we go back to when citizens weren't anything but white land owning males. I mean, where do we draw the line at citizenship-at monkeys?"

Again I believe that was clarification not expansion (see above responses). Drawing the line at citizenship-at monkeys, would be were your logic leads not mine. Thank you for seeing were your silliness was heading.

I also see a bit of hinting at racism in there...let me direct you to my picture before it goes further. I'm 1/2 black and white. I don't intend for that to support my argument just to stop you short at further accusations.
Debate Round No. 2
Ross

Pro

"Again. Yes they do. They don't however have the additional right to marry same sex. That would be an additional right as already stated."

I don't care whether a heterosexual or homosexual wants to marry a person of the same sex-they ought to have the right based on their individual liberty as rational and consenting human beings.

Moreover, to say gay people can just chose to marry those they aren't attracted emotionally or physically isn't much of an argument if your aiming for equality.

"No, I consider that clarification. The law never prevented inter-racial marriage. Ppl took the law into their own hands preventing it. "

...so, law never prevented inter-racial marriage? I guess if your living in la la land and have never opened a history book I would expect someone to make that claim. ESPECIALLY since you went on in the very next sentence to say that the law was "taken into their own hands" and did prevent inter-racial marriage. That is what the law is-the rules and guidelines for right and wrong established by the majority of society. However, the banning of inter-racial marriage was WRONG because it violated the rights of two consenting and rational adults...as I've stated a million times before but you are having trouble understanding.

Additionally, by claiming that the broadening of marriage to allow blacks and whites to marry is simply a "clarification" is foolish. They are levying the RESTRICTION of inter-racial marriage by broadening it's definition. I laughed when I read "clarification."

"Again I consider that clarification. There was a debate at the time of what level of humanity Blacks possessed."

Just as their seems to be a debate now as the "humanity" that gays posses. As gays are human and rational and consenting individuals-as blacks were at the time of slavery, we need to respect their individual liberty to make their own choices which includes marrying those they love. Again, the clarification was the broadening of the definition. Clarification is an obtuse word that doesn't really define anything but change.

"I asked you were would u draw the line. Your unable to do so, that is why we do not continue down this slippery slope, as a society."

I drew the line in the very first argument I made. The line is drawn when we are not dealing with rational and consenting human beings with the rights of life, liberty and property.

"Again I believe that was clarification not expansion (see above responses). Drawing the line at citizenship-at monkeys, would be were your logic leads not mine. Thank you for seeing were your silliness was heading."

Again, the clarification was the expansion. And if you think that monkeys can be rational and CONSENTING human beings with the right of life liberty and property then you don't know much about monkeys or human beings. A monkey-like a dog or a small child, can never truly consent to marry. They cannot sign their name with understanding of what they are agreeing to. They do not posses the ability to fall in love or even understand love. Gays on the other are capable of all of the above. Try reading what I'm saying instead of calling me silly.

" I also see a bit of hinting at racism in there...let me direct you to my picture before it goes further. I'm 1/2 black and white. I don't intend for that to support my argument just to stop you short at further accusations."

Finally, I only used the examples of inter-racial marriage because they are a blatant examples of when marriage has been clarified in order to broaden marriage as to respect rational and consenting individuals such as blacks and whites. The only accusation made in my argument is that blacks and whites and gays and straights are all equally consenting and rational human beings and needed to be treated as such. However, you accused me of racism-way to go.
dulinl

Con

"I don't care whether a heterosexual or homosexual wants to marry a person of the same sex-they ought to have the right based on their individual liberty as rational and consenting human beings."

Liberty is not relevant to having a marriage license. Again the attempt to bluer the issue. They are free to be with who they choose and that is were the "liberty" lies.

"Moreover, to say gay people can just chose to marry those they aren't attracted emotionally or physically isn't much of an argument if your aiming for equality."

I'm not saying they should. I'm saying they can. That's why it's equal. To be able to marry the same sex would be a new right. No were in the requirements for a marriage license does it call for emotional or physical attraction.

"...so, law never prevented inter-racial marriage? I guess if your living in la la land and have never opened a history book I would expect someone to make that claim."

If your going to contest my statement that I pass a factual you should be siting a source. I would offer one, but there is no website for laws that never existed.

"ESPECIALLY since you went on in the very next sentence to say that the law was "taken into their own hands" and did prevent inter-racial marriage. That is what the law is-the rules and guidelines for right and wrong established by the majority of society."

My statement was ment to refer to mob mentality, not that ppl were enforcing the law on their own. I ment that they made their own law. I won't comment on your condemning of the action. Of course it was wrong, just not relevant.

"Additionally, by claiming that the broadening of marriage to allow blacks and whites to marry is simply a "clarification" is foolish. They are levying the RESTRICTION of inter-racial marriage by broadening it's definition. I laughed when I read "clarification."

Again it was clarification...I won't link the definition for "clarification" or "Broadening", I'll assume the judges at least know the difference. Again you lack a reference for a law that I had previously claimed didn't exist. The only except able defence would have been a source.

"Just as their seems to be a debate now as the "humanity" that gays posses."

I don't know anyone questioning gays "humanity". I'd like to know what kind of pigs you hang out around that talk like that.

"I drew the line in the very first argument I made. The line is drawn when we are not dealing with rational and consenting human beings with the rights of life, liberty and property."

Again that is not an answer. I gave specific examples of were a line could be drawn. You could have even said, "I draw the line at keep it in the human branch of the animal kingdom with any number of ppl" and that would have been a clear answer. If you can't draw the line how dare u question ppl willing to take on a task you will not.

"And if you think that monkeys can be rational and CONSENTING human beings with the right of life liberty and property then you don't know much about monkeys or human beings."

I read an article to that effect in the UK just a few weeks ago, lol. Not what I claimed, just another attempt by to to bluer an issue your losing.

"The only accusation made in my argument is that blacks and whites and gays and straights are all equally consenting and rational human beings and needed to be treated as such. However, you accused me of racism-way to go."

No, you don't get to play the victims. I said you were hinting at racism, that would refer me as the target. Your not going to spin it now that I shut that down. Again, no relevant just another attempt at a bluer.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 17 records.
Posted by dulinl 13 years ago
dulinl
When your challenged to make a point in a debate and you don't then that is a point for the other side. So, yes he did need to draw a line. I asked for clarification of his view and he danced around it. That's why you shouldn't be voting.
Posted by Tatarize 13 years ago
Tatarize
He drew the line in the first post.

"Gay marriages ought to be allowed because we need to respect them at rational and consenting human beings with the right to life liberty and property."

And, slippery slope is a fallacy. He doesn't actually need to respond to the claim that Gay marriage will lead to Rock-Goat marriage. And he conceded that his line was on the accepting side of polygamy. He need not draw any lines to win the argument. You need to show that Gay marriage is a slippery slope, that it leads to unacceptable consequences, and that those consequences are sufficient to deny them their rights (a point Ross argued for).
Posted by scaryspeaker 13 years ago
scaryspeaker
May i ask whats wrong with polygamy if all parties are consenting?
Posted by Solarman1969 13 years ago
Solarman1969
Gay Marriage is an Oxymoron

Marriage = one man and one woman

homosexual union = civil partnership

Once you allow 2 men or 2 women , what is to stop

3 and 2 , 1 and 2 , 3 and 3 , etc

or man + sheep (New Zealand) Woman + horse (England)

hee hee!
Posted by dulinl 13 years ago
dulinl
UGH! It was an example that asked him were he draws the line...didn't do that. Dam you retards don't vote!!!
Posted by Tatarize 13 years ago
Tatarize
The polygamy argument was pretty well refuted. I really like Ross' reply: "Also, the only reason polygamy has such a negative connotation is because it used to be forced on women." -- That's a pretty good refutation.

--Gay marriage should be allowed.
Those reasons would hold that polygamy should be allowed too!
--What are you going to do cry about it?

Classic.
Posted by A-ThiestSocialist 13 years ago
A-ThiestSocialist
Nice point on the "can they have 2 or 3" partners.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 13 years ago
solo
RossdulinlTied
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 Sludge 13 years ago
Sludge
RossdulinlTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 13 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
RossdulinlTied
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 RedHotDogg 13 years ago
RedHotDogg
RossdulinlTied
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 Aziar44 13 years ago
Aziar44
RossdulinlTied
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 JoeDSileo 13 years ago
JoeDSileo
RossdulinlTied
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 Ross 13 years ago
Ross
RossdulinlTied
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 repete21 13 years ago
repete21
RossdulinlTied
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 
Vote Placed by conbot10 13 years ago
conbot10
RossdulinlTied
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 Legendarme 13 years ago
Legendarme
RossdulinlTied
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 

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