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: 12 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 31,225 times Debate No: 13
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
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
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FacelessDebater 1 month 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.
Posted by VelezC 9 months ago
VelezC
In my opinion everybody should have the right to marry whoever they want to, Actually is a right
And also you should not worry about it if you're not homosexual because they are not doing anything to you, They are only fighting for their right to love, And it is unfair that could not be realized just because some people think that would destroy the structure of the ideal family or that it is against the "right" circle of life.
We are in 2019, And it is a shame that in some countries the homosexual community cannot enjoy the right to marry the people they love.
Posted by anc2006 9 months ago
anc2006
"Gay marriage requires the destruction of the natural family, And disassociating children from a mother or father. "

You assume if it is cheating. The fact is that gay couples would be less likely to even HAVE a family. They can just be romantic.
Posted by poui 1 year ago
poui
Gay marriage requires the destruction of the natural family, And disassociating children from a mother or father.
Posted by Elphisa 1 year ago
Elphisa
Gay marriage should be allowed. What is so evil about a man loving another man? Or a woman loving another woman? No, There is nothing evil about it. God loves all of us, Because we are his children. God encourages us to love everyday, Both universally and to each other. We cannot choose our genders. In His eyes, We're all the same. Females, Males, Our gender make no difference to him. We should be able to love each other, And just, Forget about your gender. Love is universal, Not just to marry and have kids. Love is everyone's right.
Posted by poui 1 year ago
poui
What is the point? No one is worried about a man knocking up another man, Or a woman knocking up a woman and leaving. Its a nullable marriage because it cannot physically union. You marry for love and to have kids. Affection alone means you could be married to your bowling buddies. It disassociates sex from its life giving properties, And then children from a mother or father. Its a fundamental compromise that is shifted to the children brought into it. Its rights over obligation, Choice over duty. The natural family has to die in order for this one to live.
Posted by SOPHIEWHITE 2 years ago
SOPHIEWHITE
I read some testimonies about a love spell caster by DR LARRY on how he has helped lots of people in bringing back their ex lovers within 4days, Sincerely I was just thinking if that was real and if this man could really help bring back my lover whom I love so much. I decided to contact him because I love my boyfriend very much and we have been apart for a couple of months I really missed him so much, I have tried all other means to get him back but couldn't. I contacted DR LARRY and he told me that my ex will come back to me in the next 4days, DR LARRY released him up to know how much i loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how much we have share together. My ex is now back to me again. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the most happiest Woman on earth and myself and my boyfriend are living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it were even before our break up. All thanks goes to DR LARRY for the excessive work that he has done for me by helping me to get back with my ex boyfriend. I would like to drop DR LARRY website http://assurancesolutionhome.website2.me... and hope you see this testimony and contact him if you have a lover that you really want back so badly, Email assurancesolutionhome@gmail com or you can whatspp him on this Number +1(424)-261-8520 assurancesolutiohome.blogspot.com
Posted by asta 2 years ago
asta
As an atheist, I don't support homosexuality because it would cause HIV to spread much more rapidly and if it affects all of humanity, then humans would be like Apes, living half as long as what we would have otherwise have done.
Posted by BowTied 2 years ago
BowTied
As someone who's walked down the aisle and been wed to a groom, both before and after it was "legal," I've never been concerned with whether or not the relationship in which I live is recognized societally. Court says it's valid, or it's not valid, who cares?
Posted by tbritt65 2 years ago
tbritt65
As someone who is bisexual and a huge advocated for LGBT rights, I don't believe that religious institutions should be forced by the government (state or federal) to marry gay couples. It's the whole idea of separation of church and state: religious beliefs should not interfere with lawmaking. Now, in saying that we must also consider all the people in Congress, especially today, who are devoutly religious and because of that are surely looking to overturn the gay marriage law put in place by President Obama. This is not proper practice, as the decision is being made with personal belief systems and biases in play rather than solely basing it on what is best for the American people. In summary, church and state need to be separated, in ALL aspects.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 8 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.