Gay Marriage
For years now gay marriage has been an explosive subject with little middle ground. I want to know what you think here on CreateDebate. Please answer only with intelligent, legitimate, and respectful arguments. Any replies not meeting this standard will be ignored.
For gay marriage
Side Score: 31
|
 |
Against gay marriage
Side Score: 14
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
While straight, I am very much for gay marriage. There's no reason gay people shouldn't be married as straight people are. How would you feel if you were deeply in love with someone and could not be married to them because they were of the same sex as you? Side: For gay marriage
Firstly: Gay relationships: The majority of gay relationships last shorter then 6 months. (1) Very few gay relationships surpas 2 years. (2) Only 2.7% of gays have 1 partner throughout their whole life. (3) One study says they have 8 sexual partners per year. (4) Another said they have 500-1000 throughout their whole life. (5) Why should these rights be granted? The goverment has no reason to grant these benefits. The goverment wants procreative type unions. (6) Now, there are many economic benefits the goverment gives marriage, so this indicates they do this for certain goals they wish to accomplish, their goal: procreative type unions with child rearing. (6) as homosexuals cannot do this they fail. Discrimination: A common argument, and one that will likely be stated, is that banning SSM is discrimination. Actually, as marriage is about procreative type relationships then it isn't discrimination based off of sexuality, but rather nature. (7, 8) and have a procreative type relationship. As Homosexuals can never produce children and/or have a procreative type relationship, then it is not discrimination as we bar them this right through nature. (7, 8) Marriage in culture is usually viewed as a male and a female + children. As marriage is a large part of this culture, banning SSM is popular to common marriage stereotypes. (7, 8) Further more for it to be in discriminating in effect is must be a right, as discrimination to a privilege is just. (7,8) Aristotle saw this as what you deserved, not what is given. (8, 9) As you must prove in the states eyes they deserve this ritual/legal "right" then my argument on rights is void, if you cannot prove in the states eyes they deserve this then you have lost. (8) PS; source 8 is my other debate on a different site, thats why I didn't quote it as its my own words. 1. Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12. 2. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125. 3. Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile," 354. 4. Xiridou, 1031. 5. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). 6. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153 (PDF) 7. THE CASE AGAINST “SAME-SEX MARRIAGE" Margaret A. Somerville [3] 8. http://www.debate.org/debates/ 9. http://www.debate.org/debates/ Side: Against gay marriage
I'm not going to attempt to refute your entire post nor am I going to read it. Simply being honest here. But I did skim the first "fact", and all I have to say is.... statistically, 50% of all marriage today end in divorce. It's a 50/50 shot on marriage today. And these are straight couples. Your point is moot. Side: For gay marriage
Firstly: Because why not? Discrimination: Whether or not marriage has anything to do with procreation (which is wrong) does not give you the right to keep them from being together forever legally if they choose. If they don't get married as much as we do, why do you care? Don't you want this? Side: For gay marriage
1
point
"The majority of gay relationships last shorter then 6 months. Only 2.7% of gays have 1 partner throughout their whole life. One study says they have 8 sexual partners per year." One study says they have 8 sexual partners per year." Why should these rights be granted?" because it doesn't harm anyone, because this doesn't directly have anything to do with homosexuality. and also I highly doubt your sites for this are credible... "The goverment has no reason to grant these benefits. The goverment wants procreative type unions." if you want to live in a society that only lets us get to do stuff that benefits them, then why don't we go all the way, live, and sleep where they want, eat what, and when they want, to condition us to do what they want, since everything is about thier benefit. "The goverment has no reason to grant these benefits. The goverment wants procreative type unions." only being able to do it with who they want sounds awfully close to the image i'v painted above... what about peope that can't have kids? since we can't benefit off thier love, why should allow them to love? "Now, there are many economic benefits the goverment gives marriage, so this indicates they do this for certain goals they wish to accomplish, their goal: procreative type unions with child rearing. (6) as homosexuals cannot do this they fail." there are economic benefits yes, do you honestly believe that people only marry so that the government can pay them to have offspring? im sorry i would get married regardless if i was getting paid for it, and we shouldn't only be allowed to marry if it benefits them and not especially just because they are paying us to. "A common argument, and one that will likely be stated, is that banning SSM is discrimination. Actually, as marriage is about procreative type relationships then it isn't discrimination based off of sexuality, but rather nature. (7, 8) and have a procreative type relationship." defign nature? nature on an objective level is everything, and if we only do things in the name of nature than whats with all this technology, buildings, and artificial crap we humans have laying around? saying something is unnatural is as convincing as saying something is "bad". people don't know how trite the word "nature" really is, nature can be defigned as anything. therefore banning marriage for two people because YOU deem it unnatural is discrimination, and prejudice. "As Homosexuals can never produce children and/or have a procreative type relationship, then it is not discrimination as we bar them this right through nature." you can argue that we have the capabilities of sex in order to reproduce. however I don't see how homosexuality is hurting nature, and even though they can't do what through sex what sex is naturally there for, they're desires and needs are still natural and therefore is natural for them to pursue it. "Marriage in culture is usually viewed as a male and a female + children. As marriage is a large part of this culture, banning SSM is popular to common marriage stereotypes. (7, 8)" yes to an extent, that is the first thing we think of when we think of marriage because marriage is about love and since heterosexuality is the norm, then when we think about love we automatically associate it with men and women. marriage is in culture more seen as a loving commitment, therefore if two people love each other, then isn't them marrying just part of the culture? "Further more for it to be in discriminating in effect is must be a right, as discrimination to a privilege is just." how can you believe that two people loving each other is not a right but something we just let them do? we are not allowed to love whoever we want? "As you must prove in the states eyes they deserve this ritual/legal "right" then my argument on rights is void, if you cannot prove in the states eyes they deserve this then you have lost." I do agree. that right or wrong in society is vague therefore we need to have it legalized in order for it to be allowed but that is only because we can't simply say that "whatever doesn't harm anyone else is allowed and does harm others is not allowed." because what harms or doesn't harm is subjective, therefore we created the political system we have in order to try and sort out all of the issues and together decide what is harmful and what isn't. illegalizing the right to love someone is discriminatory due to the fact that they aren't harming anyone, our government is not perfect and if people say that homosexuality is a problem then it will be treated like one, but it is not. Side: For gay marriage
They should have the same rights as the rest of us. If I can get married, why can't Bob and Joe get married? If your answer includes religious reasons or personal disgust, it has no validity in the legal decision. If your answer includes a claim of a significant wrong, like it endangers children; you're going to need to PROVE this completely, and maybe we'll consider it. Side: For gay marriage
You claim that the rights should be given, firstly the facts: Marriages have benefits. Your reasoning is extend them to be fair, but that's a fallacy: Why should the state give them costly benifits? So what reason is there to allow them union? None! As my last argument proved the state sees marriage as a procreative type union, gays never form this union, and therefore the goverment has no reason to allow it. So basically what reasons should the state grant these people benefits? As they have no reason then your argument is a fallacy, x =\= y in this situation For more info: http://www.debate.org/debates/ Side: Against gay marriage
You claim that the rights should be given The same rights given to homosexual couples as to heterosexual couples. Marriages have benefits. Well, depending on your definition of "benefits" (legal or social), this could be a fact or a debatable opinion. Your reasoning is extend them to be fair, but that's a fallacy: Why should the state give them costly benifits? 1) How is that a fallacy? 2) YOUR refute is a fallacy, a special pleading fallacy. You ask why the state should give them costly benefits, yet you ignore that the state is giving heterosexual couples the same costly benefits that we are arguing over with homosexual couples. If you wish to point out why the state should give them costly benefits, you surely need to be fair and ask that about ALL groups that ARE given those costly benefits versus the ones you do not think that should. So what reason is there to allow them union? They bring no harm and it's not our place to legislate in the affairs of consenting adults wishing to love when no other harmful factors have been proven. The gay couple down the street does not affect or effect my marriage with my husband and if they were to marry, STILL do not alter my marriage. None! You haven't refuted any of my statements. As my last argument proved the state sees marriage as a procreative type union and therefore the government has no reason to allow it. And what last argument proves that? You know what? For the shits and giggles of it all, let's pretend you DID indeed prove that the state sees marriage as a procreative type union; why does the state allow infertile heterosexual (straight) couples to marry; this includes the elderly, those who choose a surgery which makes them infertile, those who choose not to have kids and those with a disorder that disallows them the ability for procreation? If marriage is about procreation, these groups should not be allowed to marry as well.... Side: For gay marriage
2
points
a lot of countries have legalised gay marriage; and guess what?? the world hasnt imploded, or gone into chaotic ruin. everyone is alive; no wrath of god, and people are smiling and wearing the ring they always wanted that links them to their lover. it is not ruining anything. not the sanctity of marriage, i mean; for christ sake! people have chosen to marry their pets, the eiffel tower and a bunch of other weird things and we all congratulated them; but heaven forbid people with the same genitilia marry! kim kardashian was married 72 days and britney spears 55 hours, just for fun! and where were the outbursts? the petitions and screaming and violence and hatred you all show to scared people now in hiding? nowhere to be found. divorce is a sin, as is cheating; yet you all do it. christians pick and choose what laws of the bible they wish to follow; they are not logical and all they result in is violence and hate. a supposed loving god caused all this? no. this is not what he wanted, he wanted acceptance and you are all breaking his heart. no end of the earth or immenint oblivion has occured after two people deeply in love legally became one. just deal with it if you dont like it; it is not affecting you personally. dont like gay people? dont marry one; and stay out of their happiness. or i will come up to your wedding and say you cant get married; because you are straight, and it is against my religion. not exactly fair. Side: For gay marriage
2
points
|
3
points
Ok now, and read my whole argument and read it twice befroe you comment; gay, CHRISTIAN marriages should not be allowed. By bringing this issue to the courts, the homosexual community is forcing a rule onto a private group! it is written in the christian rule set (of any form or branch of the following of Jehovah (Yes, that is His name), including Catholics, Jews, Mormans, ect.) that the bond of two souls of the same sex is unnatural, and as such is immoral. So here remains the issue; the Christians are upset because the homosexual community is FORCING, and not just by judicial means, their beliefs of unity onto another private party. It is written by the way in the most used from of the bible that it is an absolute sin to propose, follow threw, or allow a marriage of the same two sex's. Keep in mind that i am not christian, but follow a similar religion that, while against the order of unnatural ethics, am for the furthering of the bondage of souls, and also believe that every soul finds it's way into each beast and its sex's. The best speech i can think of to this subject is the episode of South Park when Big Gay Al was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being openly gay. Look it up on Youtube, as i am too lazy to look it up for you. "My house, My Rules" Side: Against gay marriage
1
point
0
points
"Ok now, and read my whole argument and read it twice befroe you comment; gay, CHRISTIAN marriages should not be allowed." okay so now instead of illegalizing homosexual marriage, you want to ban homosexuals from christianity? XD wow, the problem with this is that there isn't only one interpretation of christianity, and there are many interpretations of christian that accept homosexuality. "By bringing this issue to the courts, the homosexual community is forcing a rule onto a private group!" what rule are they forcing? really all they are doing is taking a rule down, not putting any new ones up. allowing gay people to marry in now way affects anyone else other than gay people. Side: For gay marriage
0
points
First of all, separation of church and state means that the government actually can't make Christianity or and other religion marry two people of any gender. If you'd like to discuss the Bible, what about the verse that says God hates clothes made of blended fabric? Hope that shirt you're wearing isn't poly-cotton! Or the one where it says you should never eat shellfish? Or the one that explains how a woman must be a virgin for her wedding to be valid? Half the marriages in America are moot there! I'm not even touching your second paragraph because it makes very little sense to me. If all you've got is a short from South Park, I think we're done here. Side: For gay marriage
Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [2] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve. People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships. The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce. The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all. The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully. One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union. My opponent without a doubt will start to argue as marriage has benefits isn't it fair homosexuals receive them too? Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [3] It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right. Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits. Last statement: 1." Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust."[1] http://wisdomandfollyblog. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/ Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" [3] Side: Against gay marriage
Intelligent, legitimate, and respectful arguments are not possible when the meaning of words is changed. MARRY is from Latin maritus (married), from Indo-European “root” mari (young woman). M-R for a young man of MARRIAGE age is among the oldest and most universal words known to historical linguists. In reality, there is no such thing as marriage of two people of the same sex. Legislative sanctioning of same-sex unions to be called "marriage" is a miscarriage of judicial power. Freedom of speech cannot exist when sodomy is called marriage and protected by law as marriage, as the true definition of "marriage" is excluded by the legalized definition which precludes standing exclusively for the true definition. Side: Against gay marriage
0
points
Intelligent, legitimate, and respectful arguments are not possible when the meaning of words is changed. The definitions of words change all the time. Language is fluid. In reality, there is no such thing as marriage of two people of the same sex. In reality there most certainly is such a thing as marriage of two people of the same sex. It happens, both in this country and in many others. Legislative sanctioning of same-sex unions to be called "marriage" is a miscarriage of judicial power. First off, the legislative branch and the judicial branch are two entirely different branches. Second, the legislative branch sanctioning same-sex marriage would not be a miscarriage of legislative power, and the judicial branch striking down unconstitutional bans against same-sex marriage would not be a miscarriage of judicial power. Freedom of speech cannot exist when sodomy is called marriage and protected by law as marriage Complete nonsense. Sodomy is not called marriage, as sodomy is anal intercourse. Marriage in this country is a legal binding of two people, sanctioned by the state. Same-sex couples can and do get married, and yet freedom of speech exists, unharmed and unaffected. as the true definition of "marriage" is excluded by the legalized definition which precludes standing exclusively for the true definition. The etymology of marriage is not the "true definition". Many words have definitions that change from their original etymology, so that linguistic argument is pointless. Side: For gay marriage
There is no such thing as marriage between two people of the same sex. Denying the meaning of the word does not change homosexual marriage into the merging of two into one flesh. Butt Buddies are perverts and they will always be two stinky yuck headed butt buddies and never be one flesh as in the marriage of a man and woman. So the courts have permitted legal rights of marriage to butt buddies and women who burn in their lust toward each other. They call it marriage I guess, but it is not marriage. Marriage is when a man and woman are joined together and become one flesh. That is not possible for two people of the same sex. Perversion of perverts and murder of innocent babies is adding up to God's judgement against America and America will fall in it's pride and if you don't know your sins are forgiven and Heaven is your home bought and paid for by the only Savior, Jesus Christ, God incarnate who died for us to save us from Hell....... You're not ready for the judgement that is going to fall, and you will beg to be killed in it to be relieved.......not realizing until it's too late that Hell is for sinners and there is no relief. Side: Against gay marriage
1
point
Homosexual relationships often do not last very long. Marriage is supposed to be love and friendship, not lust and passion. The homosexual has several sexual partners in the course of a year, and 1,000 in the course of a lifetime. What’s the point in gay marriage? Homosexuals are not faithful! Maybe they had terrible childhood experiences, but there is no excuse. Nobody is born gay, it is a choice! Just like being a pedophile or a zoophile is a choice. Just because you have the urge to do something does not mean you act on it. Side: Against gay marriage
|
