Debate Info

12

30

Yes-M/F

No-Gay Is OK

Debate Score:	42
Arguments:	26
Total Votes:	49
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Yes-M/F (8)

No-Gay Is OK (18)

Debate Creator

Should marriage be a legal union between just a man and a woman?

Should marriage be a legal union between just a man and a woman or two (or more) people of any gender? 75% of republicans say it is a man/woman deal compared to just 10% of democrats. Only 31% of independants said M/F. Who is "right?"

--Apollo

Yes-M/F Side Score: 12		No-Gay Is OK Side Score: 30
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

0 points

Marriage is between one man and one women. The republican's are right. Male and female in marriage has been this way since the beginning of time. Marriage should be legal union between just a man and women. It should be like that all the time.

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

zombee (1026) Disputed

4 points

Why should marriage continue to be limited just because it's historically veen so? Why are the Republicans right? Aside from the Bible, which no one should be legally forced to obey, what reasons are there for restricting civil rights from gays?

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

Apollo (1608) Disputed

2 points

And historically, slavery has been accepted. Should we have just kept slavery?

Where are you getting this definition of one man and one woman?

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

2 points

Why would someone down-vote a comment without responding?

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Vaan (167) Disputed

1 point

I thought it spoke for itself - it was one of the most obvious straw man comments i've seen in awhile. I ddn't want to comment because I have no real interest in this particular debate and didn't want to get sucked into it

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

zombee (1026) Disputed

2 points

If the only reason someone supports maintaining marriage is that it's traditional, it's perfectly legit to bring up something else that's traditional and ask them if they support that too, and what the difference is if they don't.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

ReventonRage (626) Disputed

1 point

How is that even a straw man? A straw man fallacy is committed when one is trying to disprove a false and weaker version of the argument proposed. It is at most a false analogy, but then again, I agree with what zombee has said.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Vaan (167) Disputed

1 point

Lets see what he said

And historically, slavery has been accepted. Should we have just kept slavery?

So in other words he is saying that because slavery is no longer accepted that homosexual marriage should be as well. Or conversely, that slavery is seen as wrong, and because it was historically legal then it would be wrong to allow the banning of gay marriage

So it is both a straw man (because this happened, your point is invalid) and in a way an emotive comment.

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Apollo (1608) Disputed

1 point

because slavery is no longer accepted that homosexual marriage should be as well

Slavery and homosexuality are independent of each other. I was simply giving an example of when what has been historically accepted by society is not always "right."

Isn't srom's argument argumentum ad populum? I am not versed in logical fallacies, but it seems like argumentum ad populum.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Vaan (167) Disputed

1 point

But then how would you know that what you are doing now is right?. If you can assume that things in the past were wrong then wouldn't the same criteria apply for now considering there will be a future?

And secondly I did vote sroms argument down ^^

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Apollo (1608) Disputed

1 point

then wouldn't the same criteria apply for now considering there will be a future?

It can, but it hasn't. What may or may not occur in the future is not evidence for the present. ALthough I don't see why. The obvious answer in terms of equality is both.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Vaan (167) Disputed

1 point

The obvious answer to you ^^. Just as those in the past would see thier ideals as infalliable and the way to the future. Plus equality can mean many things. Ultimate equality means the elimination of all rights and laws because those laws would make society unequal for criminals. So then come to all of the problems such as where do we draw the line and why? and also why is the line drawn there? who decides? Is this true equality or is this just how we want our society to be and we stamp the label equality onto it to make it look fancy and morally superior?

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Apollo (1608) Disputed

1 point

Just as those in the past would see thier ideals as infalliable and the way to the future.

That's not an argument, that's unfounded conjecture.

Ultimate equality means the elimination of all rights and laws because those laws would make society unequal for criminals.

What are the crimes associated with marriage?

So then come to all of the problems such as where do we draw the line and why?

Laws saying marriage should be only male/female are the ones drawing the line. Your argument shoots itself in the foot. So I ask you, where do we draw the line and why? First gay marriage is banned, then interracial, then what?

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Vaan (167) Disputed

1 point

That's not an argument, that's unfounded conjecture.

Wouldn't everything you've stated previously be unfounded conjecture as well by those same standards?

What are the crimes associated with marriage?

Come now lets not play on ignorance, this was me saying that ultimate equality is the disconstructing of all laws and societal values because they will make the world unequal for certain groups that you would see as bad. So really it's not about equality it is about attaining something they want. I wouldn't have a problem if they would admit this, however trying to cover it in a moral high horse light is silly (same goes for the theists in this case)

Laws saying marriage should be only male/female are the ones drawing the line. Your argument shoots itself in the foot. So I ask you, where do we draw the line and why? First gay marriage is banned, then interracial, then what?

And this new proposal wishes to redraw the line which is why I ask why. If they answer "because I want to" then that's fine and dandy, but if they dress the issue up then I will see problems.

Also if you noted in my earlier post I don't care whether it is legalised or not because in the eyes of the lord it will not be a marriage.

Also you haven't answered my question which is where do YOU draw the line? If you draw the line at any less than complete dismantlemant of all society and societal values and laws then you are not doing it for equality but for personal reasons, and even if it was for equality that would in itself be a personal reason.

12 years ago Side: Yes-M/F

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Apollo (1608) Disputed

2 points

Wouldn't everything you've stated previously be unfounded conjecture as well by those same standards?

Because they actually occurred.

Come now lets not play on ignorance, this was me saying that ultimate equality is the disconstructing of all laws and societal values

We are not talking about all of society, we are talking about gay marriage. By not having laws (what you say is closer to true equality) that prevent gay marriage, you achieve equality.

nd this new proposal wishes to redraw the line

No. It seeks to eliminate the line.

I don't care whether it is legalised or not because in the eyes of the lord it will not be a marriage

All I have to say is, you can't pick and choose what parts of the bible you believe. Either give them their rights or kill them like the bible tells you to.

Also you haven't answered my question which is where do YOU draw the line?

There is no line to be drawn. I have said this already. You are getting rid of the lines (laws).

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

ReventonRage (626) Disputed

1 point

So in other words he is saying that because slavery is no longer accepted that homosexual marriage should be as well.

No, he was not saying that. He wasn't even trying to link the two. He was merely raising the analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous it would be to appeal to tradition.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

ricedaragh (2494) Disputed

1 point

I thought you were going to go and learn something and then come back an wow us all with your sparkling knowledge, if this is it, I'd advise going back and trying again.

Just out of curiosity, since you state that it's been this way since the dawn of time, given that you probably believe in the Adam and Eve story (even the Catholics abandoned that one). Genesis never states that they were married.

Marriage should be legal union between just a man and women.

So not a religious union then.

It should be like that all the time.

Why force your beliefs on others? "let he who is without sin..." and all that Jesus wisdom that asshole fundies are supposed to follow.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

BenWalters (1513)

2 points

I rarely see religious values applied in their treatment of entire groups, or, I see religious values being abused by those who do not truly follow all of them. Consistency is not religions strong point.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Coldfire (1014)

3 points

If a religion specifically states so and if marriage can be defined as a strictly religious ceremony and is not recognized by the state nor the participants given any benefits or disadvantages recognized by the state, then yes. But considering you clearly specify 'legal union,' I would say that the above doesn't apply.

So specifically with regard to the United States (and the majority of other countries in the world which are not theocracies), a country whose constitution promotes liberty above all else, and specifically states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” it is unconstitutional to provide legal benefits which are granted exclusively to people who get married, and then restrict the people who can obtain a marriage based on an attribute of theirs that is not illegal.

That is discrimination.

12 years ago Side: unconstitutional

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

sierrastruth (524)

1 point

absolutely could not have put it better myself. Marriage is another thing that government has no business being involved in. When and why did the government get involved in it in the first place? does anyone know?

12 years ago Side: unconstitutional

Support Dispute Clarify

BenWalters (1513)

2 points

I see absolutely no reason to segregate, discriminate and belittle people based on arbitrary conceptions of union.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

This is so repetitive, it's annoying. Here's the deal. People are constantly posting these, and the statistic is the same every single time. More are pro-gay marriage. So seriously: get original with your debate topics.

Oh, and I'm pro-gay.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

1 point

Gay marriage won't affect anybody but the people who choose to be in a gay marriage and their loved ones, people against it are free to not enter into one.

12 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

PhxDemocrat (13121)

1 point

It is now 2015 and the Supreme Court has made Gay Marriage the law of the land.

8 years ago Side: No-Gay Is OK

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

Browse More Debates