CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
17
Yes. No.
Debate Score:34
Arguments:40
Total Votes:35
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (13)
 
 No. (12)

Debate Creator

KJVPrewrath(979) pic



Should same sex marriage be legal for consenting adult humans?

Yes.

Side Score: 17
VS.

No.

Side Score: 17
3 points

While I agree that the concept of marriage is problematic and outdated, allowing marriage equality is a big step towards equal rights for all. Unless we are going to ditch marriage universally, we should of course allow gay people the right to marry.

Side: Yes.
WinstonC(1226) Clarified
2 points

"the concept of marriage is problematic and outdated"

Why is that?

Side: Yes.
qcsampling(35) Disputed
1 point

Equal rights is an illusion society uses to get the perspective heard! Here is a question: Same sex marriage is an abomination. Do I have an equal right to say what I believe without any sort of retaliation? And if so, why? However if not, why not?

Side: No.
Mack(534) Disputed
1 point

"Do I have an equal right to say what I believe without any sort of retaliation?"

In America, everybody has the right to say what they believe, which includes saying things in retaliation, so you do not have the right to say things without any sort of verbal retaliation.

Side: Yes.

All marriage should be legal. Even if its more than two ppl marrying.

Side: Yes.
1 point

More than two people per wedding? Or are you suggesting polygamy should be legal?

Side: No.

Fraid’ I am sir.......................................................................................

Side: No.

Sure, why not? Love who you want, marry who you want, as long as your commitment is to one and only one. However, it must be stated that churches are not the place to go for gay marriage unless said church allows it specifically.

Side: Yes.
4 points

There should be no laws regarding (adult) marriage at all.

There is no sensible reason for government to be involved in the personal lives or relationships of adults.

Adults are perfectly capable of running our own lives. We are able to work out for ourselves:

- - What kinds of relationships to have.

- - With whom to have them.

- - How many to have them with at a time.

- - What the rules are between the people in the relationships.

- - When to begin or end them.

Side: No.
3 points

@marcus

I agree with this completely. Now, out of curiosity (and I know this is a personal question), are you married? If so, does it bother you being engaged in such a legal contract? If not, presumably, this was all a rather large factor?

Also, it seems to me that 'common law marriage' is the grossest over-reach of government power, in this regard. If you are simply dating a person of which you both agreed not to engage in a 'legally binding marriage' situation, the state still forces you into it--from a legal perspective. Further, the laws themselves which are being imposed are arguably tyrannical. This has the potential to ruin loving, romantic relationships for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the relationship itself. Outrageous, really.

Side: No.
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
2 points

Math Fan,

Now, out of curiosity (and I know this is a personal question), are you married? If so, does it bother you being engaged in such a legal contract?

Actually, it is pertinent (as opposed to impertinent.)

I am over a decade into my second marriage.

The first one ended amicably without any financially oriented legal warfare, but the divorce was still a pain in the ass. We endured long lines at the courthouse, completed lots of inexplicable paperwork and paid hundreds of dollars in fees, all so my ex and I could part amicably.

We did not need any intervention to help us separate and move on to living apart. We agreed to part. We agreed on the terms of the parting. We agreed on the division of assets. Even so, we had to get permission from a judge to act on our agreement. We got precisely nothing for our time in the courthouse, from filing the forms, or from paying the fees.

Why did I marry again? Social pressure and cultural conditioning had a lot to do with it. Also, I did not come to any of the above conclusions until after I had already remarried.

Side: Yes.
KJVPrewrath(979) Disputed
1 point

Children should not be married.............................................................................................................

Side: Yes.
AlofRI(2806) Clarified
1 point

I would add that "There is no sensible reason for [religions] to be involved in the personal {deleted: "lives or"} relationships of adults.

I think we need a legal and committed union, but, choice should be up to the adults.

Side: Yes.
outlaw60(15500) Disputed Banned
0 points

Let’s go way back to the 1600’s where most of our laws concerning marriage were inherited from England. Around the 1920’s, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married for the purpose of making sure blacks, whites, Asians and Indians didn’t mix.

Now Crazy AL we will take it back to England.

The ugliest of these laws inherited from England were called anti-miscegenation laws, or laws that prevented interracial marriages.

So Crazy AL why did states really get involved in marriage ???????

Side: Yes.
1 point

4 out of 5 of your ideas I agree with, it's the "how many" I have a problem with.

Why should someone be allowed to marry multiple people? Other than religion of course, which actually conflicts with your "with whom to have them" idea, as homosexuals in general are more than frowned upon in the Old Testament.

Side: Yes.
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

Why should someone be allowed to marry multiple people?

I do not see why not. Consider all the activities and agreements marriage consists of. NONE of them are unique to marriage.

People can group together in any number to live in or buy a house and be joint owners without government deciding how many may be involved.

People (of the age of consent) can group together in any number to have sex, or do so in pairs, or serially, without government deciding how many may be involved.

People can group together in any number to raise their own children, provide child welfare regulations (which apply to nuclear families equally) without government deciding how many may be involved.

Etc., etc., etc..

People can group together and divide house keeping tasks, including earning money to pay bills, without government deciding how many may be involved.

Whatever legal requirements there are for the conducting of these relationships are sufficient in and of themselves.

I see no rational reason the term marriage should change whether a frat house or dormitory or real estate deal, or sexual relationships are legal, or in any way under the pervue of legislators, bureaucrats, or judges in to any degree in additional to the non-marital regulations.

If you still do not see why I think this, consider some previous marriage laws in the West. Men were legally entitled to beat their wives or have forcible sex with them, despite legal prohibitions against doing that to anyone else in society. Marriage was used as an legal method to change who was protected from rape and other violence, and to what degree.

Likewise, heterosexual couples had access to legal benefits (via legal marriage) that homosexual couples had no access to until recently, and that people in long-term relationships only have access to only if they accept government intrusion into the ultimate dissolution of the relationship (if they split).

Unequal application of law is basic to the definition of injustice.

It is in the interest of justice to leave government out of the business of creating special rules for people based on their independent agreements.

We are all capable of ordering our lives and relationships without government stacking the deck in the favor of some and to the detriment of others.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Should I be able to marry my dad, grandpa, brother, son, or mother?

Side: No.
KJVPrewrath(979) Disputed
2 points

Incest has nothing to do with gay rights......................................................................................

Side: Yes.
Mingodalia(226) Disputed
1 point

Gay rights have nothing to do with homosexuality being a sin, just like these other mentioned things are sins.*

Side: No.
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

As long as you are all adults, I don't see why not.

That is not to say it is a smart idea to have sex with any of those people.

Side: Yes.
Mingodalia(226) Disputed
1 point

What does "being a smart thing to do" have to do with morality? Is it wrong or not. And if not, why not?

Side: Yes.
1 point

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I would challenge just one Wacko Progressive to find Marriage in the 14th Amendment and where Marriage is stated in the said amendment.

Side: No.