CreateDebate


Debate Info

18
28
I've always thought that Wait...., What? No!
Debate Score:46
Arguments:43
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I've always thought that (17)
 
 Wait...., What? No! (26)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(38741) pic



Gays are trying to force themselves into a club where they are clearly not wanted.

There are two parts to the gay marriage issue.

1. The love aspect

2. The benefits

The love aspect can be resolved in different ways. Gays can:

1. Have their own ceremony with friends and relatives

2. Petition religions to change their stance on gay marriage

3. Start their own religion

The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (of age of consent) to join in a civil union.

In short, this issue shouldn't even be an issue because there are ways around the situation. If you don't want to go around the situation, then you're trying to force yourself in. If you are trying to force yourself in, then clearly, you are not wanted there.

I've always thought that

Side Score: 18
VS.

Wait...., What? No!

Side Score: 28

My problem is that I'm an engineer. If the system stands in my way, I either figure a way to navigate through the system or go around the system. I don't waste any effort in trying to change the system. People may see this as a flaw but it is a technique that works.

People see me as an enemy of gays and that is the furthest thing from the truth. I am trying to point out an alternate solution for gays to get what they want in the shortest amount of time.

In short. I don't let a person's "no" stand in my way because I don't recognize that person's right to tell me "no." If you stand there and argue with that person, then you have just recognized their right to tell you "no" and you are now trying to change their their mind to say "yes" so that they let you do whatever it is you want to do. All you have to do is put on your Nikes and just do it.

Side: I've always thought that
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

My problem is that I'm an engineer. If the system stands in my way, I either figure a way to navigate through the system or go around the system.

Let's take this to its logical conclusion:

Groups of people should never have migrated from Africa millions of years ago, they should make it work.

Jews shouldn't have left Egypt, they should have just slaved harder for the Pharaohs or figured out a way around it.

All of the tribes being murdered by warlords in Africa should just come up with a tricky way to avoid that.

Why did we end slavery? I mean why couldn't the slaves just work to buy their freedom? Why change the system.

Brilliant Joe, now I can clearly understand your stance on the issue (that's sarcasm)

Side: Wait...., What? No!

I'm sorry, you call that a logical conclusion? Where's the logic? Where's the connection? One group is being physically being forced against their will (slaves). gays are not being held against their will. You're comparing apples to oranges in order to make an emotional appeal. "The plight of gays is the same as the plight of the slaves!!!" Oh please, give me a break.

Slaves had no way of navigating through the system (except maybe becoming the house slave). Gays can petition the government for the removal of the word "marriage" from all legal matters and replaced with the words "civil union." They can further petition for same-sex civil unions.

Slaves had no way to circumvent the system (except running away). Slaves could find little joy and happiness in their lives. Gays can have an open wedding ceremony in front of their friends and relatives. Any legal benefits they may be missing out on is just icing on the cake (and can be remedied by the previous paragraph). What you are trying to say is that gays are fighting for the icing on the cake and claiming that by not having the icing they are being treated like slaves. Is this what you call logic?

Gays have been living together, spending the rest of their lives together, loving each other, expressing their love for each other in front of friends and family for ages. If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make them any happier, think again.

Side: I've always thought that
2 points

The benefits aspect can be resolved simply by petitioning the government to stop using the word marriage and substitute in its place the word civil union and allow any couple (of age of consent) to join in a civil union.

Right . . . but rather than removing every reference to marriage from every state and federal law and replacing it with the words "civil union" and then extending the right to participate in a civil union to gay people and straight people alike, wouldn't it be way easier just to, uh, let gay people get married?

Besides, if the idea of gay marriage is seen as an "attack" on straight marriage, how exactly is the notion of removing "marriage" altogether going to be construed? Not as a friendly compromise, I'm betting.

Side: Wait...., What? No!
kamranw(232) Disputed
1 point

The issue is that marriage is something performed in a church. The government should never have adopted this word in the first place. If they use the words civil union, the religous groups would have no argument. The christians say "hey you cant let gays get married!" The government says "Hold on a minute, marriage is something you do in the confines of your church. It has no legal bearring. You still must straight or not, get a civil union for us to recognize it."

Simply put, the issue becomes that the government is changing the definition of marriage, which is something that comes from religion. Therefore, they have no right to change that definition.

Side: I've always thought that

Oh yeah. Way easier. Which is why gay marriage has come such a long way since it started. ;)

Marriage would only be removed from any legal document. It will still appear in religious documents. The compromise will be a hell of a lot more amicable than the tension that currently exists.

Side: I've always thought that

So did countless others when they passed the desegregation acts in Congress. They weren't wanted either but they broke the glass ceiling on that after many, many years of fighting for equal rights. Gays must also fight for their rights and one day, whether you like it or not, they will have them. You don't skirt the issues, you meet them head on.

Side: Wait...., What? No!

What rights? The benefits? The love aspect? Where does civil union differ from marriage? What's wrong with removing the word "marriage" from all legal documents and substituting it with the words "Civil Union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals?

Side: I've always thought that
1 point

It doesn't but do you truly believe straight people won't have the same problem if the wording was ever changed? Gays, as you put it, wouldn't be welcome in that club either!

Side: Wait...., What? No!
1 point

When the government decides to remove the word marriage, there is no ground for either party to argue. Do not even accept what happens in a church as anything legal. Tell those people they still to go get papers for their civil union.

Side: Wait...., What? No!

Since you chose to copy and paste your argument into a debate, I shall do the same with my reply:

Force themselves into a club where there not wanted?

How does any gay getting married effect any straight couple? Your argument, which you continue to repeat time and time again, is ridiculous, and you know it.

All gays want is equality, and if the government stopped using the word marriage but instead used civil unions that would be great. Look at this site that advocates equal marriage rights. It gives a number of scenarios:

We want the Flag of Equal Marriage to be complete, with all 50 stars lit up. We see three routes to marriage equality, as we define it:

1. Every individual state could pass a law allowing same-sex marriage.

2. The federal government could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and allow same-sex marriage at the federal level, overriding all state-level bans.

3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.

So here you're arguing a straw man "gays aren't being reasonable" argument.

Back to the whole "joining a club thing" and why it's bullshit. When African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted, should they have stopped?

In addition, marriage isn't a club. There aren't members only meetings where only married people are allowed to get into, and married people don't have to do anything for other married couples. Marriage is the legal (and often religious/cultural) union of two people who love each other and intend to spend the rest of their lives together. So allow me to repeat: how does letting gays marry affect, even a little bit, straight married couples? What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?

If this is the best argument that you can come up with for opposing gay marriage, maybe you need to reevaluate your position and realize how ridiculous you sound (even more so than usual).

Side: Wait...., What? No!

Here's may main point:

Don't let a person's "no" stand in your way. Don't recognize a person's right to tell you "no." If you stand there and argue with that person, then you have just recognized their right to tell you "no" and you are now trying to change their their mind to say "yes" so that they let you do whatever it is you want to do.

Basically what I'm saying is that the way gays have been going about fighting for their rights recognizes the opposition's right to say "no."

Now, I agree with and support this:

3. The term "marriage" could be removed from state and/or federal laws, turning all "marriages" into civil unions in the eyes of the government. PLUS, same-sex civil unions would need to be recognized in all 50 states or at the federal level.

I don't support number one because it means that the rights of the opponents of same sex marriages are being trampled on and they will therefore fight back. In other words, it legitimizes their right to oppose same sex marriage and gives them reason to fight back.

I would fight against number two because I'm for states rights. The federal government has way too much power.

Now, I did not say that gays are unreasonable for wanting same sex marriage. I am saying that if they are trying to follow scenarios one and two above, they are being unreasonable in the way they are pursuing it.

The argument that "it doesn't affect any straight couple" doesn't work because anyone could say, "And? So what? Who cares? The majority has voted. They don't want it!"

The whole "African-Americans and other minorities "forced" their way into predominately white institutions, and clearly weren't wanted" doesn't work because the word marriage has a religious aspect to it that needs to be separated from the legal aspect. If it can't be removed, then another word needs to take its place.

You ask, "What gives them the right to deny those who want to pursue happiness with the one they love, legal sanction to do so?" The answer is: Anyone who bothers to argue with someone who denies them the pursuit of happiness gives that person the right to do so. By arguing the point you are admitting/recognizing their right to oppose you. If your stance is that they have no right to oppose you, then you need not argue the point; you just figure a way to navigate the system or go around the system.

Now, lets see how ridiculous you sound when you say that gays have never been able to find an ounce of happiness because they don't have a piece of paper that says that they are legally married. What a bunch of crap. Do you actually expect me to believe that a piece of paper is going to magically make them find happiness? Come on.

Gays have been living together, spending the rest of their lives together, loving each other, expressing their love for each other in front of friends and family for ages. If you think that a piece of paper is going to somehow make things any different, think again. Those people who hate gays will always hate gays regardless of this piece of paper you so desperately want.

Side: I've always thought that
1 point

Honestly...what makes the most sense is option 3. Then the government has nothing to do with religious/philosophical problems. They would be neutral, which is how it should be. Then whichever churches/ship captains/etc. are willing to marry gay people can do so, and those who don't want to don't have to(I'm sure people will be able to find a venue--there's enough support even in some churches that people can find someone to marry them. And they can always go to the courthouse if all else fails). Then gay people can be married, have equality before the law, and conservatives can still believe in their own definition of marriage. But mostly, it makes sense because the government stays neutral in what is a personal/religious/philosophical issue.

I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3. :D

Side: Wait...., What? No!
Banshee(288) Disputed
1 point

I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3.

1) Pragmatism. D'you have any idea how many state and federal laws make specific reference to "marriage"? LOTS. Adoption laws, inheritance laws, property laws, credit-and-debt laws, health decision and power-of-attorney laws, insurance benefits laws, tort laws, bankruptcy laws . . . the list goes on, interminably.

2) Married people. If you think they squawk about the gays next door wanting to get married, wait until the government strolls in and tells them that NOBODY is legally "married."

3) Regulation of the family unit. E.g., we don't allow ten-year-olds to get "married" and we don't allow polygamous marriage either. If we separate out "marriage" as an exclusively religious institution on which states cannot intrude, now suddenly we are in a world of hurt with fringe groups who want to "marry" a pre-adolescent harem. Your religion might say it's hunky-dory to have sex with fourteen nine-year-olds, but public policy says something quite different. If the state can still regulate "marriage" but at the same time "marriage" has no legal force, then "marriage" is meaningless. If the state can't regulate it, then we end up reversing child-protective laws by about 400 years.

Side: Wait...., What? No!