CreateDebate


Debate Info

36
12
It should be made legal. It should remain illegal.
Debate Score:48
Arguments:30
Total Votes:63
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It should be made legal. (21)
 
 It should remain illegal. (6)

Debate Creator

AnOddEnglish(128) pic



Same - Sex marriage legalisation.

We all know the issue at hand, and it doesn't really apply to any country or state in particular. Let's just discuss the concept, the location is irrelevant.

It should be made legal.

Side Score: 36
VS.

It should remain illegal.

Side Score: 12
4 points

Same sex marriage is a fundamental right in a free society. For those in the US who believe that same sex marriage is wrong because it is against American values, they are ignorant of the values America was founded upon. The US is a secular state meaning that the church would have no interference in the lives of individuals. Instead people should rightfully have the freedom to choose to follow the church's laws and creeds. This is the same for the great majority of countries (aside from the ones with state religions, such as Sharia Law).

The legalisation of same sex marriage is one step closer to a more libertarian society...

Side: It should be made legal.
1 point

I have seen only two arguments (and one of them is restated here) for gay marriage to not be a thing: we have to protect the sanctity of marriage or marriage should only be for people who can reproduce. The word 'sanctity' has ties directly to religion and that pesky first amendment sort of prevents laws regarding religion. Oh phooey. And in case you think that isn't strong enough a reason, lets look at the divorce rate of straight couples in the U.S. Oh my, perhaps we should ban heterosexual marriage to protect its sanctity! As for the reproduction argument, what about those unlucky men and women who happen to be straight but infertile? Should fertility tests be given before you can get married?

I think the best solution would be for the government to divorce (horrible pun intended) the word marriage from its dictionary. Every couple, whether they be straight, gay, or whatever should get the same title from the government with the same rights. Leave 'marriage' certificates, ceremonies, and rituals to the churches, organizations, and individuals who wish to partake in them. If you don't like that Joe-Jim's Church down the street does gay marriage ceremonies, oh well, don't go there.

Side: It should be made legal.
Billy_Bob(13) Banned
1 point

I don't think this issue is so important. Gays will not reproduce (thank the lord in heaven, blessed be his wisdom!). What will reproduce is the problem.

Marriage is always traditionally between those of the same race and social class. Also marriage within family should be limited to cousins. Also the woman should be shorter than the man so that the man can show he has authority over the woman.

These are the REAL issues. Liberals would have us argue these meaningless ones instead. How am I not surprised?

Side: It should be made legal.
1 point

You must be a troll. I'm going to settle on that for the sake of my sanity.

Side: It should remain illegal.

Legalization isn't the correct term here. It's not that same change marriage is illegal, it's just not supported and endorsed by the state. Therefore any libertarian view is not expressible within this debate.

Are you going to make gay marriage illegal? You would stop a consensual religious ceremony with force? Within the wording of this debate this seems the only reasonable position.

Side: It should be made legal.
AnOddEnglish(128) Clarified
1 point

Profuse apologies, I didn't realise that I had argued against it, my mistake. I'm absolutely pro-legalisation.

Side: It should be made legal.

Gay Marriage should be legal on the whole planet. Gay Marriage harms no one.

Side: It should be made legal.
2 points

Gay marriage should remain illegal because the act in itself is against pro-life. Two guys cannot reproduce and two women can't reproduce... They need each other to create life. Modern science has found a way to violate natures law of reproduction through artificial insemination. This country (and that's really irrelevant except that this is where you reside but the rule goes for humans in general no matter where in the world) weather you like it or not was found from the principles of knowledge from religion and morality. From a morality point of view how can it be argued that the donor doesn't feel wrong for donating his sperm for money... Somewhere down the line I guarantee every donor contemplates about the life they have created, what it looks like, what's his/her personality is like, what status have they achieved in life ect. Basically the concerns of a parent. How can this be though if there is a disconnect between a man and his seed, which is the only thing that if were true would make the act a morally straight practice but it's not true as I have described. Morality is not derived from religion, religion practices morality which derives from nature so this is not a religious argument. If you want to be gay that's fine with me but gay marriage should remain illegal to avoid the promoting morality of acceptance.

Side: It should remain illegal.
darthtimon(41) Disputed
3 points

Marriage and having children don't go hand in hand so that aspect of your argument is flawed. Additionally, what is wrong about the morality of accepting homosexuality? It exists in nature; therefore why isn't it viewed as natural in humans?

Gay marriage should be legal, because by now we should have equal rights, and that's what this is about.

Side: It should be made legal.
3 points

Gay marriage should remain illegal because the act in itself is against pro-life.

As two men cannot produce viable offspring by sexual congress, I should think that their marital status is entirely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

Two guys cannot reproduce and two women can't reproduce... They need each other to create life.

I say again. Marriage does not affect this matter in the slightest degree.

Modern science has found a way to violate natures law of reproduction through artificial insemination.

This is impertinent in every sense of the word. The most elementary understanding of genetics, would be sufficient to determine the relevance of In Vitro fertilisation to the debate; to wit, none.

This country weather you like it or not was found from the principles of knowledge from religion and morality.

Knowledge is not derived from a faithful religion. The term is dogma.

Now, I quite enjoy the history of the United States of America. I am not convinced of the veracity of your account, as to its founding principles. I shall cite no authority beyond that of the Constitution of the States United (you may have heard of it - it is the supreme law of your nation, and was written to prevent precisely the form of objectionable persecution and equality, which you have hear advocated). You may find Article I of the Bill of Rights yourself. [1]

From a morality point of view how can it be argued that the donor doesn't feel wrong for donating his sperm for money... Somewhere down the line I guarantee every donor contemplates about the life they have created, what it looks like, what's his/her personality is like, what status have they achieved in life ect. Basically the concerns of a parent. How can this be though if there is a disconnect between a man and his seed, which is the only thing that if were true would make the act a morally straight practice but it's not true as I have described.

What? What has this to do with the issue at hand? You are aware that sperm donations are employed in the insemination of women, are you not?

Morality is not derived from religion

Nonsense.

religion practices morality which derives from nature so this is not a religious argument.

It was not such an argument, until you made it one.

And precisely how does religion derive its morality from nature? Surely, religion derives its morality from the divine instruction of a God or a Pantheon? Furthermore, surely such a deity of group of deities may be defined as supernatural, which would make them quite the opposite of natural?

If you want to be gay that's fine with me

That's obviously untrue. In addition, what do you mean by "want to be gay"? You cannot maintain that homosexual predilections are an affectation, can you?

but gay marriage should remain illegal to avoid the promoting morality of acceptance.

I submit, that a morality which preaches acceptance of what is benign, is superior to one which preaches its persecution.

Side: It should be made legal.
1 point

"To avoid the promoting morality of acceptance"

The most noble and important moral value is that of tolerance, and of acceptance of that which (other morality permitting) seems odd but has no real reason to be rejected. What you've actually said, in a distorted way, is that we should be closed-minded.

You mention a lot about sperm donation, that's something else entirely, and not strictly relevant, so I won't address that.

"the act in itself is against pro-life"

Are you saying that all married couples must have children? There are countless married (heterosexual) couples who will never have children. That is their choice, not yours.

And though you're correct in saying that homosexual couples cannot reproduce (obviously), I don't get your extrapolated point. Why should this stop them from getting married if that's what they want? It seems to me like you want to stamp out homosexuality, and I do hope that this is not the case. Homosexuality is not going to spread, like some kind of disease. There is no need to keep them repressed, they're not some kind of militia.

Your only real point was that we should avoid promoting "acceptance", but that's really the definition of close-mindedness, which I don't think is good or acceptable - few people do. Feel free to reiterate that point or add another, but I don't see any merit in your argument as yet, good Sir.

Side: It should be made legal.
norcalkev(31) Disputed
0 points

Actually I'll dispute myself... I didn't realize because I'm new to the site that if you dispute someone the point go towards the position of argument you are making.

Side: It should be made legal.
norcalkev(31) Clarified
1 point

^ Meant this for a different debate woops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Side: It should be made legal.
norcalkev(31) Clarified
0 points

Well then I guess you're right... I guess it should be okay for gays to get married but I don't think they should have the same natural rights as a heterosexual couple. I mean specifically the right to have children because then it does become a spreading problem. Also I've heard somewhere homosexuality promote disease!

Side: It should be made legal.
1 point

I mean specifically the right to have children because then it does become a spreading problem.

Please explain what you mean by this. Do you imply that homosexuality would then spread? And that this is to be avoided?

Also I've heard somewhere homosexuality promote disease!

Well, that sounds absolutely absurd. "I've heard somewhere that..." is also not a sentence to be taken seriously, unless you can provide evidence/a link/a reference. You almost certainly heard that from someone who hates homosexuals.

Side: It should be made legal.
1 point

I once wrote a letter to my governor but never mailed it.

I'm not going to give the entire definition but in my 1927 Webster Dictionary, Marriage is defined pretty much as the ... of a MAN and a WOMAN.

Same thing for my 1953 copy, and the 2001 copy that we have at school.

Now, definitions can change, but why not just make a new word concerning same-sex "marriage"

Such as... Bimarriage, Homarriage, Homomarriage, that's what their labeled as otherwise , but that's also not the point that I'm getting at.

Why not have a marriage for a man and a woman, and then something else for man and man, woman and woman, shemale and maleshe, etc.

States can then be for it or against it rather then having to change their marriage laws, and Religious houses can do the same.

Side: It should remain illegal.
Cuaroc(8827) Disputed
2 points

Why create an entire new word when it would be much easier to change definition of marriage.

Side: It should be made legal.

Precisely. Ignore the dictionary, focus on the issue at hand, let's not get caught up on terminology. Whatever you want to call it, should it be legal or not?

Side: It should be made legal.
2 points

So, you're saying that you should be making people feel even more discriminated? By making it different from others, you are making the couple feel even more set out from society than people make them feel already.

You raise a valid idea, but it you would often end up with similar problems. If it's called something else, people will still be against it.

If you made same-sex marriage legal, this wouldn't matter. As you say, definitions can change.

Side: It should be made legal.
-4 points
5 points

You embody why I hate religion.

"Seems weird to see two guys kissing"

Just how bigoted and small minded are you? If you don't like watching men kiss or have sex - fine, nor do I and I fully support legalisation. Though I'm sure you have much less revulsion for watching women do it.

But you would use a right to prevent these people from being happy? Why? If two men or women want to get married, pardon my French but what the fuck has it got to do with you?

You must recognise that given the ability to choose, you have a duty to your fellow man in this issue. Just because you don't want to watch, other people's lives should be shaped in a negative way?

You're entitled to an opinion, but spewing completely unveiled religious bigotry is a very low act indeed. Your argument is not valid.

Side: It should be made legal.
DeerSlayer13(14) Disputed
3 points

Marriage has always been one man and one woman and it should stay that way. The main reason for getting married is to reproduce and raise children. And as most of you know two guys or two girls can't reproduce.

Side: It should remain illegal.