CreateDebate


Debate Info

32
97
No. Why Should It? Yes. Why not?
Debate Score:129
Arguments:74
Total Votes:163
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 No. Why Should It? (23)
 
 Yes. Why not? (51)

Debate Creator

GreenEyedGir(46) pic



Should Gay Marriage Be Made Legal Everywhere?

No. Why Should It?

Side Score: 32
VS.

Yes. Why not?

Side Score: 97

Some times it feels like 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 many different ways. They 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 (with 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.

Side: No. Why Should It?
3 points

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: Yes. Why not?

Here, check this out.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Gays_are_trying_to_force_themselves_into_a_club_where_they_are_clearly_not_wanted

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: No. Why Should It?
3 points

too bad blacks and women were allowed in the club when they were not wanted in... maybe we should have come up with a new word instead of a democratic republic and just call it an 'EvenThosePeopleCanVoteOcracy'.

we can either change the entire US Code (including the more than 1100 federal benefits for married couples), and force each state to change all of their statutes (unconstitutional), or we can repeal DOMA and force each state to recognize the marriage of other states (constitutional and what we do with other marriages) making gay marriage legal in all 50 states all at once.

Supporting Evidence: Federal benefits of marriage (www.gao.gov)
Side: Yes. Why not?

Oh please. The right to vote has nothing to do with marriage benefits.

You may be new here so I'll lay out my position for you.

1. I'm not against gay marriage.

2. I see the gay community's fight for gay marriage as an uphill battle.

3. I suggest that the gay community come up with a different name for their unions and force the government to give them the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

4. Alternatively, I suggest that the gay community force the government to give up the use of the word "marriage" and use a new word for both heterosexual, and homosexual marriages.

Side: No. Why Should It?
1 point

I'll admit, I do not support gay marriage. This does not mean I hate gays or think homosexuality is a sin. Marriage I feel should be between a man and a woman. In the U.S., this decision I believe should be voted on in a State by State fashion. It should be up to the individual state to allow gay-marriage. If in my state we voted on it and is passed, so be it. If I can re-call Arizona, Florida, and California had a vote on Gay Marriage, and I believe all three votes came out to be against gay marriage. California, who would have thought? I think when it comes to gay marriage this has a major "Bradley Effect".

As for the rest of the world, its up to the rest of the countries to decide whether or not to accept it.

Side: No. Why Should It?
sparsely(496) Disputed
5 points

"This does not mean I hate gays or think homosexuality is a sin. Marriage I feel should be between a man and a woman"

You fail to present any reasoning to support this position. Can we assume religion?

Side: Yes. Why not?
3 points

Here is why I disagree. In Arkansas, their was a law passed that banned people from adopting who were living with a sexual partner who they were not married to. This law had no other purpose then to stop homosexuals from adopting children. Right now Arkansas has more then three times more children that need adoption then there are available families to take them in, but guess what? Apparently taking away rights from homosexuals is more important. There is absolutely no proof that children who grow up in homosexual households suffer any sort of added mental problems. In fact, a court in Arkansas had unanimously agreed to overturn a ban on gay couples becoming foster parents because the reasons stated were, to be frank, bullshit.

The only way that we can fight homophobia is by showing people that homosexuals deserve the same rights as straight couples. I know you say yo don't hate gays, but why do you oppose gay marriage? Don't homosexuals deserve the right to have their love legally recognized? And don't say that there should be civil unions, that's the same thing telling African Americans they can drink from a water fountain, but not the same one as whites. Separate but equal can never be equal.

Side: Yes. Why not?
2 points

Damn it Soccer, you know better than this:

This law had no other purpose then to stop homosexuals from adopting children.

Are you telling me that you are clairvoyant? I thought you didn't believe in that crap.

Doesn't that law also prevent heterosexual couples who are living together from adopting? What? There are no heterosexual couples living together who want to adopt? What was that? If there were, they would just get married and adopt? Do you realize that there are obstacles, other than being gay, that handicap a couple to the point where they decide not to get married? Not because they don't want to get married but because of the obstacles.

Side: No. Why Should It?
1 point

you must think homosexuality is wrong to not want it to even be legal. even things like divorce that many people would disagree with is legal.

I think there must be some harm in order to make things illegal and i have seen no one present a cogent argument that shows the harm that gay marriage will do (except to the bigotries of religious people).

If you don't think so, then WHY!!!? Just cuz you don't like it is not sufficient.

Side: Yes. Why not?
johnnyboy46(211) Disputed
0 points

Not only is marrige defined in the dictionary as a bond between a man and a woman; it is also defined that way in the bible. Now I'm not trying to be a holier-than-thou Jesus freak, but generally what the bible says goes. Just ask the founding fathers.

Side: No. Why Should It?
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

California had a vote on Gay Marriage, and I believe all three votes came out to be against gay marriage. California, who would have thought? I think when it comes to gay marriage this has a major "Bradley Effect".

No, it wasn't the "Bradley Effect" it was the "Mormon Church Effect", which poured millions of dollars into mobilizing people to vote against it, and millions of dollars funding TV ads to oppose it. Follow the money and it leads back to Utah.

Side: Yes. Why not?
1 point

Hell no! Leave that crap up to the individual states to decide! MORE STATE'S RIGHTS!

Side: No. Why Should It?
2 points

Should your state decide if YOU can marry who you want? Did the Supreme Court go too far when it overruled state's laws against interracial marriages in 1967?

What happens to the federal benefits/responsibilities of marriage (social security, tax implications and filings, exemption from testifying against spouses in court, child support, etc.)?

And if a gay couple adopts a child in a state where gay adoption is legal then moves to (or vacations in, drives through, etc.) a state where gay adoption is illegal, are there custody rights put in question?

Or, a lesbian couple who gets a civil union where it is legal, has a child by artificial insemination, and one spouse takes the kid to a state that does not recognize their union (based on a real case), what are the other spouse's rights?

Marriage is a good example of where a different law in each of the 50 states is a terrible idea.

Side: Yes. Why not?
1 point

And if a gay couple adopts a child in a state where gay adoption is legal then moves to (or vacations in, drives through, etc.) a state where gay adoption is illegal, are there custody rights put in question?

The full faith and credit clause, requires that all states must respect the laws and decisions of other states. This way you do not have to re-marry every-time you move to a different state. Yet despite this, some states refuse to acknowledge gay marriages from other states, thus violating the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. There is a lack of consistency in this area.

Side: Yes. Why not?

Heterosexuals need a place to call their own ;)

Side: No. Why Should It?

Yes. Why Not? No one is asking a straight person to marry a gay person, so what's it to you world? You want to spout morals and religion when it suits you but it's not going to fly too much longer! Haven't you noticed that many states are going through the same things as California? It will come...maybe not today, but it will come.

Side: Yes. Why not?

I agree. Read this article attacking someone who wants people to rise up against the government to ban gay marriage, it's pretty funny and makes a good point.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/orson-scott-card-wants-you-to-rise-up-against-the-government-but-in-the-worst- way-possible/

Side: Yes. Why not?

The author is extremely funny and makes several very good points within his criticisms of Card. If I had a dollar for every man, woman or child who used the word "God" or "Religion" in their homophobic outlook on gay people, I'd be a rich woman. I'd be super-rich if I had another dollar for those who think their children are unsafe around gay people and most especially those who teach!

One day, we will see history made again when the first state actually ratifies a Constitutional vote in their state concerning this issue. Out of one will come many and I think I'll live to see it.

Side: Yes. Why not?
2 points

What do you mean that many states are going through the same thing as California? They voted it down... so the people in California did not support gay marriage.

Should we keep allowing people to vote and then the majority rules or just make the decision to allow it? Personally I would vote to allow it, but don't those that don't support it have a right to voice their thoughts at the polling place?

Side: Yes. Why not?

Your right, just like the people who voted to uphold slavery in certain states had that right, or the people who voted for segregation or any of the other civil rights injustices.

It was their right to vote, to take away the rights of others.

Side: Yes. Why not?

Throughout the past several years there have been issues on the ballot in several states having to do with gay marriage. The State decides to allow it but the people must vote on the amendment, as is their right. The majority has spoken in California, for now. I say for now, because it will come up again just as it will in other states.

One of the problems with having the states voters cast a ballot is that many times, if not all the time, it is a two fold issue. The first involves saying yes or no to opening the state Constitution for an amendment. Once the Constitution is opened, people can then bog down the process by offering other amendments and changes to it. The second problem is will the amendment at hand ever get into the Constitution once it is opened. We just had that happen on another type of amendment here in Connecticut. I voted NO to opening the Constitution but Yes to the proposition. It looks as though the majority of people did the same thing as I because that's exactly how it stood after it was over. NO & YES! Now, how do you get a proposition in without opening the Constitution up to all manner of other issues? I cannot find the answer to this but I may be searching incorrectly. If anyone can come up with the answer please post it. Thanks.

Supporting Evidence: Opening the State Constitution for change (www.fox61.com)
Side: Yes. Why not?

how many idiots does it take to click on the down arrow? YOU! That's all!

Side: Yes. Why not?
3 points

I am sooooo tired if this fight. Not because I'm annoyed but because it makes me sad. And I have come to the resolve, that just as the slaves broke free of their chains, just as women fought tooth & nail so that they could step into a voting booth, and just as Rosa Parks decided she was going to sit in the front of that bus, the gays will have their marriage. It's inevitable. 65% of the people who voted NO on Prop 8 were people in their twenties. Guess what? In 15 years they are going to be the ones in charge, and their kids are going to be the new voters raised with a liberal black President. If Prop 8 doesn't get overturned now, it will.

Being gay is an abomination? The Bible Also says...
Side: Yes. Why not?
3 points

This should not even need to be debated.

You cannot deny people equal civil rights while using their taxes to support the very government that is oppressing them.

Religions still have the option of blessing whatever unions they feel conform to their dogma.

What is so hard to understand about separation of church and state? Our elected representatives need to check their theology at the door and uphold the law.

Side: Yes. Why not?
2 points

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sais that gays aren't allowed to be married. Or that marriage is between a man or woman. If gays are banned from marriage then what is that saying about our Constitution? Is marriage for heterosexuals put up for vote or discussion?? I don't think so. All the religious talk of gay marriage not being right is really on the back burner if you think about what the Bible sais about divorice, but I still see that happening, right? No matter what religion or group you belong to, the fact is, we live in a country that thrives on diversity.

Side: Yes. Why not?

Antidisestablishmentarianism is the way that government should be run! Why do we impede on people's rights with laws that violate our own constitution? Gay rights!

Side: Yes. Why not?

agree with the sentiment, but Antidisestablishmentarianism is against the separation of church and state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

Side: Yes. Why not?
Manastacious(22) Disputed
0 points

I am sorry, I did mean disestablishmenatarianism.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No. Why Should It?
Manastacious(22) Disputed
0 points

I am sorry, I did mean disestablishmenatarianism.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Side: No. Why Should It?

I say we try to legalize everywhere. We can start with any Muslim country. I'm dying to find out how far we get ;)

Side: Yes. Why not?
1 point

Yeah, sure. Why not. There's nothing/nobody to say they can't.

Side: Yes. Why not?

The issue has been settled. The Supreme Court in 2015 has declared Gay Marriage to be the law of the land.

Side: Yes. Why not?
0 points

I disagree with u guys on this because as stated in the Bible "it is an abomination for a man to lay with another man as he lays with a woman." Meaning it is defined in the Bible that same-sex relationships are wrong. This means that we should not be opening the door for homosexuals to marry.

Side: Yes. Why not?
Bohemian(3861) Disputed
1 point

The bible also says it's preferable to stone a disobedient children to death in front of the whole town.

Guess which passages is followed today?

Side: No. Why Should It?