nzlockie (PRO)Welcome everybody to yet another exciting Edeb8 on an important and relevant topic. In today's debate my side will be arguing that Gay Marriage should be legalised.
Definitions:
Gay: Homosexual.
Marriage: The formalised and legally binding union between two individuals as equal partners in a sexual relationship.
Should be: Indicates that, on balance, the preceding state is one that is preferred to hold the following status.
Legalised: Made lawful.
The full definition therefore reads that Homosexual unions should be afforded the identical legal status as the equivalent heterosexual ones - specifically that the term, "marriage" should be, legally, equally applied to either relationship.
Background - The current situation:
Homosexuality is certainly not a new thing, it has been around for almost as long as recorded history. Formalised Homosexual unions are also not new, they have been prevalent throughout history, ranging from Ancient Rome, where we have the first recorded instance of an official Gay Marriage ceremony, through to Ancient China where both Men and Women would bind themselves to members of the same sex in an eleborate ceremony, and then right up to English "Molly Houses" in the early 1800's, where gay men could be joined in a marriage ceremony, sometimes officiated over by an actual priest!
The first documented legal marriage, (in the modern sense of the term) happened in Spain, in 1061, where Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were officially joined in marriage by a priest in a small chapel. Despite this, it wasn't until 2001 that the Netherlands became the first country to officially grant same-sex marriages. Since then it's been a domino effect and today we have same-sex marriages granted in approximately 19 countries and legally recognised in several more.
The first documented legal marriage, (in the modern sense of the term) happened in Spain, in 1061, where Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were officially joined in marriage by a priest in a small chapel. Despite this, it wasn't until 2001 that the Netherlands became the first country to officially grant same-sex marriages. Since then it's been a domino effect and today we have same-sex marriages granted in approximately 19 countries and legally recognised in several more.
Map time!
As this map shows, homosexuality itself is not actually illegal in the vast majority of countries - however Homosexuals are not actually permitted to marry except in a handful of countries. This number IS growing, and it is the assessment of this side of the house that this is a good thing.
Why should it be legal? 1: Human Rights
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Article 16 (1) , Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As the UDHR, (which 193 countries have signed) states - Marriage is a legal right, it is available to Men and Women without distinction and this right is not discriminatory based on sexual preference.
Since the vast majority of the world have signed to say they agree that this is a preferable state - it logically follows that we should legalise Gay Marriage.
Since the vast majority of the world have signed to say they agree that this is a preferable state - it logically follows that we should legalise Gay Marriage.
Although Civil Unions exist in many countries which afford Gay couples many of the same rights and protections as Straight couples, Adoption is one area that is not addressed. A great many countries, including France, Australia and, most importantly, New Zealand only permit married couples to legally adopt children.
UNICEF has estimated that 153 MILLION kids are currently orphaned, worldwide. Studies have repeatedly shown us the adverse effects on kids growing up in an Orphanage. Legalising Gay Marriage kills two birds with one stone. It is efficient. In one swoop we are legally recognising their personal Human Rights while also allowing MORE legal unions to be formed which are allowed to adopt kids.
When you consider that Male homosexual couples lack the ability to procreate altogether, this makes this point even more compelling - as adoption is their likely to be their primary recourse if they want to start a family.
Polls taken from countries all over the world show that Gay couples WANT to be able to marry. This fact is undisputed.
So WHY can't they be?
VOTE PRO - It'll put hairs on your chest!
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-26 08:13:29
| Speak Round
9spaceking (CON)My opponent presents a map, but this only destroys his own case. We see gay marriage clearly is not legally recognized by most of the world, and therefore should not be legalized. Most countries apparently don't really like the idea of legalizing gay marriage, and a huge chunk of Africa even have severe punishments for gay marriage! If gay marriage truly should be legalized, then more countries would allow it, and perhaps African governments would not punish gays for marrying. But obviously this is not the case, and I will show why.
1. Gay Marriage brings hate to religion
Bible sources are trusted by a majority of Christians in the world. As the bible is the most source of truth to the Christians, they won't like gay marriage, and not support it. The bible makes many references that condemn gay marriage, and here are the most famous, unambiguous, and powerful quotes:
"Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men?" --Corinthian 6:9 [source: http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-9.htm]
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Read More...)
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Read More...)
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
[the others that are not from Corinthian are cited from http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Gay-Marriage/]
We see it's very clear that gay marriage is not supported by Christianity. But wait! The hate doesn't just stop at Christianity....
That's right...most churches don't like same-sex marriage and prohibit it, and two churches even supports unions to marriage (I'll get to unions later, just wait)
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/18/where-christian-churches-stand-on-gay-marriage/
It's resolved. Churches hate gay marriage. Religion hates marriage. Marriage would cause such commotion and disrupt. There is a clear better solution...
2. Civil Unions are superior to marriage
Let's start off with a poll shall we?
[source: http://www.dallasvoice.com/brewing-poll-shows-majority-texans-gay-marriage-civil-unions-1077792.html]
Why not add on another poll?
[source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/8881/US-Next-Down-Aisle-Toward-Gay-Marriage.aspx]
Ah heck why not add a third poll!
[source: http://www.texastribune.org/2010/02/15/texans-polled-on-gambling-jobs-gay-marriage/]
What do these polls and sources show? Civil unions are more supported than marriage. You see, the bible doesn't condemn civil unions. Neither do most other churches. And furthermore, civil unions and marriage have pretty much the same benefits. Love, legal recognition, dedication, etc, all of that. If marriage causes so much hate, and civil unions don't, while both have the same benefits, then it's obvious by utilitarianism that civil unions are more beneficial, and thus the only moral choice.
Now, as for human rights, I have an epic counter to it. You say, gays should have the same rights as straights. I have already put a big burden on this argument--do human rights overcome the church's and religious people's rights? We can't know for sure. So, as to completely obliterate this case, I'll make my ultimate killer argument...
3. Normal Marriage Should Not be Legalized Either
Yes...that's right...If I win this, my opponent's human rights arguments is turned against itself, because if straights should not have the right to marry, then gays certainly should not have these rights and gain an unfair advantage over straights.
3.1 Marriage is outdated
In the old days, marriage was between a man and woman mainly for the woman to serve for the man. In fact, within the Elizabethan era many women were forced to depend on their husbands to work and spread their influence. [source: http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-women.htm]
However, nowadays women are gaining more jobs--they are becoming more able, and matching up to men's job within these gains of jobs. For example, women are earning, on average, more and more money as a result of their skills and abilities.
[source: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2011/04/01-jobs-greenstone-looney]
Women are also gaining more jobs in areas where men used to dominate.
[source: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/10/31/women-more-likely-to-graduate-college-but-still-earn-less-than-men]
Not only so, long ago women were expected to stay home and do house work, as well as care for children. But now?
[http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speedup-americans-working-harder-charts]
It is apparent that men are becoming the ones working at home and women less and less. Women are gaining more and more rights, they are becoming more of a equal partner to men rather than a slave or a servant. That is why there are more and more divorces, and fewer and fewer marriages.
Marriage rates are approaching zero percent.
[source: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2010/usmarriagedecline.aspx]
The old definition of marriage should be thrown out. Couples don't like marriage any more. We can't legalize marriage, it's useless. We can have much better options available in civil unions or domestic partnerships. Thus, as even straights should not have rights to marriage, there's no reason gay marriage should have rights to marriage. It would not be moral or fair, as my opponent pointed out, to have two groups of people have different rights, despite being all "equal humans".
There are gazillions of reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized.
Onto you, nzlockie.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-26 11:04:12
| Speak Roundnzlockie (PRO)I'd like to thank my opponent for his interesting round.
He's made a valiant attempt to counter my contention that Marriage is a basic human right and that equality of the human race, regardless of sexual preference is likewise a protected right. He's proposed that Civil Unions hold the answer despite the fact that I've pointed out some of the inequalities there, most prominently, Adoption. In response to my contention that there is no reason significant enough to override the afore mentioned entitlement to equality and human rights of same-sex couples, he has suggested that major religion is reason enough. We'll examine that one a little closer and see if it holds up.
But before we do, let's just quickly look at his suggestion that Marriage should be abolished altogether. It's an interesting model and deserves a quick look and an explanation as to why it doesn't apply to this debate.
Abolish Marriage?
If we were to do away with the legal institution of Marriage altogether, it would certainly solve the issue of equality. But is it a step too far?
Is Marriage really as unpopular as my opponent suggests? Was it really an institution originally aimed at the subjugation of women like he claims?
Unfortunately we can't tell the answers to this from any of my opponent's cited sources as they represent only a small section of human society.
He contends that because the women's role in society has shifted, it means they no longer NEED to be married. Apparently they are even "becoming more able" to the point where they can even match the number of jobs held by men! If you can even believe THAT!
He contends that because the women's role in society has shifted, it means they no longer NEED to be married. Apparently they are even "becoming more able" to the point where they can even match the number of jobs held by men! If you can even believe THAT!
Raging sexism and a rather optimistic view on current gender-equality aside for a moment, my opponent has completely missed the point of marriage. Men and women seldom get married because they HAVE to, they get married because they WANT to, and because it is their protected RIGHT to.
This brings us back to same-sex couples. They also WANT to, and they also have the protected RIGHT to. So why don't we let them?
To put it bluntly, suggesting that we do away with the entire institution of Marriage - something that would cause no end of outrage among MILLIONS of people, run counter to most organised religious groups and require BILLIONS of tax payer dollars re-writing laws and statutes - all for the sake of sidestepping an ethical issue that is pretty black and white to be honest; it's ridiculous.
It's a good thing that it's also irrelevant.
It's a good thing that it's also irrelevant.
The Resolution for this debate is, "Gay Marriage should be legalised". My opponent is trying to shift this resolution to give me the burden for defending not just homosexual couples' right to married, but ALL couples. Bad form CON. Bad Form.
The status quo at this stage is that Marriage is a legally defined and recognised relationship, and it is also protected by the UDHR, Article 16.
If my opponent would like to argue that it should be abolished, he should do so in a separate debate.
And before he does, he should watch this excellent video on the subject.They have some very good points as to WHY people should marry and specifically addresses the issue of Marriage vs DeFacto relationships. Interestingly it ALSO features a gay couple, despite the fact that it was probably filmed before he was born. I guess we've been denying them their rights for quite a while...
Rebuttal Points: My Map
My opponent claims that because my map shows that Gay Marriage IS not legal in the majority of countries, it SHOULD not be legal at all. This is an IS-OUGHT fallacy and can be demonstrated by this new map...
Pineapple Lumps are delicious bite-sized pieces of deliciousy goodness. There is no reason why they shouldn't be accepted, recognised and enjoyed by the world at large, but they're not. Partly for sound business reasons, and mostly because we want to keep them for ourselves.
By my opponent's logic, the fact that these lollies can only be found in one country of the world means that they SHOULD be illegal.
Clearly crazy.
By my opponent's logic, the fact that these lollies can only be found in one country of the world means that they SHOULD be illegal.
Clearly crazy.
#meetingtourismnewzealandsquotafornovemeber
Rebuttal Points: Religion Hates Homosexual Marriage
My opponent suggests here that because some aspects of organised religion are against same-sex marriages, this means we should deny homosexual men and women their human rights. This goes against the UDHR in two ways. Firstly because it discriminates and denies, and secondly because it uses one group's rights to trump another groups. This idea is implicit in several places, but is perhaps best summed up as Article 30...
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 30
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 30
My opponent needs to tell us. Why should we respect the wishes of Religion over the rights of fellow humans?
Finally, this is an important point to note:
Religion is against Homosexuality. In all but one of the verses my opponent has quoted, the Bible is preaching against the act of homosexuality, not the act of marriage. It is Homosexuality that Religion hates.
What my opponent is actually advocating here is that we make Homosexuality illegal. Simply continuing to ban their marriage will not appease the churches he is so concerned about.
What my opponent is actually advocating here is that we make Homosexuality illegal. Simply continuing to ban their marriage will not appease the churches he is so concerned about.
Rebuttal Points: Civil Unions exist
My opponent brings up an excellent point. Civil Unions DO exist. He even points out some polls that suggest that people think that they could be a good alternative to simply allowing Gay people their Human Rights. The polls don't tell us WHO these people are, WHERE these people are, or even HOW MANY people there are - but they do have nice coloured lines which is cool.
Judges, my opponent has to answer two things in regards to Civil Unions, before they can be considered a viable alternative to Marriage.
1. Civil Unions are not Equal - As pointed out in my last round, Civil Unions do not currently convey the same rights and protections to a couple as Marriage does. Adoption is a classic and relevant example of this.
1. Civil Unions are not Equal - As pointed out in my last round, Civil Unions do not currently convey the same rights and protections to a couple as Marriage does. Adoption is a classic and relevant example of this.
2. Marriage is a RIGHT - I'm not sorry for bringing this up AGAIN. It's an important point. Marriage is a right. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is wrong. Saying to an entire group of people that because of their partner has the same gentials as them, they are denied a basic human right is just wrong.
Restating a point on Marriage:
I just want to restate this point because it may have been lost in all the back and forth and it's an important point.
Regardless of what my opponent wants to say about today's marriage rate and relevance, and how much better or equal civil unions are, the fact remains that Gay people WANT to be married.
Regardless of what my opponent wants to say about today's marriage rate and relevance, and how much better or equal civil unions are, the fact remains that Gay people WANT to be married.
It is beyond the scope of this resolution for us to question their reasoning for it, or even the utilitarian logic behind it. It's their right to be married, and they WANT to be. Let them!
I'll thank my opponent once again for contesting this resolution. In his next round it'd be great if he could explain exactly where the harm is from legalising Same-sex marriages. What he's proposing constitutes a massive act of discrimination against an entire section of society. If we are to buy into this, there needs to be a jolly good reason to do so.
This puppy is affirmed y'all - Vote PRO!
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-26 14:08:42
| Speak Round9spaceking (CON)1. Abolishing Marriage
Once again, do people really want to marry? I already told you this, people know the difference of marriage from the olden days to the modern days. Marriage rates are projected to be ZERO by 2040.
[source: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/08/the-end-of-marriage-2/]
We see clearly, people DON'T want to marry. If people don't want to marry, why make them marry? Why have an option if nobody's going to do it?
My opponent makes a good point about having to pay tons of money to make marriage illegal...but wouldn't it cost just as much to legalize gay marriage? Furthermore, I've already proven that legalizing gay marriage has to counter all those religious institutions as well. The big difference between these two plans, legalize gay marriage or not legalize marriage at all, is that not legalizing marriage is helpful because nobody wants to marry anyway, and it equalizes human beings, exactly what my opponent is advocating for, and finally it doesn't halt gays from loving each other (a human right), because gays can have civil unions available.
YOUR MAP!
As for the pineapple lumps, you are correct for what you think I advocated for. Indeed, most countries don't recognize pineapple lumps for good reasons. Maybe it costs way too much to ship to Canada and they won't earn much profits there. Maybe Greenland's too cold. Maybe China has so much pollution that it'll damage the pineapple lumps way out of quality. Maybe Australia has too much wild life, and the little amount of people living on there are too busy trying to outwit the wild animals there to buy pineapple lumps. There's a reason only one little country has pineapple lumps, other environments or governments simply cannot accept these foods.
And even if pineapple lumps SHOULD be legalized somehow, my opponent has made a wrong comparison anyways. If only one country RECOGNIZED gays...well, that'd be a completely different case. But this is about how many countries legalize pineapple lumps and how many countries don't. If you don't recognize pineapple lumps, then you can't say for sure that "WE DO NOT LEGALIZE THESE THINGS", because you don't even know what "these things" are.
Religion Hates Homosexual Marriage
Unfortunately I believe that religious churches has the right to deny others' rights. For example, what if an atheist went up to the church leaders and shouted: "GOD IS TERRIBLE! GOD DOES NOT EXIST! JESUS CHRIST CAN GO SUCK MY D**K!" (Yeah I know, it rhymes)
This church definitely has the right to deny him entrance and ability to pray. He doesn't even believe in god or Jesus, and he even hates them to his deep bones. Similarly, a gay openly disrespects the church. If a man continually stresses that he has the right to marry, the church can deny this right because the church follows the rules of the Bible when it comes to marrying and praying and basically everything else in the church. And in addition, think about this. What if a man WAS allowed the right to marry another man? It would be terrible. Churches would fight around in revolts, religious people would be holding up signs and protesting in front of the White House....Homosexual marriage causes too much hate! That's why, there's a better alternative....
Civil Unions
Civil unions can actually allow adoption as well. This is a non-unique argument. A news site says... "The president of Malta, George Abela... refus[ed] to sign a bill that would create homosexual civil unions and allow same-sex partners to jointly adopt children in the tiny Mediterranean country." [source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maltese-president-refuses-to-sign-bill-allowing-gay-civil-unions-and-expand/] We're not entirely too sure why he refused, maybe he didn't like gays as a whole, regardless of marriage or not, but that's not the point. The point here is that there CAN be laws passed to allow gays to both have legal recognition and lots of civil rights, while still adopting children and spreading their awesome benefits.
As you can see gay marriage shouldn't be legalized. Neither should marriage. Civil unions create a happier environment for gays and religious people.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-27 01:23:38
| Speak Roundnzlockie (PRO)I'd like to thank my opponent once more for the stimulating debate.
Before giving my final summation of the debate and explaining why I've won this debate, I'd like to submit some brief rebuttal.
Regarding the Abolition of Marriage:
My opponent continues, albeit a little less aggressively, for the total abolition of Marriage. I still maintain that this is not a relevant argument in the scope of this debate, but even if it IS accepted, it's not valid.
1. "We see clearly, people DON'T want to marry. If people don't want to marry, why make them marry?" - CON
Firstly, the graph he shows does not show people who DON'T want to marry, it shows people who DO want to marry. I can show you numerous other graphs that will posit that Marriage is estimated to stabilise. It's no coincidence that it is projected to stabalise in most Western countries, (Including the USA, the ONLY country my opponent seems to think exists) at a percentage relative to the number of members of an organised religion.
As my opponent pointed out, religious texts such as the Bible actually command Marriage for those couples wishing to engage in a sexual relationship.
As my opponent pointed out, religious texts such as the Bible actually command Marriage for those couples wishing to engage in a sexual relationship.
Secondly, nobody is suggesting that we FORCE people to marry. This is ridiculous. There are a lot of people who decide to not get married and we already have several legal definitions to describe their situations.
Thirdly, a declining trend is not reason to abolish an institution that some people still want. Earlier in this debate, my opponent was suggesting that we need to deny one portion of society their Human Rights in order to keep the Religions of the world happy. Now he's suggesting that we abolish an institution which forms an integral part of these same Religions?
If only a small percentage of the world decided they wanted to be married, that is still millions of people. And they have every right to be married. Their being married doesn't harm anyone else - in the same way that their gender or sexual preference won't harm anyone else.
If only a small percentage of the world decided they wanted to be married, that is still millions of people. And they have every right to be married. Their being married doesn't harm anyone else - in the same way that their gender or sexual preference won't harm anyone else.
2. "...wouldn't it cost just as much to legalize gay marriage?" - CON
Well no it wouldn't. When New Zealand legalised Gay marriage recently, the bulk of the actual cost was spent simply updating the wording of existing laws. Terms like, "Husband" and "Wife" needed to be replaced with gender neutral terms like, "Spouse". That's pretty much it.
What my opponent is advocating is that we re-write the Civil Union terms so that they match the rights and protections of the Marriage union exactly! That will definitely require far more time, debate and cost more money.
3. "... it equalizes human beings, exactly what my opponent is advocating for... " - CON
I want to be very clear about this. My side is advocating for equalising human beings, it's true. But that is only a byproduct of what we are advocating for. We are advocating for EVERY human being to be able to claim their promised human rights! What my opponent is advocating for REMOVES your human rights!
We are certainly not advocating that.
We are certainly not advocating that.
Judges, my opponent's suggested model is a red herring to this debate. Although it is an interesting idea and would make a good debate for another time, it has little relevance to the current resolution. It runs completely counter to his earlier argument about supporting religion. It is a premature, knee-jerk reaction based on some graphs by bloggers who haven't taken into account things like population trends, the global recession or even ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. This argument holds no water in this debate.
Regarding my awesome map:
My opponent seems to have missed the point here. That's probably my fault for trying to be too cute.
Let me restate it here. My opponent claims that because Homosexual relationships are not recognised in some countries - they ought not to be recognised in ANY countries. I quote from round one...
" We see gay marriage clearly is not legally recognized by most of the world, and therefore should not be legalized." - CON
Pineapple Lumps are awesome. And that's all I have to say about THAT.
Regarding the rights of organised Religion to trump individual humans:
With the greatest of respect, my opponent is simply wrong here. In his scenario, the church is already protected against the Atheist because their building is private property. They get to make the rules there. He is right that they already have the right of refusal for entry. In fact this is supported by the UDHR.
There is nothing preventing an atheist going up the church leaders in the street and discussing his opinion on Jesus, and nor should there be.
When we are considering the forcible denial of the rights of fellow humans, we should no more be bullied by Organised Religion than we should by Corporations.
Regarding Civil Unions:
Much of this has been addressed already. I'll just restate that my opponent is, (seriously) advocating that we rewrite the Civil Union laws so that they mirror the Marriage laws EXACTLY. I ask you - what is the point?! Is denying homosexual couples the right to say that they are "married" to each other THAT important that we would advocate this colossal waste of time and money?
Final Summation:
This debate can be boiled down very easily. In my first round I proved that marriage is a human right, supported by the UDHR which in turn is supported by 193 countries. That same document claims that discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is not acceptable.
My opponent has not contested any of these claims and has failed to explain what specific harm is caused by simply allowing gay people to claim their right to marry.
My opponent has not contested any of these claims and has failed to explain what specific harm is caused by simply allowing gay people to claim their right to marry.
My opponent's counter model of abolishing marriage altogether should be discounted as beyond the reasonable scope of this debate, but even if it's not, I have shown that at worst, it is a rash decision based on flawed or incomplete data and at best, it is a completely inefficient way of addressing a issue that could simply solved by doing the right thing and just giving these people the right to marry.
It was also pointed out that this model runs completely counter to the very religious institutions my opponent was so anxious to protect in round one.
Regarding the religious institutions, my opponent has not given us ANY sound reason why we should give in to the bullying of these people, nor has he answered the fact that these same organisations are MORE concerned about the homosexuality itself, rather than the fact they want to marry. Keeping gay marriage illegal while still allowing homosexuality will NOT appease the church. The verses he quoted in the first round support this, most of which talk about homosexuality and NONE of which talk about gay marriage.
Finally, I pointed out that Civil Unions do not provide equal rights to couples. They also don't do anything to address the fact that millions of couples, gay AND straight, WANT to be married. And they have the RIGHT to...
... well, most of them do anyway.
Again, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, and thanks to the Judges for your time and consideration.
Vote PRO!
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-27 07:36:11
| Speak Round9spaceking (CON)Abolition of Marriage
Once again, I've already stated that the old Biblical definitions of "marriage" have changed over time and now are completely re-defined. Not only so, my opponent has completely failed to refute my projected rates of zero percent marriage around 2040. If nobody wants their right to marry, and nobody uses this right, they don't need it and there's no reason to give this right to them. That is why marriage should be abolished.
2. Civil unions versus marriage
I've already proven that civil unions gives the same rights as marriage. The only point my opponent was able to show was adoption, and even that was refuted. As for my graph not counting any countries in the world, even the world as a whole has decreased marriage rates and increased divorce rates over time. Nothing suggests that this pattern might continue so that marriage rates reach zero percent.
To address the religion, since marriage happens within the church (private property), these rights can be denied in the same way.
As for cost of money, my opponent has offered no studies to show HOW MUCH more civil unions could cost. As far as we're concerned, it only costs the same amount to both legalize and make marriage illegal. And the same amount of rights already exist. Passing a bill doesn't cost any money at all. Civil unions don't seem to cost any more, and my opponent has failed to fulfill his burden to show that civil unions do cost more than marriage, with studies or whatnot.
IN CONCLUSION
We cannot entirely appease the church. Homosexuality cannot be removed. However, homosexuals can hold fewer rights, leading to some benefits to the church. In addition, using civil unions instead of marriage is a good idea because the former is more supported, and causes less hatred (and problems). Not only so, my opponent fails to show how my sources are merely speculation and why marriage won't reach zero. As my statistics prove, people are not liking marriage. Its definition is outdated, and marriage as a whole is an outdated institution. Gay marriage should not be legalized. Vote me.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-11-27 07:56:59
| Speak Round
Judge: Blackflag
There's no proof it's out dated that I can see? You've argued that reasons have changed and that marriage is less popular. Posted 2014-12-01 10:49:40
(I'd be happy arguing either side though.)
Posted 2014-12-01 08:51:27
I don't think it's outdated, although I could probably be persuaded that it's out of fashion in some countries.Posted 2014-12-01 08:50:46
It is outdated, I proved so. Just not enough to suggest that a decline means it should be illegal.Posted 2014-12-01 08:31:29
ah, why don't you vote Annie/Bookie?Posted 2014-12-01 08:30:29
9space, you should debate that marriage is outdated.Posted 2014-12-01 08:29:11
Nice.Posted 2014-12-01 08:28:50
Fan of the first, but not second topic. I firmly believe in separation of church and state in all circumstances. I would be pro in that resolution.Posted 2014-12-01 07:00:42
I think a good follow up debate would be 'churches are within their rights to refuse to officiate gay marriages' or even that religious organisation's can descriminate towards gay couples.Posted 2014-12-01 02:57:45
still, it's a little tough to decide. Both sides have good arguments for themselves.Posted 2014-11-30 22:28:24
Aaaaanyhow, after thinking it through for very very long I converted back to pro, I agree, churches should not have private property rights over state laws of marriage. And even IF marriage does bring hate compared to civil unions, Marriage has vast benefits. Posted 2014-11-30 22:27:52
Oh ok, I thought you were responding to my post asking you how I found what. My bad.Posted 2014-11-30 07:13:53
me adapting or you faltering? That kind of makes sense.Posted 2014-11-30 06:41:09
That doesn't even make sense. Posted 2014-11-30 06:31:59
hard to say.Posted 2014-11-30 05:54:27
How'd I find what? I live in NZ, we have pineapple lumps everywhere! Posted 2014-11-29 21:53:19
I came strikingly close to giving con the win. I'm not sure if con is adapting or pro is faltering. Posted 2014-11-29 12:41:14
where'd you get the idea for pineapple lumps? How'd you find it?Posted 2014-11-29 12:17:40
hmm....shall I convert back to pro? Do churches really have no rights over gays? I guess they should not, even if Churches have private property. After thinking this topic through very carefully, I am PRO once again. What was I thinking, converting to Jack's side!Posted 2014-11-29 11:37:14
true, true I guessPosted 2014-11-27 09:49:13
I've already beaten all three of those debaters. And on topics that my side should normally lose, in fact I was playing devil's advocate on all three of those debates.
I'm not saying I'm better than them, I'm just saying that everybody can lose to anybody. Writing someone off before the debate has even started is silly.Posted 2014-11-27 09:31:34
I think two out of those three could beat you.Posted 2014-11-27 09:25:57
congratulations nzlockie. You converted me again to a null gay marriage debater. And I thought I would be an unbeatable con-gay-marriage debater.Posted 2014-11-27 09:10:58
Really? That's news to me since you seem to always write me off as an easy beat... CJK, Bsh, KC1999...
ah well, I'll take it.Posted 2014-11-27 08:39:00
interesting...you felt far, far harder to refute than myself. But of course, I do think of myself as an inferior debater to you overall.Posted 2014-11-27 08:00:05
Wow, good arguments though. I think you should really try to hit home on some of these though.
Many points are cool if you can add flesh to them Posted 2014-11-26 14:06:58
No Reproduction = No Marriage?
I hate that argument Posted 2014-11-26 14:05:19
I would have also used the reproduction argument but I'm saving that up for later
that was fast.Posted 2014-11-26 10:04:01