Debate suggestion by firefemme1202.

In light of recent events, gay marriage has never been more contraversial. There is a fine line between the people who believe homosexual people should be allowed to marry versus those who do not.

This will be a formal, one verse one person debate on the subject of Gay Marriage. The first two people to post their interest in debating on this subject will participate. I'll post the rules then.

I understand this is a delicate topic and as such there will be absolutely no flaming, insulting or hurtful statements made. If i see any, there will be a disqualification.

Thank you.

I am willing to debate for gay marriage.

Okay great!

SO Fluffybunny will be debating that we should allow gay marriage.
Now we just need one more person to debate against it, and then we'll roll.

I'm interested, I'm pro but for the noble art of debating i'll be the opposing party.

Okay kikuchiyo!

Fluffybunny will be debating for gay marriage and
Kikuchiyo will be debating against gay marriage.

The rules are very simple. As i stated above, no flaming or offensive posts, but i doubt there will be any of that.

Each debater will post one introductory post, followed by four body posts and one conclusion for a total of six posts each. You will be marked on your style, countering of the opponents arguments, persuasiveness of your own arguments and relevance to the topic. And if you use outside internet sources be sure to quote them.

Good luck to both debaters!

Erosion of a foundation

What has marriage become? A show, the institution of marriage is slowly drifting toward dissolution. The thing that once was the ultimate form of union is being dissolved by reality shows and vegas weddings. The number of devorce is growing in a impressive rate, according to divorcemag.com, 43% of marriage are projected to end in divorce. The number of homosexual divorcee will raise that number and , at the same time, weaken the constitution of marriage.

In religious terms marriage is the union of a man and a woman in a form of holy matrimony, that is the statement that "globalize" the main views on weddings, because the holy matrimony is a form of "religious key" to reproduction, the fundamental goal of marriage. Gay couple have existed for countless centuries, but were denied the function of husband and wife because they can reproduce amonst each others.

***

I believe that gay marriages should be allowed in the United States. There are many major factors that bring me to this decision, but I will focus on what I consider to be the main factor:

Discriminating against gays by not allowing them the legal benefits of marriage is no different than discriminating against any other race, color, religion, national origin, etc.

Marriage has continued to change to adapt to the rights of citizens. It was not until after the Civil War that black people were allowed to marry each other. It was not until after the Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s that interracial couples were legally allowed to marry.

I do not believe that the church(which fought hard for legislation banning gay marriage in the recent election) should be allowed to dictate legislation in this country which is supposed to have seperation of church and state.

One of the biggest questions asked during the recent elections where gay marriage was on the ballot was “Why do gays need to get married anyway?”. There are many reasons why being legally married is very important, not just as a display of commitment to each other, but also the legal aspect of the benefits of marriage.

In a legal brief prepared for the Massachusetts Supreme Court regarding the legislation to allow for same sex marriages an organization called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders drew up documentation to illustrate why gay and lesbian couples need the same legal protection offered to straight couples. Some of the examples given:

One of the plaintiffs, Hillary Goodridge, stated in the lawsuit that even with a health care proxy she had difficulty getting in to see her partner, Julie Goodridge, when she had undergone a difficult delivery and their baby was in intensive care.

A lesbian couple who have been together for three decades, Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies, are concerned about financial problems as they approach the age of retirement. They face taxes that married couples wouldn't have in passing on their home and joint psychotherapy practice if one of them died.
David Wilson was treated as a stranger by a hospital emergency department when his partner of thirteen years had a heart attack, and died. David's current partner, Robert Compton, has health problems which require emergency care and they are concerned the earlier experience may be repeated.

Edward Balmelli would like to name Michael Horgan, his partner of nine years, as beneficiary of his pension plan. He cannot at this time, because they are not allowed to marry and be recognized as spouses.

Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade have been partners for 21 years. They seek marriage in order to provide greater legal security for their family. Their need is particularly acute since Ellen was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Gary Chalmers and Richard Linnell have been together for 14 years and have an adopted daughter. Gary was unable to obtain a family health insurance policy through his place of work. They had to obtain separate policies at a considerable additional expense. They want the security of marriage for their own sake and for their daughter. They also want to register home jointly, but would have to incur tax penalties which would not apply if they were married.

Heidi Norton and Gina Smith are raising two sons, aged two and five years. They have jointly adopted their sons. However, they "worry that Gina's relationship to their sons will not be respected; and despite preparation of legal documents, they worry about what will happen if they confront an emergency in an unfamiliar town.

With just these few examples, it is clear that there is a need to protect the legal rights of gay couples with equal rights to those of straight couples.

Of marriage and union

The Church will reserve it self some power over weddings, because the point of wedding is procreating, on that point of view two partner of the same sex can't have a kid ( unless they use the in vitro technology which is also a something the Church is against). We could compare the Church to a country golf club they will remove some privilege to some members that doesn't fit in there "rules".

As sexual activity is a sin in the Catholic religion unless in holy matrimony. To the Church the goal of intercourse is the creation of a family ( that's why they don't support the use of birth control).In a effort of change most heterosexual couple will never get married and simply cohabit with each other.

***

In the case of the insurance and other couple benefit that is a case for the legal union, not holy matrimony( which doesn't have any "legal" power).

Monster Hunter X, i have deleted your post. Please bear in mind that these are formal, 1 vs 1 person debates and as such no one not participating in the debate can post their opinions as it can affect the debate. Thank you.

[edit]
*sigh* dreamon, post deleted, same reason.


Sorry for the interuptions guys.

The point of a wedding is not procreation. Millions of married families either can not physically, or choose not to have children for their own personal reasons. Should married couples that do not have children be forced to split up as they are not adding to the overpopulation problem of this earth?

Why should the church make decisions about what freedoms and rights American citizens should have anyway? As there is a separation of church and state in this country I would say none at all. The concept of marriage should be based in legal terms, not religious ones. It should be based on the freedoms given to each citizen of this country under the Constitution.


What you have just stated is the truth, but does not matter in this case as this country is not run by the Catholic or any other church. Would you want someone like Jerry Falwell making decisions for you about your own life and your own freedoms? I think not.

Having a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man and one women is just another way for the Religious Right to weave their control into into the Constitution. Amending the constitution in a way that actually harms it's citizens is just wrong, and that is exactly what a constitutional amendment barring same sex marriage would do.

Furthermore, as there are religions that are accepting of the concept of gay marriage(Unitarians as well as others), basing a Constitutional Amendment on one particular religions interpretation of what marriage is violates the First Amendment(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...)

Do not let the Religious Right decide what your freedoms are, or will be...you will get burned.

Like water and oil



what was the point of marriage in the the middle ages? What is the significance of "honey moons"?Why was sex before marriage a sin? To go deeper in the question what is the fundamental point of sex?



To work with extremist thought we can also believe the institution could allow some one to marry them self, or unanimate objects. This can also be thought for the future [ if ] we are able to built a robot with it a conscience and emotions would we let them get married with humans?



The freedom of the citizen is not constricted by the Church, the Church creates rule for it's own microcosm. Which in term doesn't affect the freedom of those out side the microcosm. According to the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Congress doesn't have any power over the christian Church or any other religious institution, giving them power over what they chose to see fit or not. What the Church chooses to do or not to do is beyond the power of the congress, because the Church has no say on what should the congress allow and vice versa. ( again the Country Club analogy)

There is a large difference between marriage and legal unions, legal unions gives the couple a power that gives them acess to many benefits by support of the law, church marriage doesn't. We can take the "polygamist" example, one man can marry (by the Church) many woman yet is only legally united to one, therefore only legally viable to one woman (benefit only as a couple not a group).

QUOTE

But aren't Churchs and constitutions two different entity? (Like oil and water, they cannot mix or should not because the end result would be ugly. Therefore having a Church using a constitutional loop hole would be like the government using god like a propaganda tool.)

We are not talking about any of those things at all though. We are talking about two human beings who love and are devoted to each other and only wish to have the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual marriages.

In the 1940's it would have been just as illegal for a black man to marry a white woman, can you see the connection? Some that today is considered normal was cause for lynching not too long ago. We are progressing as a society to be able to understand that people are different and those differences should not be grounds for discrimination. Banning same sex civil unions is simply discrimination.


Churches and the Constitution are two different entities for good reason, unfortuantely the right wing church has taken it upon themselves to see that not only are same sex church wedding banned, but also CIVIL UNIONS as well. The Right wing church has been fighting for a constitutional amemdment to make all same sex marriages and civil unions illegal. The state based initiatives that passed in November added bans to civil unions in the states that they passed in.

The church is overstepping their bounds by financing constitutional reform to mold the constitution to the likes of the church.

I have no problem with a church saying that they will not approve same sex marriages, it is their church and their choice. I do have a problem however when a church finances fights to outlaw civil unions that would be taking place in a county court house, not in a church.

As the church has done for millennia, they are overstepping their bounds and using the money that they have to form laws effecting the entire populace of a country regardless of whether the populace wants those laws or not.

If you look into the financiers of the recent November election laws regarding same sex marriage you will find links directly to conservative right wing religous groups. Church money is being used to create discriminatory laws, and it is not right.

To get back to my original argument, it is simple discrimination for states to outlaw civil unions/marriages just as it was discrimination for bans against mixed race marriages of the 1940's. We have a society have to move beyond discriminating against people because they are different than we are.

kikuchiyo, your response please.

Alright. No response from kikuchiyo for some time, so i'm going to take that as he's finished with this debate, and we'll be passing it over to the judges.

Judges, please mark everything here as normal, and then i will be deducting 5 points from kikuchiyo for failing to post.

Debator 1: Fluffybunny
Relevancy:9
Countering:9
Style:9
Persuasiveness:9
Total: 36

Debator 2: kikuchiyo
Relevancy:8
Countering:6
Style:7
Persuasiveness:7
Total: 28

Well done, great debating.

Debator 1 - Fluffybunny
Relevancy:10
Countering:8
Style:9
Persuasiveness:8
Total: 35

Debator 2- Kikuchiyo
Relevancy:7
Countering:7
Style:6
Persuasiveness:7
Total: 27

Debator 1 - Fluffybunny
Relevancy:9
Countering:8
Style:9
Persuasiveness:9
Total: 35

Debator 2- Kikuchiyo
Relevancy:8
Countering:7
Style: 7
Persuasiveness:6
Total: 28

And the results are in! Thanks judges!

Fluffybunny wins with a triumphant average score of 35!
Kikuchiyo puts up a great effort and scores an average of 23! (28 minus 5 for not finishing the debate)

Thank you both for taking part.