Homosexual Marriages [ALREADY STARTED]

[kaleidoscope]

Anybody against same-sex marriages who wants to debate it?

I believe that they are perfectly okay. I won't go on unless somebody is willing to debate the topic. :p

[AntiMaterialist]

I am thoroughly in favor of same-sex marriages.

However - I would be happy to debate the issue with you, just to give you practice in arguing your side, if you would like that. I am quite familiar with the arguments, and I could give you a good debate.

[kaleidoscope]

Haha sure, sounds like fun. Thanks! Hmm. Where shall we start?

Alright, I shall start with the basics, I suppose.

Love is love. Be it between two men, two women, or a man and a woman, it is still love. We, as a society, should not be able to decide that the love between two people of the same sex is not as important or as real as love between people of opposite genders. If a person has found the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with, and marriage is the next step in their relationship, why is that considered unacceptable by many people? Just because they cannot reproduce does not mean their love is wrong or unreal.

I could go on, but I'll stop here for now. Thanks again, I look forward to this :)

[AntiMaterialist]

If a person has found the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with, and marriage is the next step in their relationship, why is that considered unacceptable by many people?

Because it is an abomination. It must be - Leviticus tells us so. Legally recognizing marriage between gay couples would be a form of support for such heathen lifestyles. The separation of church and state is only a guideline, it is not hard and fast, as can be shown by many examples. Clearly, supporting heathen lifestyles is not the government's role.

The majority of people in this country are opposed to legalizing gay marriage, as indicated by a recent poll:

=====
Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (total sample).

"Do you think marriages between homosexual men or between homosexual women should be recognized as legal by the law, or not?"

.......................................Yes.....No. ....NotSure
.......................................%.......%.. ....%
ALL..................................30.......62.. ...8
Republicans.......................20.......75..... 5
Independents.....................30.......63.....7
Democrats.........................38.......52..... 10

==========

We live in a representative democracy. If the majority of the populace do not want Gay people to be given the legal right to marry - then that is it, they cannot get married. Unless you wish to throw out the democratic basis of our society. Do you?

Furthermore - homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. This country would be much better off if we acknowledged the fact that the Bible is, in fact, the proper basis of law.

[Apokalupsis]

lol AM, you are not trying to WIN a debate, but indirectly attack the oppositional position to gay marriages:

Furthermore - homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. This country would be much better off if we acknowledged the fact that the Bible is, in fact, the proper basis of law.

The purpose of this debate section is to exercise one's debate skills through oppositional argument...not furthering one's own position through exaggerated or horribly weak, caricatured arguments.

I don't think you are in this for the sport of debate, but rather to point out the flaws in the oppositional argument by taking on the oppositional argument yourself.

I only state this, because I believe you 1) know better, and 2) can DO better as evidenced in other threads. ;)

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But on the surface, that is what it appears...a very weak argument, from a much stronger debater.

[AntiMaterialist]

Hey now - just give me a chance here.

I am, in fact, about to win this debate hands down. - You just don't know where I am taking this. You'll see. I have thought this through a number of moves ahead.

[kaleidoscope]

Well, that is something to look forward to from my perspective, is it not? :p Losing a debate is always a great learning experience....although it's nice to win some, too. I'll do my best, shall I?

So, you believe in God....that is good for me to know. You see, I am not religious, so saying that the Bible states something, and therefore it is right, seems to me a weakk argument.

Alright. Sure, America is a democracy and of course everyone wants it to stay that way; but I should hope that we all do not want discrimination against anyone. It is as bad as racism. Saying that someone is not allowed to do something because of their race is just as wrong as saying a gay couple is not allowed to marry just because they are gay. Your statistics are interesting, but I'd like to know; who was questioned? What group of people were surveyed on this topic? Were did you get them? I am just interested in the validity of your sources.

Please tell me why homosexuality is wrong without making reference to the Bible. What is wrong with it on a basis that people of every religion (or non-religious people, such as myself) can agree/relate to? What is the difference in terms of the relationship aspect between a man and a woman and a relationship between two people of the same gender?

People do not have a right to say that true love cannot exist between people of the same sex, because how would they know? I know, people cannot say that it DOES exist for sure unless they themselves have experienced it, but gay couples who are truly in love is evidence enough to make us recognize the very probable possibility. The fact that they are speaking up and wanted to be able to be legally recognized shows us that they have experienced true love with someone of the same sex as them, and thus proving it's existence. It is certainly not true for everyone, but it does exist.


Furthermore - homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so. This country would be much better off if we acknowledged the fact that the Bible is, in fact, the proper basis of law.

What about people in your country of different religions or beliefs? The government should ignore them completely and make laws solely according to the Christian beliefs? How is that fair? Are you saying that other people's values are wrong?

Also, we have to decide who decides the Bible is right. And if the answer is God, then we'd have to go on to prove that God does indeed exist, and that is definitely a debate for another time, and we wouldn't ever draw a concrete conclusion, obviously. The Bible is not necessarily right. We can't say that something is morally wrong just because the Bible says so. That really holds very little weight.

[AntiMaterialist]

Alright. Sure, America is a democracy and of course everyone wants it to stay that way; but I should hope that we all do not want discrimination against anyone. It is as bad as racism.

Racism is not Biblically supported. Considering homosexuality to be an abomination is. And, yes, the majority of Americans DO want discrimination against homosexuals. Not all discrimination is bad - we discriminate against child molesters, animal fondlers, and rapists, after all. Homosexuality might not be as offensive as those behaviors - but, nevertheless, the majority of Americans find it sufficiently offensive to make legally recognized gay marriage an invalid concept.

That poll was a Time/CNN poll conducted by Harris Interactive. You can find it at To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So - you can hope that we don't want to discriminate against gays until you turn blue - but you do not control the majority.

It works like this:

1) Christianity condemns homosexuality.
2) The majority of Americans are Christians, draw their beliefs from the Bible, and thus do not wish to encourage lifestyles condemned in the Bible.
3) Legally recognizing gay marriage would encourage gay lifestyles.
4) Americans have elected representatives who passed laws outlawing gay marriage.
5) If we wanted gay marriage, we would have elected other representatives.
6) Thus, keeping gay marriage is the wish of the populace.
7) In order to legalize gay marriage, it would be necessary to go against the will of the majority, which would require violating the rules of our representative democracy.
8) If you wish to legalize gay marriage, you would obviously be opposed to following the rules of representative democracy.

At the very least, will you acknowledge that we should not legalize gay marriage as long as the majority of Americans do not want it legalized? Are you really unwilling to use the democratic process as the basis for law?

[kaleidoscope]

I would just like to draw your attention to the Canadian statistics:

Age/Gender Support Oppose No answer
Males 18 to 34 61.2% 33.9% 4.9%
Males 35 to 54 55.0 38.6 6.4
Males 55+ 24.6 67.8 7.6
Females 18 to 34 69.2 22.2 8.6
Females 35 to 54 62.2 28.0 9.8
Females 55+ 37.6 56.8 5.6

Now, as you can see, in Canada, the vast majority supports the legalization of same-sex marriages. The only age group where the opposition is stronger is men and women aged 55 and older. Does this not tell us something? People who were raised when homosexuality was considered much more wrong and abnormal than it is today are more likely to oppose it, because that is what they were taught. However, the younger people, the future leaders of society, do support it.

Your points #1-8 seem to have a bit of repetition, so I'll address the main ideas:


1) Christianity condemns homosexuality.
2) The majority of Americans are Christians, draw their beliefs from the Bible, and thus do not wish to encourage lifestyles condemned in the Bible.
3) Legally recognizing gay marriage would encourage gay lifestyles.

How would gay couples having a marriage certificate impact your life any more than they would without the certificate? You might see a homosexual couple walking down the street, holding hands, or you might see them kissing, or in a grocery store together - but all of these things would happen anyway, even if they weren't allowed to be married! There would be no difference their marriage would make in terms of an impact on your lifestyle. However, it would greatly benefit them: they would have the rights and benefits that spouses have right now. That is a big deal, but it does not impact your life in any way! It would have no negative affect on people opposing gay marriages, but it would have a huge positive affect on same-sex couples.


4) Americans have elected representatives who passed laws outlawing gay marriage.
5) If we wanted gay marriage, we would have elected other representatives.
6) Thus, keeping gay marriage is the wish of the populace.

It is not unusual for a nation to elect a leader they find out (too late) is not the best choice. However, seeing as how the majority of Americans are Christian, as you pointed out, it makes sense that the majority of people do not encourage gay marriage. But the percentage of Christians in America is declining at .9% a year, and the percentage of non-religious people and people of non-Christian religions is increasing. Are you saying that if the majority of the country support same-sex marriages, then they are right, and if the majority oppose them, then they are wrong? I can understand a government deciding not to legalize something if it can harm some of the country's citizens, but when there is only positive affects that would result from passing a law, I think it is harmful of the government itself to not take action.

In Canada, there are certainly some people who oppose the idea of same-sex marriages, and some churches refuse to marry gay couples. That is perfectly accepted by the people of the country! If a homosexual couple wishes to be married, then they can be wed in a church that does support it (and there are a great many who do.)


At the very least, will you acknowledge that we should not legalize gay marriage as long as the majority of Americans do not want it legalized? Are you really unwilling to use the democratic process as the basis for law?

No, I won't acknowledge that, because I don't believe in it. I am only opposed to the democratic process if it is keeping people from obtaining their rights as a human being in a society, and when the government is so blinded by religion that they seem to only see bad sides to the idea instead of recognizing the overwhelming number of positive affects something could have.

[AntiMaterialist]

At the very least, will you acknowledge that we should not legalize gay marriage as long as the majority of Americans do not want it legalized? Are you really unwilling to use the democratic process as the basis for law?

No, I won't acknowledge that, because I don't believe in it.


I see. Well, since you are opposed to the democratic process as a basis for law - what, indeed do you think should be the basis of law? Are you saying you should be dictator?

[kaleidoscope]

I see. Well, since you are opposed to the democratic process as a basis for law - what, indeed do you think should be the basis of law? Are you saying you should be dictator?

If you read the rest of what I wrote:

"I am only opposed to the democratic process if it is keeping people from obtaining their rights as a human being in a society, and when the government is so blinded by religion that they seem to only see bad sides to the idea instead of recognizing the overwhelming number of positive affects something could have."

then perhaps you could realize that my "not acknowledging it" was intended for your argument that the idea of keeping gay marriages illegal merely because the majority of Americans are Christians. I think America is, as I said, becoming blinded by religion, and seeing as how the percentage of Christians is declining, and all of that.

What if the laws stated that only non-Christian homosexual couples could be married? Would that make it different? I don't think one religion should be able to decide what is right and wrong for people of all religions in your country. That's awfully dictating in itself.

[AntiMaterialist]

"I am only opposed to the democratic process if it is keeping people from obtaining their rights as a human being in a society"

Yes - but, how do you determine what constitutes a person's rights as a human being in a society? I am not asking you what "rights" YOU think should be supported. I am asking you how the government should determine which "rights" to support, and which "rights" to discourage? If you do not want to use the democratic process in all situations, then there must be some other process you would use in those situations where you would not use the democratic process.

[kaleidoscope]

Looking to the Bible is not the right process when you consider how multicultural your country is, despite the majority of the population is. Besides, I thought gender equality was important to people in America; this is really no different from that. It is up to the government to make decisions based on the pros and cons of a situation, etc etc. It is fairly obvious that legalizing marriage between people of the same sex would have a huge positive impact and practically no negative impact. The government should decide what is right by looking at people who are being oppressed by current laws, such as the one making homosexual marriages illegal. No one would be hurt if they were legal, and many would benefit from it. And I'll ask you again; how would legalizing gay marriages have a negative impact on your life?

[AntiMaterialist]

No one would be hurt if they were legal, and many would benefit from it.

This sounds like an argument in favor of convincing people to support the legalization of gay marriage. I will not argue that point with you until we settle the issue of who decides the laws first.

I want us to agree on the nature of the democratic process. It is necessary that our laws be determined by the democratic process. This means, that as long as people insist on electing leaders who are opposed to gay marriage - then gay marriage shall be illegal. This is a statement of what is, whether or not you agree with the decision of these leaders.

It seems to me that in this situation you wish to abandon the democratic process in favor of rules based upon ideals - specifically, YOUR IDEALS.

But, this does not work. If we abandon the democratic process in situations where a minority feel it is unjust, then we are left with no better process for determining laws.

So - before this can go any further - I need a specific answer from you. If you don't want democracy as the basis for all laws - then you must want something else for some of those laws. It seems to me that you want the government to just assume that it should follow your ideals. Is that it? If so, how is this even practical?

[Apokalupsis]

Please note: If there is no response after 2 weeks time from the last post made...the thread will result in the last poster becoming the winner of the 1v1 debate by default. It will also be moved into the public forum for discussion by the rest of the community.

[AntiMaterialist]

I had all sorts of unpleasant manipulative arguments planned for this...

I was going to steer this towards trying to convince him that his opinion was not his own, but was planted in his head by Satan!