Elephant-Donkey

DonkeyDude won the Face Off.

DonkeyDude vs strongleader

Face Offs: 30
Wins: 22
Losses: 6
Ties: 2
Los Angeles, CA
All Face Offs

Votes

Face Offs: 5
Wins: 2
Losses: 3
Ties: 0
No City, XX
All Face Offs

Votes

Same-sex couples should have a right in every state to get MARRIED.

DonkeyDude said 06/04, 01:25 AM
Anything less (i.e., civil unions) is akin to not letting whites marry blacks, and I predict that a generation from now we will all be embarrassed to explain to our children that we discriminated so blatantly against gays.

Now, my thesis does not have anything to do with marriage in the religious sense, or forcing any kind of church to marry gays. Marriage consists of a state-issued marriage license and a formalization ceremony. That formalization ceremony can be religious or nonreligious, and I submit that religious organizations are free to refuse to perform religious services for gay marriages.

Aside from the additional tax and other practical benefits of being allowed to "marry," it is simply wrong to deny gays the right to form the exact same union as straight couples. There is no legal, ethical or logical basis for denying them these rights. Nothing supports the notion that gays aren't perfectly capable of forming lasting, loving unions to the same extent as straight couples.

Denying gays the right to marry also appears to violate Equal Protection under our Constitution. Because the Constitution's protections trump state laws, all states should be compelled to comply.

strongleader said 06/05, 09:23 AM
I in no way look down upon gays, however you cannot say they have the right to get married. Why do I say this?

Marriage today has been derived from ceremonies from a large variety of religions and cultures. From the jewish, to ancient Egyptians, to early Catholics, and so forth. All these ceremonies, were later known as marriage. This act was strictly limited to a man and a woman.

Denying gays to the right to marry violates nothing. You cannot change an ancient traditional ceremony meant to be for a man and a woman.

Marriage today as we know have been derived from religions, if you look back it is either a priest, a holy elder, a rabii, etc who performs the marriage. Today even if the groom and bride are nonreligious they choose to have the marriage in a church. The fact is you cannot change the pure essence of marriage, if you wish to join gays through another ceremony, you'd have to call it something else, perhaps homojoining? I don't know.

You cannot make a female go through bar mitzvah, it is strictly limited to a 13 year old boy. Same thing, you cannot let same sex go through marriage.

DonkeyDude said 06/09, 06:50 PM
Your entire response is premised on religious tradition, which is thoroughly irrelevant to this discussion. The legal act of marriage is different than the religious notion. I am talking about two men or women obtaining a marriage license and being married in a private ceremony, by perhaps a judge - NOT in a church, and NOT by a priest, rabbi, etc. As Skipper points out in a comment, this won't change any religious traditions. Religious organizations would still be free to perform marriage ceremonies however they wish.

Also, you note that "Today even if the groom and bride are nonreligious they choose to have the marriage in a church." That is not true as a rule; people get married all the time in settings other than a church!

The Constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a woman, but instead demands that the gov't treat people equally. The only way to treat gays equally is to allow them to marry, and the only argument against that is irrelevant legally (religious tradition). But the religious traditions you cited, in fact, CANNOT be taken into account in this discussion because of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause (separation of church and state).

strongleader said 06/11, 03:54 PM
I highly doubt the origins of marriage today is irrelevant. Also I didn't imply that all couples who are non religious marry in a church, some do.

There's a problem with your argument. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just like the case with the pledge. 95+ percent disagreed yet it was imposed upon them.

DonkeyDude said 06/11, 04:11 PM
This debate does not concern marrying multiple partners, inanimate objects, animals or relatives. It centers on the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a loving, committed partnership fully recognized by the state.

Here is why the "slippery slope" argument is wrong:

The state doesn't currently allow one to marry one's dog, or his sister, or his alarm clock. Nor does the state allow one to enter into "civil unions" or be "domestic partners" with any of these. The state DOES, however, presently recognize the legitimate right and ability of two same-sex partners to enter into a legal union, and they receive some legal rights as domestic partners. Apparently, the state does not agree with your slippery slope argument.

Thus, what's really at issue here is what to call these unions, not whether recognizing them leads to a parade of horribles. The only reason not to call same-sex unions "marriages" is a discriminatory belief that gay couples do not promote "family values." If that's your concern, then why do we let infertile couples marry? Or those who don't want children? Why allow divorce? Was Britney Spears' 50-hour "joke" marriage really more acceptable to you?

strongleader said 06/11, 06:37 PM
The focus is not marry multiple partners, animals, etc, however what difference does it truly make from gay partners? Consider the civil union a gift that the government has bestowed upon the people, that should as well be disbanded.

The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged.

I felt as if I touched upon all my points against same sex marriage. Also if gays truly wanted they could change from being gay, its a deep psychological choice of being gay, it isn't like race, which is genetically inherited. Behaviorilist are able to trace events which can lead up to the psychological choice of becoming gay, if we can allow anyone to marry whatever they fancy, we'd see people married to goats. Legal? No way

Comments

Add Your Comment

Donkey Dude I've always suspected you are a Homo. Unfortunately your debate is limiting. You cannot set parameters that people must not argue this issues from the religious sense, for you know that most of us who are opposed to homo marriages debate this issue from the religious view point. I now know what side you play for.

ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

DonkeyDude vs strongleader

Same-sex couples should have a right in every state to get MARRIED.

DonkeyDude beat strongleader 13 to 11

Comments

Post A Comment

CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES

TOP STORIES on TIME.COM

TIME PHOTO ESSAYS

Guns N' Roses

JFK: TIME's Best Cover Stories