DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.
Some perspectives include that it should have been the states' decision or that it would go against tradition; or that it is every human's right to marry who they love and there is no reason for any level of government to prohibit marriage
People should be allowed, But when they got what they wanted, They wanted more. Example: Bathrooms for gays. Like really? Give em an inch, And they take 5.
Marriage is a good legal framework to protect gay couples that are life partners. If left to each state, there any many legal issues that expose these life partners. Marriage simplifies it.
@Logic, lets say there is a gay couple that are life partners. They love each other and want to get married. They want to commit to each other, but legally they can't. They are not eligible for inheritance, social security benefits, and other legal protection that marriage provides. If we are to accept LGBT into our society then the marriage construct offers them the same protection as husband and wife. We can debate if we truly want to accept them or not, but legal protection issue is real.
@inc4t Couldn't we make a security system which doesn't need marriage? When they got what they wanted, They wanted more i.e Gay bathrooms. Accepting them isn't a problem, They are people after all. If they take what they asked for, And Stop asking, Then fine. Everything's good.
What does "marriage" mean now? It used to mean a union between a man and a women primarily for the purposes of procreation. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Why limit it to two people? Can't three people love each other? How about more? Can't a man love his dog? Can't a woman love herself? How can we draw a line?
@logic and @CYDdharta , you are making valid points. We need to carefully draw the line. That said, there is a hugh gay population and that issue is real in our society. Marriage is a valid solution that resolves many of their challenges and offers acceptance. The transgender issue continues to push the boundary further, and I recall your debate about chimps from awhile ago.
Bottom line, I somewhat support the gay marriage because we are where we are and at this point I am willing to draw the line there. But at the same time, I am not really supportive of further extending the line. This is one of tough issues I actually went back and forth on.
No, the line needs to be drawn. I'm a conservative Republican, due to this I'm against any kind of gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and woman, not both genders. It changes tradition, and can disturb normal, civilized life or make this be rethought. I understand the gays and lesbians, want to be happy, but this happiness can come at a cost. Although, I do believe that if non-married gay couples are living with each other for a decent period of time, the state or country should not be able to take money away from the partner or spouse. This would be unfair. Do example, if a couple is living together, by not legally married, and one dies, and a will points to them, the spouse must get it. If there is no will, but the spouse is in some way pointed to, through paying for the house or something simialar, they should get the money or st least a good portion. The state can't take it away nor the country. Overall, ima hasn't gay marriage, but I am for the things I listed which should possibly be implemented if gay marriage is not legal.
I do think that, in general, the decision should be left to the states, in accordance with the principle of decentralization - however, this system was strongly compromised when Lincoln's government shifted the center of power towards the federal authorities. What this resulted in is the states' unwillingness to conduct massive reforms without being pushed by the federal authorities to do so. On the local level, the influence of churches is very strong over the neighboring communities, hence, especially for small communal states, it is very difficult to push through something so meaningful as a homosexual marriage law.
So, my judgment is: "In the present conditions, it was a good decision". In the ideal conditions, it would not be, since it would be somewhat of an usurpation of power by the central government - but in the ideal conditions it also would not need to be done in the first place, since every state would recognize the reasonability of legalizing homosexual marriage.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/15/she-broke-the-story-of-chechnyas-anti-gay-purge-now-she-says-she-has-to-flee-russia/?utm_term=.e65351b628a4
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 22%  
  Substantial: 35%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 50%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 45%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 7%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
If we are to accept LGBT into our society then the marriage construct offers them the same protection as husband and wife.
We can debate if we truly want to accept them or not, but legal protection issue is real.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 55%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 25%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
The transgender issue continues to push the boundary further, and I recall your debate about chimps from awhile ago.
http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/565/are-chimps-people-too
Bottom line, I somewhat support the gay marriage because we are where we are and at this point I am willing to draw the line there. But at the same time, I am not really supportive of further extending the line.
This is one of tough issues I actually went back and forth on.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
not be able to take money away from the partner or spouse. This would be unfair. Do example, if a couple is living together, by not legally married, and one dies, and a will points to them, the spouse must get it. If there is no will, but the spouse is in some way pointed to, through paying for the house or something simialar, they should get the money or st least a good portion. The state can't take it away nor the country. Overall, ima hasn't gay marriage, but I am for the things I listed which should possibly be implemented if gay marriage is not legal.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
So, my judgment is: "In the present conditions, it was a good decision". In the ideal conditions, it would not be, since it would be somewhat of an usurpation of power by the central government - but in the ideal conditions it also would not need to be done in the first place, since every state would recognize the reasonability of legalizing homosexual marriage.
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra