All laws in the U.S. based solely upon religion should be overturned
Debate Rounds (3)
With regards to gay marriage, let's first establish some facts. In the United States, no couple is married in a church. No couple is married in a synagogue. No couple is married in a mosque. Anyone who is legally "married" in the United States ends up in one place: their local clerk of the courts office. That is where the legal filing of the contract, a legally-binding union between two people (and up until recently, that meant two people of the opposite sex), is conducted. Devoid of the license, and the witness seal of a notary public, no marriage is considered legal in the United States.
So there's the rub: the religious aspect of marriage is simply a facade. In essence, everyone in the United States participates in a civil union in order to be legally bound together. You can call it marriage, you can reminisce about your wedding, but don't forget the legal process that accompanied that celebration of love.
One of the foundations of our constitutional legal system is the idea of equal protection under the law. While religious freedom is also a key principle, so is the freedom to be free from forced religious participation. Other laws, so called "Sunday" laws, violate this principle as well. Why not ban purchasing alcohol on Friday instead? That's the Muslim holy day.
So let's tear down the facade. Let's stop issuing marriage licenses and start using civil union licenses instead. Or let's stop referring to the legally-binding union between a couple as marriage, based on the religious notion. Or let's violate our constitutional principles and keep thinking of this union of two people in terms of religion. If we decide to keep it that way, let's go all the way. Let's stop issuing any licence to marry. No more filing fees! County governments will really appreciate that loss of revenue, I'm sure. Let's allow divorces to occur in church, or in a synagogue, or in a mosque. No need for any silly paperwork. I'm sure the divorce attorney industry would love that change, right? But if we don't decide to stomp on our constitutional principles, then let's stop tolerating solely religious-based laws from governing our lives.
contention 1 it is essential for public schools to remain religiously neutral
it seems not to long ago we where able to celebrate religious holidays like Christmas and Easter in schools but that time has long passed we have to maintain the balance between religions it is the key to academic prosperity
contention 2 it helps prevent religious discrimination
if you think religious discrimination isn't a thing you need to take a long sniff of reality and having religious laws helps keep the balance for example if we where to overturn these laws and would make all the ground gay people have made disappear if we are a really a free country we would believe what our pledge says "with liberty and justice for all and that includes gays or any other minority
so in conclusion we need to keep schools religiously neutral and do everything we can to prevent religious discrimination
so for all these reasons and many more vote con in today's debate thank you
sorry it wasn't longer and more in depth I'm busier then what I thought I would be this weekend.
I disagree, however, with the argument in contention #2 that "having religious laws helps keep the balance..." and "for example if we where [sic] to overturn these laws and would make all the ground gay people have made disappear." Chrisbrocker505 further asserts that "if we are a really a free country we would believe what our pledge says "with liberty and justice for all" and that includes gays or any other minority."
In my opinion, keeping religious-based laws constitutional in the United States has exactly the opposite affect of what chrisbrocker505 contends. By allowing a government official such as this Clerk of the Courts from Kentucky, who is currently making news about her refusal to grant a marriage license to same-sex couples within her jurisdiction, to inject her religious beliefs into a governmental process has the serious affect of eroding the secular nature of our constitutional state and federal laws. There is a distinct reason for the requirements of a separation of church and state in U.S. laws, as expressed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Through our Constitution, we respect everyone's right to exercise their own personal religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs do not interfere with the free expression of other citizens. So why then would we want our government to take sides in a religious matter such as marriage?
We need to take religion out of our government institutions and our laws. Yes, we need to respect each other's religious beliefs, but we don't need to have our government officials acting as advocates of one religious belief over another. We do not need to devolve our society into that of a totalitarian religious state like Saudi Arabia or Iran. That is not in keeping with our values, and is not what so many of our men and women have fought and died for. Religion needs to end at the steps of the courthouse, the legislative assembly, public school, and government office. We can learn the diversity of different religions and cultures, in order to respect each other, but we don't need to have advocates in the classroom, courtroom, or legislature trying to persuade us to adapt to their opinions and religious convictions.
The fault cannot be laid at the feet of this wayward public official in Kentucky. The fault goes higher than that. The reality is that, despite the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution, we have had a long history of lawmakers injecting religion into our laws, one line at a time. The government never should have gotten involved in the marriage business in the first place from a religious standpoint. Understanding history, you can see how it was hard to resist the temptation to keep religion in our laws 100 or 200 years ago. But that time has changed. I respect anyone's right to have a marriage ceremony conducted within their own religious institution based on the principles and beliefs of that religion. I also respect a person's right to refuse to violate their own religious convictions, within reason. A government official has to follow the government's rules and laws, period. But a private citizen or business shouldn't be held to that high of a standard. For example, I don't think that a declared Christian business, such as a bakery, should be forced to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Or forced to pay for health insurance that includes payments for abortion. If you don't like their beliefs, go buy from or work for someone else.
my opponent completely agreed with my contention one so he forfeits that argument so therefore it stands
however building on my contention two if the government would overturn all laws based solely on religion they would have to overturn the freedom of religion which would cause chaos between religions and belief's then they would have to overturn the law of religion of separation between church and state
so in conclusion we can't allow religious laws to be overturned because we will loose our freedom of religion please vote con in today's debate thank you
robertheinleinfan forfeited this round.
chrisbrocker505 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con was hard to understand, but seemed to mostly agree Pro point by point, but somehow claimed that led to an opposite position on the resolution. Con was not sufficiently coherent to be judged to have rebutted Pro. Con's S&G was so poor as to detract from following his arguments. He should start by finding the shift key on his device.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.