The Instigator
robertheinleinfan
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
chrisbrocker505
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

All laws in the U.S. based solely upon religion should be overturned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
robertheinleinfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/4/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 79389
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

robertheinleinfan

Pro

The debate in Washington, the various states and in the media about the SCOTUS decision to allow gay marriage dances around the more important point: the SCOTUS should have ruled that all laws in the United States which are based solely on religion should be found unconstitutional.
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.
chrisbrocker505

Con

it is important to keep religious laws in the united states it keeps the balance not only in schools but in the workplace as well while some people may argue the freedom of religion what we must see is it doesn't violate that you may practice what ever religion you please so I will be analyzing this topic with two main points of analysis first being the importance of keeping religion out of schools and finally the importance of preventing religious discrimination

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.
Debate Round No. 1
robertheinleinfan

Pro

Actually, I agree with chrisbrocker505's assertion in contention #1 that "it is essential for public schools to remain religiously neutral."

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.
chrisbrocker505

Con

despite popular belief there is actually three sides of a coin the heads tails and the edge picking my opponents side in today's debate would be like picking the edge in a coin flip you simply can't win with it.

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
Debate Round No. 2
robertheinleinfan

Pro

robertheinleinfan forfeited this round.
chrisbrocker505

Con

chrisbrocker505 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
Nivek
Sorry, it was just too funny ;/
Posted by Nivek 2 years ago
Nivek
"He should start by finding the shift key on his device. "

Lmao hahahahahahahahahhahahaha
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
I don't think the religious concept of marriage was driving government into the marriage business. I think it was about contractual issues: rights and responsibilities of the partners, property ownership and the handling of estates, and so forth. If government stops issuing marriage licenses, the contractual issues will have to either be spelled out in the contract or left to common law.

I don't think there are any laws in the US that are based solely upon religion. Sunday closings were upheld by the Supreme Court as being based upon tradition. Once-religious holidays are now traditional. While most religions forbid theft and murder, it can be hardly argued that they derive "solely" from religion. They are based upon common ethics.
Posted by MizzEnigma 2 years ago
MizzEnigma
"All laws regarding religion being overturned." -> "All laws of a religion."
Posted by MizzEnigma 2 years ago
MizzEnigma
"All laws regarding religion being overturned." -> "All laws of a religion."
Posted by robertheinleinfan 2 years ago
robertheinleinfan
Point ceded; I should have pointed out common law as a circumstance of marriage during my original posting. Thanks for the assistance!
Posted by NotThatClever 2 years ago
NotThatClever
Just to be clear, I was not debating your points. I was merely pointing out a statement that was not factual.
Posted by robertheinleinfan 2 years ago
robertheinleinfan
With regards to common law marriage, this actually provides support for my position against religious-based laws. In "common law" circumstances, people who didn't take the affirmative steps of marrying (through the courts by obtaining a license and filing the certificate of marriage) are treated as if they had been married in the eyes of the law. But this is word play. What it means is that the courts will treat the parties as if they had taken the affirmative steps of obtaining a licence from the government to marry. In essence, this situation is devoid of religion and is strictly viewed as a legal circumstance. A union of a couple in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of God, Allah, Yahweh, etc.
Posted by NotThatClever 2 years ago
NotThatClever
"Devoid of the license, and the witness seal of a notary public, no marriage is considered legal in the United States."
-That is false. Some States have common law marriage. Go ahead and look it up if you are not aware.
Posted by TubOLard 2 years ago
TubOLard
Government has no business being in the business of marriage. Getting a "license" to marry is quite silly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
robertheinleinfanchrisbrocker505Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
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.