The Instigator
mariahjane
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GenesisCreation
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

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 2 votes the winner is...
GenesisCreation
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,531 times Debate No: 21858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

mariahjane

Con

Civil unions is a recognition of same-sex couples state created rights and obligations to civil marriages.

Some benefits Illinois civil unions offer are:
Emergency medical decision-making power
Hospital visitation rights
Equal tax treatment for couples and families at the state and local level
Health insurance coverage for same-sex partners and the other partner's children
Automatic inheritance without a will and equal estate tax treatment´┐Ż
Right to take Family Emergency and Medical Leave
Spousal Testimonial Privilege
Equal access to domestic relations laws and procedure, including divorce, division of property, and visitation of children
State spousal benefits including workers' compensation and spousal pension coverage
Equal access to civil actions dependent on spousal status, including wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium
Right to share a nursing home
Right to control disposition of a partner's remains

Civil unions are really just the current example of when blacks had the right to school in the US, but a separate school. The way the black schools were given the materials of the whites when they were done with it acknowledging that blacks exist and deserve some rights but not the same rights as whites, civil unions are now acknowledging homosexuals exist and deserve rights, but not the rights of heterosexuals.

All states with civil unions give an opportunity to both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to be involved in a civil union after they go through the process of getting a license. Marriage, in most states, is still defined as "the union of one man and one woman."

Why should my rights be taken away just because of my sexual preference? You don't lose rights based on your preference of what drink you like better: milk or juice.

Civil unions are just a way states are using to get homosexuals to leave marriage alone. Religion is where the definition of "between man and woman" came from. The first amendment clearly states "separation of church and state."

Majority rule, minority rights states that no matter what the majority rules, you cannot take away the minority's rights. Marriage is a right. The majority is taking away the rights of the minority which is unconstitutional.

Civil unions are a start towards equality but are stuck under "separate but equal."

http://www.eqil.org...
http://www.factcheck.org...
GenesisCreation

Pro

Con argues: "Civil unions are really just the current example of when blacks had the right to school in the US, but a separate school."

Rebuttal: Comparing the civil union debate to black America's struggle is a poor, unbalanced argument. Despite the 19th amendment right for black Americans to vote, political oppression, violence and protest where used to intimidate the black community from registering. During the 1960s, only 5% of the black south was registered to vote. "Separate but equal" was a white-made agenda for the oppression and suppression of the black race. [1]

Gay Americans and supporters of the Gay movement do not face the same oppression at the voting booths as black Americans. The gay rights movement is saturated with registered voters. The truth is, they simply lack the majority.

The fact remains, 38 States voted to adopt DOMA (Federal Defense of Marriage act) and protect the institution of marriage from changing. This was a democratic voting process which resoundingly spoke against the inclusion of a broader definition of marriage.



Con argues:
Why should my rights be taken away just because of my sexual preference?

Rebuttal: I'd like to answer with a question. What percentage of weddings take place in a Church?
Roughly 80%. [3] This indicates that marriage is largely considered a rite, not a right.



Con argues
: You don't lose rights based on your preference of what drink you like better: milk or juice.

Rebuttal: You may choose what you eat and drink. The majority of Homosexual claim their orientation is not a choice. You may continue your milk argument if you wish. I don't see how a diet compares to "living life with someone".



Con stated
: Civil unions are just a way states are using to get homosexuals to leave marriage alone. Religion is where the definition of "between man and woman" came from. The first amendment clearly states "separation of church and state."

Rebuttal: Exactly. The state should leave marriage alone, since it came from the church. Jolly good point.



Con stated: Marriage is a right. The majority is taking away the rights of the minority which is unconstitutional.

Rebuttal: In order to be married, you need to have a wedding. The dictionary defines "wedding" as:



wed·ding[wed-ing] Show IPA - noun
1. the act or ceremony of marrying; marriage; nuptials.
2. the anniversary of a marriage, or its celebration: They invited guests to their silver wedding.
3. the act or an instance of blending or joining, especially opposite or contrasting elements: a perfect wedding of conservatism and liberalism.
4. Business Slang . a merger.





As per the definition, a wedding is a ceremony designed to join opposites. That makes it both 'religious' and 'heterosexual'.

The state may have no legal part in this. The real breach of civil liberty is that the Government is involved in the issuance of marriage certificates.


Next round Argument:

Civil Union is gaining popularity.

Around the world, heterosexual and homosexual couples are looking to civil union as the better option. The source is quoted as stating: "Some are divorced and disenchanted with marriage; others are young couples ideologically opposed to marriage, but eager to lighten their tax burdens. Many are lovers not quite ready for old-fashioned matrimony." [4]

http://core-online.org... [1]

http://www.stateline.org... [2]

http://www.soundvision.com... [3]

http://www.nytimes.com... [4]
Debate Round No. 1
mariahjane

Con

I compared this to black America's struggle in school systems. They were white funded. They received less funding, less books, and the buildings were in much poorer shape. They were considered separate but equal because they finally had their own education system. Civil unions are giving the same message. Finally, legally joined together! But when taking a closer look, less benefits are received.

Marriages have 1,138 different federal rights. Just a few are as follows:
Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.
What about when it's a civil union? As states before, civil unions have their rights too, those are also covered in a marriage. Civil unions ONLY cover state and are NOT recognized by the federal government. Benefits are being lost there.

Marriage has been established a civil right by the Supreme Court under the US Constitution's federal civil rights law. No matter how high the percentage that takes place in a church is, under the law it's still a right. It is the couple's and the religious place's choice where the ceremony takes place, but that does not eliminate that it is a right declared by the Supreme Court.

The purpose in the milk and juice argument is it's a preference. What you prefer has no reason to be looked down upon. When looking at relationships preferences occur such as height, blonde/brown haired, personalities/looks, blue/brown eyes, ect. Just as you may prefer someone who is short, another guy's preference may be a guy. It's HIS preference.

Marriage did not originate from the church. It did not enter the church legally until 1563. As Catholicism became powerful in Europe is when it entered. All I stated was the church defined it as "one man and one woman." In A.D. 54 to 68 there are two documented male and male marriage ceremonies. They were not common but did happen. By 342 Catholicism started being involved with marriages without any legal binding. That was when homosexual unions were outlawed.

In order to be married you need a license, you do not need a wedding.

Civil unions can be a way that stays as an option for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. If the couple prefers that over a marriage, that is the couple's choice. I have nothing against civil unions. There is a difference in "I support gay civil unions" but when asked about "gay" marriage doesn't support that than civil unions/marriages for all. It is unequal for it to be there for one, but not the other.

http://civilliberty.about.com...
http://usmarriagelaws.com...
http://www.now.org...
http://www.vahistorical.org...
theweekmagazine.com
GenesisCreation

Pro

Con stated: I compared this to black America's struggle in school systems. They were white funded. They received less funding, less books, and the buildings were in much poorer shape.

Rebuttal:
  • Civil union is a universal alternative to marriage. It cannot be compared to separated schools. The school where either "white" or they where entirely "black". Civil union is open to anyone. Con is trying to win a sympathy vote by appealing to a genuine horror of the race struggles past.
  • Gay marriage is not synonymous with race struggles. A homosexual was never declared 3/5th human and homosexuals didn't require voting acts rights. The homosexual community has a fair opportunity to fight for their rights.
  • Civil union is the result of the gay movement. It was not conceived by straight men and women. The current incarnation of civil union is being pushed by the gay community. It originated in Vermont.
  • The court case of Baker v. Vermont [1] ended in 2000, yielding a controversial recognition of a gay couple's right to join in union and be granted the same rights. It's not the evil heterosexual empire's design. The gay community created civil union. It' hard to play the victim, when you designed your own "oppression".

Con failed to refute my arguments concerning the voting population amongst the gay movement. If marriage is truly for anyone, then it should be easy to convince everyone. The votes are lacking for a reason. Argument extended to next round.


Con argued about the establishment of the 14th amendment concerning the civil liberty to marry. This is Con's source: http://civilliberty.about.com...

Rebuttal: The 14th amendment was created to protect the civil rights of non-whites. Again, not a gay struggle. This amendment allowed interracial marriage between racially distinct, heterosexual couples. This does not pertain to homosexual marriage. Neither does any other race struggle. You're riding the coattail of civil rights giants.


Con is still arguing
that homosexuality is a casual choice between milk or juice.

Rebuttal
: While the evidence is lacking that people are born gay, there is plenty of evidence that:
  • Once the human brain maps out it's sexuality during childhood, it's almost always permanent.
  • Homosexuality is generally not a choice. (While there are a lot of "poser" gays, true homosexuality begins during early childhood.) [2]

Gender confusion, homosexuality or gender neutrality are recognized as being real, however, their existence does not merit that we change marriage. Christians and Muslims also recognize each other. That doesn't mean that they should start worshipping in each others shrines. Civil liberty is not always absolute.

Con said: In order to be married you need a license, you do not need a wedding.

Rebuttal: Wow. Wrong. The license needs to be signed by the officiating authority at your wedding. Whether it's a lavish church wedding, or a court hearing. You need a wedding. As quoted by the source: The wedding ceremony must take place within this period; if not, the couple will need to apply for a new marriage license.[3]

 

Next Round Arguments:

Existing restrictions on marriage: Restrictions to marriage have always existed. For instance:

  • You cannot get married if you're already married.
  • You cannot get married to a relative.
  • You cannot get married to an animal.
  • You cannot get married to extend legal status to an immigrant.

Love is not enough. Neither is good intention.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]

http://www.cwfa.org... [2]

http://www.kingcounty.gov... [3]

Debate Round No. 2
mariahjane

Con

Civil union is open to anyone but it is but as separate from marriage which is not. In most states (there are exceptions) marriage is open to just heterosexuals.

Just because a homosexual was never consider 3/5 of a human doesn't mean people aren't constantly dehumanizing them. "Homosexuals or Homo Sapiens: Who Deserves Protected Class Status?" That is trying to say being a homosexual is apart from being human. It's not just this one quote who is saying it either. The number one reason people were bullied in schools was because of their appearance. Number two? Their sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. Nine out of ten LGBT teens reported being bullied in schools for their orientation. More than 1/3 have been reported for attempting suicide because of the way others treat them. Yes, other people are bullied. But this shows that the general population IS dehumanizing them.

Vermont adapted civil unions to entitle same-sex couples to ensure the same rights as marriage while keeping "the institute of marriage." The same rights are not given.

Proposition 22, passed in 2000, is there to ensure that same-sex unions are not given most of the state benefits that are given to opposite-sex marriage. The Marriage Defense Act, passed in 1996, keeps same-sex unions from receiving federal benefits. The only way same-sex is truly equal is through marriage.

No matter who started civil unions does not change the fact they are still a step down from marriage although as stated above, they were suppose to be designed as equal to marriage. Just as women started getting jobs as secretaries and could do nothing more, they took the jobs as a step towards equality. Civil unions are that step to be taken, but not yet the step there.

Not everyone believes that gays deserve the rights as others. That is an invalid argument that it should be easy to convince everyone when the majority looks down on the minority. Majority rule, minority rights down exist under the law in this country. It is there so no government or majority may take away the rights and freedoms of a minority group. Under the law marriage is a right. You cannot argue that it should be easy to convince everyone. The majority does not agree with it, the minority, under the law, still keeps their rights.

I am gay and I don't need any scientific evidence to tell me whether or not I chose this. I don't know anyone who would choose to let society tell them to be someone else. Speaking from personal experience I would never choose to let my parents yell at me, ground me, and tell me how unnatural my choices are. If a choice was given, I personally would be heterosexual. Society first tells me to be myself, but then changes its mind. But I am not attracted to guys. It's as simple as that.

You are incorrect about the no scientific evidence. Psychological science is a branch of science. Social science is based off the ABC's (affect, behavior, and cognition). They are looked at by both self and others. Affect is feelings. Feelings have been stated by the individuals. How you feel about others is stated. Other people have observed these feelings. Republican Wade Kach said "I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to one another. I saw so much love. When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regard to this issue. I felt that I understood what same sex couples were looking for." Yes, other people observe it. The behavior is apparent and doesn't have to be explained by the gay rights movement. Cognition is the thought. Homosexuals have clearly thought about through the way they're being put down to stand up for what's rights. There has been no evidence on what causes sexual orientation, so you are correct on that, but it has been proven that most (yes, some people do choose their sexuality, not everyone possesses that in their wiring) people do not choose their sexual orientation.

I'll humor you and pretend it's a choice. That brings back to the discussion you can't discriminate for someone's choice. Everyone chooses who they like better. You can't take away a right because of their choice.

You still don't need a wedding. The license needs to be signed, that does not make it a wedding. The wedding it the couple's choice.

Yes, restrictions have always existed. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. Things progress. I am not arguing for or against the other restrictions. Am I saying those are correct or not? No. I have done research on those issues nor do I have the time at this moment. I will look into them for a future debate with you. Although your animal argument does not work because you cannot get consent from both parties. Restrictions are there but that doesn't mean they're right.

Love is love.

It was nice debating with you. I learned a lot about formatting, especially how to source them. I've always just sourced in alphabetical and your format will help in the future. But I'd suggest not using Wikipedia as a source.

http://blog.chron.com...
http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com...
http://www.america.gov...
http://www.apa.org...
http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...
http://www.infoplease.com...
GenesisCreation

Pro

In the first half of the debate my opponent claimed:
  • Homosexuality is a choice. Likened drinking milk or juice.
  • Civil Union is the state's oppressive agenda to keep gays from marriage.
In the second half of the debate my opponent claimed:
  • Homosexuality is not a choice.
  • Civil Union is the result of the Gay right's movement.

My opponent is confusing the debate, jumping from one root argument to the next. What is the voter supposed to understand? Is homosexuality a choice (like a drink preference), or is it rooted in childhood development? Is Civil Union the brainchild of an oppressive Government or was it created, pushed and maintained by the Gay rights movement?


I do not wish to sound condescending (I really do not), but my opponent has absolutely no idea where the roots of homosexuality lie, or why civil union exists. I find that strange, since she confessed herself to be gay. I find that a true, self-identified homosexual has decades of experience, reflection and understanding to fall back on. The gay rights debate is often clouded by the "flavor of the week" homosexuals that call themselves lesbians after listening to Katy Perry's "I kissed a Girl and I liked it."



I made several points throughout this debate:

  • Homosexuality is not synonymous with the race struggle.
  • Homosexuals are free to vote and often carry the majority.
  • Homosexuals have preferable alternative to marriage, which would allow them to live at peace with a conservative majority that desires to keep marriage an institution of the heterosexual family.
  • The gay rights movement designed civil union as the fair alternative. It was they who created this compromise.
  • Homosexuality is generally not a choice and can be traced to childhood development.
  • Many couples (gay or straight) are abandoning the ancient matrimony and embracing civil union as the new standard for marriage.
  • Restrictions already exist for marriage (You can't marry relatives, other married people, etc.).
  • Marriage has been heterosexual for all of recorded history, there is no crime in maintaining a tradition and protecting with laws, as long as a fair alternative exists.
  • We live in a democracy and the voting majority has decided to protect marriage from changing. As "oppressive" as this might sounds, it is fair. The country voted. It would only be oppressive if the people couldn't vote on the issue, or if homosexuals only where barred from voting. It's simply not the case.
My opponent carried the burden of proof. I have answered all of her claims and provided sufficient sources to back my arguments. I have broken my opponent's root arguments that civil union is a state created oppression and that homosexuality is a free choice.

I thank the voter for reading and I thank my opponent for the debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GenesisCreation 2 years ago
GenesisCreation
Our positions are a bit mixed up. Con is arguing against civil union and I am arguing for civil union. That is not immediately apparent when reading the resolution title. It's not a big deal, just an FYI before anyone expresses confusion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
mariahjaneGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: poor arguments on both sides :(
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
mariahjaneGenesisCreationTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Proved his point