The Instigator
cto09
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Civil Unions should be legal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,412 times Debate No: 6320
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (14)

 

cto09

Pro

I would first like to say good luck to my opponent (who ever he or she may be)

I understand that gay marriage is a highly charged issue in the United States, and I would like to first point out that I am not in favor of gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and the government should not be able to tell churches what they can and cannot do within the church.

However, I also understand that I am not the whole country and I do not represent everyone. I believe, that in the United States, a country known for freedom and rights, civil unions should be fully legal.

1) Homosexuals deserve no worse rights than Heterosexuals.
Know one knows why some people are homosexual. There are two possible reasons. Either they were born homosexual, or they choose to be homosexual. If they were born homosexual, denying them civil unions would be synonymous with denying African Americans or Hispanic Americans civil unions. An individual cannot change what they are born as, and it is not fair to punish someone for something that is beyond their control. If homosexuality is simply a life choice, it would still be unfair. Should we stop people who shop at Walmart instead of Target from having civil unions? Of course not. There is no reason why homosexuals are different from heterosexuals in a way that they deserve less rights.

2) It violates the Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to civil unions.
If civil unions are not legalized, homosexuals are not open to the same benefits as heterosexual couples, such as victim recovery benefits and joint leases. The 14th amendment states that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Slavery was considered a violation of the 14th amendment because one group was treated better than another.

Now I would just like to conclude with a little more analysis on the topic. We aren't debating what the United States is currently, or what it ever will be. We are simply debating what SHOULD happen. I would like to wish my opponent good luck and wait for his/her response.
fresnoinvasion

Con

"I would first like to say good luck to my opponent (who ever he or she may be)"
Thank you. To you too.

"I am not in favor of gay marriage."

Great job. He has already gone to damn himself in this debate round. Looking to the fact he believes they should have "EQUAL" rights, and he is AGAINST gay marriage, proves how redundant and idiotic his thought process is. He tried to say this to keep his name safe, to make him look "understanding, but not too far understanding". But its going to hurt him drastically in this debate round.

"However, I also understand that I am not the whole country and I do not represent everyone. I believe, that in the United States, a country known for freedom and rights, civil unions should be fully legal
1) Homosexuals deserve no worse rights than Heterosexuals.
2) It violates the Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to civil unions."

I will cold concede both arguments he makes, because I fully agree. These will both come back to bite him, hard. If they deserve no less rights than heteros do, then why not make gay marriage legal? His thought process is self destroying, hes against marriage, but for unions. These civil unions dehumanize the gay population to something that can be controlled and merely told what to do rather than make their own decisions. Civil unions should be illegal in the united states, always and forever. He has an elitist mindset that is in desperate need of molding. He thinks he can sit atop his high thrown, with gay people at his feet waiting for what he says is ok for them to do. He represents that cold part of society that subjectivizes those around them, dehumanizes them. He might as well think that they are animals. He thinks he can choose what they can and cant do, and that is wrong. Horribly wrong. If you think they should have equal rights, give them equal rights. If you think they shouldnt. Dont. Dont post a debate you think you can easily win because you worded it to your advantage, or so you thought.

the affs policy option is to legalize civil unions
mine is to ban them

Vote for the neg to stop the dehumanization of an entire group of people. Vote for the neg to keep the United States of America actually equal, and end the fake image portrayed as equality we are so accustomed to seeing away.

Sorry sir, you tried to be too safe. And its game over now.
Debate Round No. 1
cto09

Pro

Unlike what my opponent seems to think, I am not trying to stay safe, but stay American. Let me summarize my opponent's argument. I am an elitist because I support civil unions and not gay marriage. He ignores, though, one key part of the Bill of Rights. That the United States Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." With this in mind, Congress CAN NOT force churches and religious institutions to recognize homosexual marriage. The only way to ensure that homosexuals receive the same benefits, same perks, same status in the government's eyes, while NOT destroying religious freedom, is to allow civil unions. Anyone is eligible for a civil union. It is the government's version of marriage. The only difference is that marriage is recognized by the church. I am not, as you put it, sitting on a throne and telling gays what to do. We are giving them an option to get 'married' without the name 'marriage.' If we do not establish civil unions, homosexuals will STILL be denied the benefits they deserve. If we force all churches to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, we completely destroy the separation between church and state. For these reason, please vote pro.
fresnoinvasion

Con

"Unlike what my opponent seems to think, I am not trying to stay safe, but stay American"

Oh my, classic. "Stay American". ARE YOU SERIOUS!? Have you given up at this point of the debate or what?

He tries to illustrate this type of double bind Americans are in because of the different laws we have. This horrible terrible double bind; and he is the one that can see through the fog. Oh yes, he has the answer to the problem. The problem? Im sorry sir, but you have shot yourself in the foot on this speech. The mere fact your mindset carries the thought that this is a "problem that needs to be solved" (that civil unions solve) destroys your entire case. You think that what is going on with the gay people in status-quo America is a problem, and isnt already solved by basic human ethics. We shouldnt even be having this debate, what we should be doing is molding our mindsets to accepting gays everywhere, to do anything, including be married.

The only time gays will ever be equal is when we fully accept them, and that is NOT going to happen by a civil union. You still hold them on a level lower than you. "Im straight, i can be married. Hes gay, I want to appease him, but he cant be AS EQUAL as me". Your mindset destroys itself, and im sorry, but you lose. Turn his entire justice onto gays case onto him, hes the one putting them lower, hes the one that even started this debate.

We should see gays as equal, we should not be debating on whether or not they should be married.

You say separation of church and state. fail. Do you understand what you are doing? You believe there are two separate groups out there and you are trying to appease both. The two groups will hate each other horribly. We cant try and fix the current system in which the two groups hate each other, we have to mold everyones minds to believe that gays are equal. However, this is impossible. So let the two groups fight over the morality. Right now the government is sitting on the side of the oppressor, and will be until they recognize gay marriage.

The standards you set in your first speech allowed us to just look at the philosophy behind the ideas. Allowed us to toy with what gays can, and cant do. We should not be having this debate, gays can do whatever they want because of the arguments you yourself made in your first speech.
Debate Round No. 2
cto09

Pro

Insults aside, my opponent begins with this:

"You think that what is going on with the gay people in status-quo America is a problem, and isnt already solved by basic human ethics. We shouldnt even be having this debate, what we should be doing is molding our mindsets to accepting gays everywhere, to do anything, including be married."

What he fails to understand is that, in the status quo, homosexuals ARE NOT TREATED EQUALLY. You claim that we need to accept homosexuals everywhere. But by not giving them civil unions, we keep them separated from society by not allowing them to have unions AT ALL. How can we possible mold our minds to accept homosexuals if our laws set a paradigm of ‘rewarding' heterosexual couples.

"The only time gays will ever be equal is when we fully accept them, and that is NOT going to happen by a civil union."

Again, my opponent fails to realize that civil unions and marriage is the EXACT SAME THING. The only difference is the name and the church's recognition. Unless my opponent wants to institute a totalitarian regime in America, it is IMPOSSIBLE to force a church to recognize a union.

"You believe there are two separate groups out there and you are trying to appease both. The two groups will hate each other horribly. We cant try and fix the current system in which the two groups hate each other, we have to mold everyones minds to believe that gays are equal."

The church and government hate each other? Appeasing both is wrong? In my opponent's flawed mind, he believes that we can completely destroy religion to ensure equality only as deep as the name. He does not seem to believe that giving two groups two equal benefits is equal.

Example: I give a boy 2 apples and a girl 2 apples. I let the boy calls his apples ‘bob' and the girl call her apples ‘rob'. Both the boy and the girl and treated the same.

My opponent also believes that homosexuals should be able to do what ever they want. That's fine, but in the current America, they CAN NOT. IF my opponent is such an advocate of gay rights, he would support civil unions, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SAME AS MARRIAGE.

A brief summary of the round:
I advocate civil unions that give homosexuals equal rights and equal benefits. Everyone can have a civil union, not just homosexuals. I advocate that the government does not interfere with religious institutions and force them to recognize all civil unions. I am able to ensure that everyone has the same rights, same benefits, and is treated equally under the law.

My opponent advocates molding people's minds to accept homosexuals without providing a method. He either assumes (as he has in the debate)
1.that the current law provides equality.
2.that we should destroy religious freedom and force church's to follow a law they may find sinful
Both of these are wrong. If you vote con, you are supporting an America that does not provide benefits to homosexuals or an America that does not support religious freedom. If you vote pro, you are supporting an equal America that respects religion and gives equal treatment to homosexuals.
fresnoinvasion

Con

"We aren't debating what the United States is currently, or what it ever will be. We are simply debating what SHOULD happen. I would like to wish my opponent good luck and wait for his/her response."

Game over.

You opened the door for both of us to debate what "should" happen. Equality "should" happen. We "should" be in a world in which everyone loves each other. We "should" be able to accept the fact gays are there, and accept their marriages.

In context of actual advocacy, we should not be having this debate. We "should" embrace each other, and move forward with one another, as a societal group.

This is what I advocate, the aff allows me to advocate this when defining the debate as what "should" happen.

Societal barriers mean nothing today.

Civil Unions "should" be illegal, because when they are, we know America as a whole has become understanding to each other. Separation of church and state does not matter, because they accept the gays. That is what "should" happen.

I hope you finally get my point sir.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
I believe most gay people would be satisfied with civil unions IF and only if they guaranteed the same rights as traditional marriage. Of course, this wouldn't satisfy the separate but equal proponents but that would be another debate. For now, the debate should be civil unions should have the same rights as marriages given the precedence of the 14th immendment. The whole DOMA debate is based on the religious institution that sanctions the marriage. I don't think the government should be dictating to religions who they should marry. If the rights are the same and there's different titles between heterosexual and homosexual unions what's the issue?
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Roy - No, I know where rights come from - there are different types, after all. Marriage is a civil right, to be protected in instances where it would be taken away or denied to a minority by a majority. It is not a human right, one that should not be taken away for any reason. It is a sad state of affairs when a gov't body must declare what we should already know.

sadolite- You are the one wanting to "educate" your children in "proper" history - and would deny gays the right you take for granted.

Question - exactly what would gay marriage bring to the table that threatens you so much? You talk about the "institution" of marriage - maybe you should be talking about how much of a mockery straight people have made of this "venerable" 2000 year old institution.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
jjmd280, So rights derive from the UN Declaration of Human Rights? If so, then before the Declaration was adopted, there were no human rights. I don't think so. If the declaration is the ultimate athority, then the marital right is only for "men and women" entering into marriage, and no right beyond that exists, no gay marriage. The UN declaration goes on to include welfare state benefits such as a right to employment.

Some civil union laws may be as you have asserted on your list, but there is no uniformity and states can adopt whatever they wish. Federal laws can be changed accordingly, and with the support of Obama that should happen. You provided no rebuttal to the dangers of making law by re-definition to circumvent democracy.

Perhaps a good debate topic would deal with the origin of rights.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"It was once illegal for blacks and whites to marry, sadolite. Is that the kind of education you subjecting your children to?" What is the point of responding to such a statement. Nothing I have said can even remotely send you in that direction. Your attempts to imply that I am a racists wont work. This argument is so old and tired and a text book Lib Dem play book strategy. Try to think of something more original rather than regurgitating the same old same old.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
It was once illegal for blacks and whites to marry, sadolite. Is that the kind of education you subjecting your children to? The kind that says all men are not equal in the eyes of the law?
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
RoyLatham - How do I know it is a right?

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

It isn't all that subtle.

The problem is marriage should be only a religious institution, and to be seen as legal, one would need to get a civil union. Both straights and gays. And if there is a church that doesn't want to perform a gay ceremony, fine. But if on does wish to, they should have every right to. The mix of religion and politics is the problem.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
RoyLatham - wrong

Number of Legal Benefits:

* Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)
* Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

Tax Relief:

* Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.
* Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

Medical Decisions:

* Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.
* Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

Gifts:

* Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.
* Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

Death Benefits:

* Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.
* Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

Child/Spousal Support:

* Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.
* Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

Immigration Rights:

* Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.
* Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I believe most gay people would be satisfied with civil unions. It is the activists who purport to speak for all gay people that won't be satisfied. It is all or nothing for them. They ether get to change the 2000 year old definition of marriage or no one gets married and the whole concept must be flushed down the toilet. This is an opinion of course, but the people that I know that are gay would be perfectly happy with civil unions and are quite embarrassed by gay activists because they do not speak for the entire gay population only them selves.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
jjmd280, As far as I know, there are only a couple of privileges extended to married couples under federal law that are not given to DPs. I recall there is something that about granting permanent resident status to non-citizen partners, for example. However many there are, they can be remedied by passing legislation recognizing the DP status extended by states, just as marriages are recognized for the purpose. Note that Bush, Obama, and McCain all opposed gay marriage, but all supported civil unions.

What is the grounds for supposing that marriage is a right? For example, suppose that some country does not have a standard marriage contract as part of their federal law. Perhaps a developing country that is predominantly tribal decides that is not a national responsibility. Would the lack of a marriage law deprive their citizens of a human right? If so how do you know? Is there a human right to form a corporation? If so, how would know? Both marriages and corporations are from the viewpoint of the state standard contracts. It seems ridiculous to suppose that there is right to have a government-sanction standard contract for anything. If you are going to claim that X is right, then you must have some means for determining that X is a right and Y is a privilege. Without that, there can be no claims to rights.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Next response will be but what if they don't decide to have kids and what about adoption and so on and so on. Same sex marriages will have to go completely out of their way and use artificial means to have children it will never happen unplanned and naturally not ever. To say this is equal is illogical.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
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 
Vote Placed by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by googzieg 8 years ago
googzieg
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by lemonsmile 8 years ago
lemonsmile
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rawlsfulcopter 8 years ago
Rawlsfulcopter
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Alexmertens559 8 years ago
Alexmertens559
cto09fresnoinvasionTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07