The Instigator
Tatarize
Pro (for)
Losing
44 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
74 Points

Civil Unions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/27/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,131 times Debate No: 8431
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (18)
Votes (23)

 

Tatarize

Pro

Any rights which the government deigns to give to the citizens being governed by that government must be given to all citizens. There are at present hundreds of rights which exist for couples by way of the government and they must be universally applied for gay couples as well. If a couple wishes to enter a civil union it should not be for the government to say that you can't have rights because we don't allow those rights except for parties of opposite genders.

We can understand the arguments against marriage from the point of view of society. But, there's a significant issue when it comes to the rights given by the government to the citizens being governed. The fact that I could enter into a union with a woman and were I to die, all my affairs would be dealt with automatically. Children would switch custody, property would be transfered, decisions about my remains and care would be made.

There is no excuse for denying couples rights you give to other couples. It is injustice in its purest form. We aren't talking about approval, acceptance or endorsement rather we are talking about the basic rights of every individual. The requirement of government is to be fair in all regards. Without granting the same governmental rights as marriage to every couple that fairness is violated.

Civil unions are basic fairness.
mongeese

Con

Everybody has the same marriage rights.

A man can be married legally to a woman.

A woman can be married legally to a man.

A man can be married to a man without recognition from government.

A woman can be married to a woman without recognition from government.

Notice how homosexuals were not singled out. Heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same rights. It's just that homosexuals want the rights to be extended further, to where they want them, which doesn't necessarily need to be done.

"The requirement of government is to be fair in all regards."
The rights are the same for both parties. No party deserves special treatment.

From the Declaration of Independence (http://www.ushistory.org...)
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Having a marriage acknowledged by government is neither Life nor Liberty nor the pursuit of Happiness.

Furthermore, if we start to allow homosexual marriage, we just moved the bar for what determines a marriage. You can't just expect a bar that you've pushed down a hill to stop where you want it. It's wisest to leave the bar where it is.

Let's say that you have a preacher who preaches his sermon at church every Sunday at 9:00 A.M. He does this for years and years. However, one day, a lazy man approaches the preacher and asks if the preacher could hold a Tuesday session for him and his buddies.
The preacher is reluctant, and says, "I'm sorry, but you should just come to Sunday sermons. You don't deserve special treatment, and besides, it is tradition to hold weekly church services only on Sundays."
But through pathos arguments, the lazy man convinced the preacher to hold Tuesday sermons. Word spread of this, and people started asking for Thursday sermons, and Wednesday sermons, and midnight sermons, and daily phone calls. The preacher ended up working longer and longer, becoming more and more frustrated with what he had started, until he finally yelled, "Enough!", and changed his sermons to Sunday only. Because people were so used to multiple sermons, they got mad, and murdered the preacher in the streets.

So, if we push the marriage bar down a little to include gay marriage, the bar won't stop there. It will keep rolling. People will start up polygamy again. Then people will start marrying animals. Then a lady will want to marry a rock. (http://www.popfi.com...) Then a man decides that he wants to marry the Sun. Eventually, we'll have the situation described by 1:00 of my YouTube video, and we'll have a marriage between four guys, three women, a dog, a cat, a frog, a quesadilla, five horses, two turtle doves, a colony of fire ants, the White House, the Great Barrier Reef, the Pythagorean Theorem, and Polaris.

That is why the bar must be set. It is already conveniently set at the traditional, natural, and successful standard of heterosexual marriage between humans only. Let's keep it that way. Vote CON.

Civil unions just give some people special treatment, and, if allowed, will end badly.
Debate Round No. 1
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Not really. The case is slightly ambiguous at best, which means that you only projected marriage onto it. He mentions marriage once, and only does so in order to reference objections to marriage as being understandable considering the viewpoints of society on marriages (we assume he is referring to the religious significance of the term/institution).

However, the rest of his discussion is about awarding rights given by the state to couples to *all* couples, rather than just couples of the opposite sex. Considering that a civil union is defined as the awarding of said state-based rights without the religious declaration of marriage, he is only discussing civil unions when he discusses state-given rights. Though he didn't spell it out word for word, there is no way to assign his discussion categorically to marriage. Granted, the current similarity between the two is that marriages are recognized by the state via "marriage license," but he doesn't make any arguments that don't support homosexual civil unions.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
But then he acted as though he meant marriages in his arguments.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
untitled_entity
I think the difference was illustrated in the fact that the resolution says "Civil Unions"
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
While I think Tatarize maybe could have been more clear, I think that the difference between the two is clear :|
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
PRO never made a distinction between marriage and civil unions. If you replace "married" with "civilly unionized," everything looks okay.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
CON failed. He kept using a "marriage" argument, while the debate was over Civil Unions.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Why don't I see a video? And where is wjmelement's post?
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Those videos were stolen from CollegeHumor. The original video has like 400,000 views.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
B & A: PRO
Conduct: Tied; I almost gave it to CON due to the fact that it is a one-round debate.
S & G: Tied
Argument: PRO; "It is injustice in its purest form." CON didn't address effectively, which is the crux of the debate.
Sources: CON; quite a bit more.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Flame 6 years ago
Flame
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TatarizemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by SaintNick 7 years ago
SaintNick
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 7 years ago
RoyLatham
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
TatarizemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by magpie 7 years ago
magpie
TatarizemongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05