The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Scyrone
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Civil unions are NOT the shizz!!!

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  
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: 12/25/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 997
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (13)

 

policydebategod

Pro

FIRSTLY I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU AND CONGRAULATE YOU ON YOUR BEING LIBERTARIAN!!!

- Civil unions
+ Civil unions are:
= not recognized by most states or nations so gays cannot travel or live elsewhere. also the benefits dont apply there. this is unfair to couples who just want to have a normal marriage. why should they have to settle?
= not recognized by civilians. 86% of employers in New Jersey do not recognize civil unions. if heterosexual marriages were not recognized there would be riots in the street. a civil war for christ's sake.
= civil unions do not carry the same social weight. if i was to say "i just got civilly united" it would not be as recognized as "i just got married." people respect the age old institution of marriage more.

Marriage is not a religious institution:
Atheists and Satanists get married everyday.

Most benefits of marriage come from the government!!!

All marriage sgould be recognized by the state. Most marital benefits are provided by the government: (THIS IS JUST A LIST OF MARITAL RIGHTS-- YOU DONT HAVE TO REFUTE EACH ONE-- TRY THE GENERAL LIST) Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing survivor benefits for federal employees, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits, veteran's disability, Supplemental Security Income, disability payments for federal employees, medicaid, property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates, joint filing of bankruptcy permitted, joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records, family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce, domestic violence intervention, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens, Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act, Threats against spouses of various, federal employees is a federal crime, Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse, Court notice of probate proceedings, Domestic violence protection orders, Existing homestead lease continuation of rights, Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption, Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care, Joint tax filing, Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, Legal status with stepchildren, Making spousal medical decisions, Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver, Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation, Right of survivorship of custodial trust, Right to change surname upon marriage, Right to enter into prenuptial agreement, Right to inheritance of property, Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

VOTE PRO!!! VOTE PRO!!! VOTE PRO!!!
Scyrone

Con

I don't understand what you are arguing. Are you arguing that their shouldn't be Civil Unions? You like Civil Unions (or don't like [shizz is translated to sh*t which in this argument can be used in both good and bad ways])? Are you arguing that CUs are not cool? Are you arguin that CUs do not deserve the same rights as normal marraiges?

Also, don't provide confusing points, make it neat and in a format that everyone else can understand.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

Im saying that civil unions are not good. the shizz = good. lighten up. please start arguing your point.
Scyrone

Con

"not recognized by most states or nations so gays cannot travel or live elsewhere"

Actually, they can live wherever they want to. They just cannot marry yet. This doesn't really prove that Civil Unions are not good.

And actually, Washington, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey recognize Civil Unions. And in Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island, the topic of Civil Unions is sometimes allowed and sometimes not (it is being debated). Oregon and New York have a domestic partnership available, which is close to a Civil Union, that they are allowed to have. So +- 12 States can have Civil Unions. But in Massachusetts it is legal for same sex couples to marry.

In Belgium, Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Spain you can have same sex marriage. In Aruba and Israel, they recognize same sex marriages from other countries.

In some regions of Mexico, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina they allow Civil Unions. They also allow Civil Unions in Andorra, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany and many other nations in the world to have Civil Unions. So no, most states and nations do not not allow Civil Unions. A lot do, but not most.

"Marriage is not a religious institution:
Atheists and Satanists get married everyday"

First of all define religion. Also, I do not think that they get married everyday, but a lot do get married. I also agree that marriage is not a religious institution.

Honestly, I took this debate from this standpoint. You do not agree with Civil Unions. You don't think they should be there at all. You don't think marriage between same sex couples should happen either. Because since Civil Unions are not good, they should be abolished. And since there is no same sex marriage, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either.

I honestly think you did not make your point clear enough in the debate.

Carry on.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

- Actually, they can live wherever they want to. They just cannot marry yet.
+ That is the entire point of the statement!!! I'm saying that their marriage will only be recognized in a few places, therefore they can only live in a few places for them to have the benefits of marriage. This limits freedoms unnecessarily. Marriage is age old and therefore recognized universally.

- And actually, Washington, California, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, and New Jersey recognize Civil Unions.
+ THAT IS MY ENTIRE POINT!!! ONLY 6 STATES RECOGNIZE CIVIL UNIONS!!! THAT LEAVES 44 STATES LEFT THAT GAYS CANNOT LIVE IN WITH THEIR MARITAL STATUS RECOGNIZED!!! AND NO OTHER NATIONS!!!

- And in Illinois, New York, Maryland, and Rhode Island, the topic of Civil Unions is sometimes allowed and sometimes not (it is being debated).
+ EXACTLY!!!

- But in Massachusetts it is legal for same sex couples to marry. In Belgium, Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Spain you can have same sex marriage. In Aruba and Israel, they recognize same sex marriages from other countries.
+ MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT CIVIL UNIONS ARE RECOGNIZED IN FEW STATES!!! MARRIAGE AND CIVIL UNIONS ARE NOT THE SAME THING!!! YOU MISS THE ENTIRE POINT!!! A CIVIL UNION WILL NOT BE RECOGNIZED IN A STATE WHERE MARRIAGE IS RECOGNIZED!!! THIS DOES NOT HELP YOUR CASE!!!

- In some regions of Mexico, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina they allow Civil Unions. They also allow Civil Unions in Andorra, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany and many other nations in the world to have Civil Unions. So no, most states and nations do not not allow Civil Unions. A lot do, but not most.
+ This does not help your case at all. You are saying that 6 states, 4 third world regions, 4 European nations allow civil unions. As oppose to marriage which is recognized universally.

- Honestly, I took this debate from this standpoint. You do not agree with Civil Unions. You don't think they should be there at all. You don't think marriage between same sex couples should happen either. Because since Civil Unions are not good, they should be abolished. And since there is no same sex marriage, they shouldn't be allowed to marry either. I honestly think you did not make your point clear enough in the debate.
+ The statements I made were obviously anti- civil unions and i am 100% for same sex marriage. However, that is irrelevant.

YOU NEVER RESPONDED TO MY POINTS OF CIVIL UNIONS DONT CARRY THE SAME SOCIAL WEIGHT AS MARRIAGES AND THAT GOVERNMENT BENEFITS BELONG TO MARRIAGE SO THAT MUST STAY IN PLACE. I WIN THIS DEBATE BECAUSE YOU NEVER EVEN TRIED TO ANSWER 2 OF MY ARGUMENTS AND ANSWERED THE ONLY ARGUMENT THAT YOU DID RESPOND TO INCREDIBLY INSUFFIENTLY.
Scyrone

Con

"The statements I made were obviously anti- civil unions and i am 100% for same sex marriage. However, that is irrelevant."

Eh . . . actually it is very relevant. Without knowing that you were 100% for same sex marriage, I could have interpreted your standpoint in so many different ways. Now that I know you are saying that you hate Civil Unions because they just don't feel the same as same sex marriage.

Honestly, I'm going to quit debating this topic. First of all, you never stated your point clearly. You need to do this in a debate and provide sources and evidence to why you believe this. That is the way you tell someone you believe something (theory, then metaphorical drama associated with the theory and then reason to why you believe your theory is correct).

Secondly, your grammar . . . well, I have no better way to put this . . . it sucks. Someone who wants to express their point should at least be able to type and spell properly. This isn't myspace. This is a site for intelligent people to come together and prove to others why they believe what they believe in argument format.

Thirdly, to all who read this, I am sorry for wasting your time. Many of the points he brought up were hard to understand and did not make sense to me. I did not interpret his arguments correctly because of how many different arguments there could be.

And honestly, I don't debate to win. I debate so someone can hear my point of view. Debating challenges my beliefs and my standpoint. If I cannot defend my view, then I find a way to do so. If I cannot defend my view at all, then there are weaknesses in my belief system. Debating only makes me stronger as it does other people.

Well, honestly, this debate was a bad debate. Good luck with your future debates policydebate (I refuse to acknowledge you are a God of any sort).
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by policydebategod 8 years ago
policydebategod
there were obvoiusly several points made in the debate.

if u thought ssm was relevant you should have asked for my position and looked at my profile. its not my duty to give you a bio of my life in every debate.
why didnt you take those steps if u cared so much?

debating gains me fun. im no the debate team, which is a huge sport. it must be fun to some people.

converse (v) - To engage in a spoken exchange of thoughts, ideas, or feelings; talk. See synonyms at speak.

debate (v) - To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.

1. im not afraid to lose. i debate to win because i find it to be a game as do DEBATERS!!!

2. i can spell. i just think that a debate is about poinyts and not who got the higher grade in english class.

3. ooohhh...

4. oh my. anything but that. i dont think it was because u did not debate. u made one stupid point.

5. thems fighting words. what is this? honestly. grow up.

6. im obviously libertarian. you are the one who has no opinion of school vouchers, for the afghanistan war, and for abortion. i disagree with civil unions because i am for ssm.

jesus christ, grow up. if u dont want to win a debate then please go have a conversation.
Posted by Scyrone 8 years ago
Scyrone
Not one capital letter in that paragraph.

I did not make one point because there was no point in the debate.

I know that you are not for ssm, but it is relevant to the debate. It is relevant, but not the objective of the debate. It would have cleared many things up.

Haha, a forum? Wow. I've been to too many of those. To you, debating might be winning, but to debate to win gains you nothing. A forum is for talking about specific topics and subjects. It is about posting your favorite pictures and videos. Maybe even RPing a little here and there, depending on what your forum is meant for. But why debate if there is no gain? Debate is the practice of talking to one person to another to learn about them and to convince them to believe you. It strengthens you that way . . . well, maybe not you.

Honestly, I can go on debating you on the subject of a multiple of things. But I leave you with this:

1. You are afraid to lose.

2. "u kant speL or use propa grammer.i kan do better"

3. You are very disorganized.

4. It was a displeasure to debate you.

5. Never challenge me again.

6. . . . . . Your not Libertarian.
Posted by policydebategod 8 years ago
policydebategod
to vote con is to completely not value yur right as a judge.
he never made one point and did not even try to.
he told me to use sources and did not himself
the fact that i am for ssm is irrelevant. that is not this debate. i debated this topic elsewhere with the same opening argument and it was understood perfectly.
he insulted my grammar-completely irrelevant'and ulmitmately he admitted to not debating to win. if its not a debate then it is aq conversation. go join a forum website, not a debate website.
i also made several unanswered points.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
policydebategodScyroneTied
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 C-Mach 8 years ago
C-Mach
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 8 years ago
Chob
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by clsmooth 8 years ago
clsmooth
policydebategodScyroneTied
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 mv 8 years ago
mv
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
policydebategodScyroneTied
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 Partyboat 8 years ago
Partyboat
policydebategodScyroneTied
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 hjfrutwiufy 8 years ago
hjfrutwiufy
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
policydebategodScyroneTied
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:30