Convince me to become pro
Debate Rounds (5)
Again, this is only for fun. Please use official citations for your statements. The final round will be used as a final conclusion.
Pro goes first, be my guest. Now convince me!
My opponent said that it's okay if we do this: I convince them be con on a concept.
I choose "civil unions" and will allow them to justify their belief briefly
I see civil unions as being able to be together when marriage isn't possible, but only when marriage isn't possible. Love should always win against the public's opinion. The Civil union was first created in Vermont, in 2000, to provide some legal protections and responsibilities to gay and lesbian couples at the state level. (Source: http://www.freedomtomarry.org...).
Unfortunately, same-sex couples can live together for years as if they were married, but once one of them passes away, their loving partner does not get to stay in the home, or keep anything they have shared together. Persons in same-sex or unmarried relationships are particularly vulnerable to the default laws that determine who can make financial and health care decisions for incapacitated persons and to whom property devolves in the absence of a valid will or revocable trust. Those default laws offer a measure of protection to married couples, but no state other than Massachusetts recognizes or permits marriage between same-sex persons. (Source: http://www.lerchearly.com...)
The idea of only wanting to have civil unions where gay marriage is not able to be present in and of itself is a flawed concept. Let me explain.
After the civil war and the abolishment of slavery, there was a huge amount of "Jim Crow" laws that spread about the nation, all founded around the core concept "seperate but equal" (you have most likely heard of this). The basic idea was that they were going to give white people access to X facilities, and blacks to Y facilities, under the catch that these facilities would be treated equally. But the problem was, even if they were treated equally and maintained equally (as it was promised but never was true), having to differentiate between rights of one person only going to a point simply because of the color of their skin was not a salient distinction (since you are a sociologist, perhaps read Zerubavel's piece on "Grey"), and ultimately was immoral based on what was given at the time. It is only moral, they decided, that whites and blacks should each have equal access to X.
The same can be said for gay marriage, in a way. Having to differentiate between two groups of people, gays and straights (the binary which for the purposes of this debate we should enforce), is not a salient ruling principle for classificatory schema. Thus, we should give equal access to the same things to all people, not just something that we consider to be equal; we need to give X to the gay as well as the straight people, not just Y to the gay and X to the straight.
I agree that not having protections for gay people is bad, but the main point I was making is that you should ONLY be in favor of gay marriage, because having a different subset that is supposedly equal is comparative to Jim Crow-era laws that promised seperate but equal; the distinctions is not salient enough for us to enforce with the law in mind.
Same-sex marriage was supposed to be a settled matter in America -- it's a constitutional right -- but the issue returned to headlines this month after a Kentucky county clerk refused to license those nuptials (Source: http://www.cnn.com...).
As we know, same-sex couples are still under a constant struggle of misunderstanding from others. Until people can patch up these cracks, I believe that people within the LBGTQ community need a form of justice, a label that will can them stay together.
Yes, Kim Davis hit the headlines and that's a big deal. But that doesn't really tie into the debate. So, I'll just pass this round.
Not only is the civil union good for same-sex couples, it also is a good alternative to traditional marriage, there should be many options to agreeing to be together. Under the civil union, a couple is protected from the laws.
We are legally protecting the right to marriage. If people don't allow marriage to exist, they should be punished under the law; having an alternative just because you are afraid of something happening is both irrational (since it won't happen anymore) and not well thought out (you can get ordained, go to a judge, etc for marriage).
I am arguing that marriage is the only thing that we should strive for, anything less is an insult to the LGBT community because it is the same as Jim Crow laws that were an insult to African Americans.
My conclusion is that while same-sex couples need equality, and couples that simply want another option, civil unions should be in place.
Thank you for debating with me, good luck to you.
I don't know how the voter is supposed to vote on this debate, there was never a voter framework. If my requests are worth anything, please don't vote on this unless you can try to make a voting basis, which there was never in this debate.
My argument is that only total equality is necessary, having Jim Crow-esque alternatives is not beneficial and is an insult to those wanting equality.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.