The Instigator
jeeoh
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Gay Marriage - Do Homosexual men or women have the right to marry?

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,446 times Debate No: 16088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

jeeoh

Pro

I want to propose the argument for your support for "Against - gay marriage" on your profile.

I want to propose that homosexuals have as much rights and heterosexuals do, and in the eyes of a mondern day conventional society, we as people no longer see marriage as something to do with all "high and mighty" big boss (god). Marriage is now considered celebrating the love of two people, and bring everyone else together to celebrate those feelings and love for eachother.

Therefore I propose the question of what gives you the right to deny a person the ability to love and marry someone of the same sex?
CiRrK

Con

==Framework==

The central question posed by my opponent is "why deny gay couples the right to marry?" This question has a fundamental assumption to it, namely that marriage is actually a right. If it is not a right, then the question now doesn't make sense since the State isn't denying anything to a group of individuals. As such, I will prove that marriage is indeed not a right, and actually conflicts with already prescribed rights.

At this point my opponent has the burden to prove that the right to marriage actually exists within U.S. law. If it is not then you negate.

Observation 1: Marriage is not a negative right. These rights include life, liberty and property. Marriage would not exist without a state or societal apparatus, thus cannot be considered separate from the institution which grants marriage as an activity within society.

==Contentions==

Contention 1: Marriage is not dictated by the Constitution

Rights are granted via the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights. To claim that marriage is a right would presume that marriage is indeed a protected privilege for the masses. Since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution it isn't a "right," it is simply a societal institution which can be instituted by the government or a religious organization. Until an amendment is added and ratified by the States, then marriage cannot be claimed as a right.

Contention 2: The 10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment goes as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To make the claim that marriage is a right would, by logical extension, make it strictly a federal issue which would entail complete federal protection against individual states. As such, "fiating" the affirmative claim (to put it into actuality) would make gay marriage legal across the board in all 50 states. This would thus be an infringement on the 10th Amendment, which is explicitly outlined whereas marriage is not. Thus, marriage is an issue that should be controlled by the States and the people, say voting on gay marriage proposals.

==Counter-Plan==

Thus, the Counter-Plan: Scrap the term "marriage" from legality and institute State civil unions

This is advantageous to the affirmative claim because the majority of Americans support Civil Unions for gay couples, thus linking into the notion established in the 10th Amendment.

[1] http://pewresearch.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jeeoh

Pro

Yea good argument, but you answered why you deny gays the right to marry?

If it's not a right, then what gives you the RIGHT to deny a person there freedom of expression. Maybe in the states laws on this topic are different but EU law Dictates that you do not have to right to revoke someone's freedom of expression, nor do an individual have the right to be revoked opportunities based on elements which WILL not affect anyone else personally or professionally.

I do see the traditional point of view that marriage is celebrating the love between a many and a woman, but times have changed. People are can now think for them selves rather than following everything that's written down in holy books and constitutions. We're living in the 21st century, so why are you deny homosexuals the ability to marry. There human beings like anyone else, it's the equivalent of denying someone who is of another racial background other than white English/American the opportunity to marry.

Now why can't YOU see that. I don't want evidence taken from sources, actually use your own knowledge and apply it yourself.
CiRrK

Con

==Pro==

1. Who gives you the right to deny someone their freedom of expression?

--> Marriage is not an issue of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression refers to an extension of the 1st Amendment Right to Speech in which an individual can not be impeded from "seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used." Marriage doesnt link in to this notion of the 1st Amendment. Therefore denying marriage isnt a violation.

2. EU says you cant violat freedom of expression

--> XA - it isnt a violation of freedom of expression

--> EU Law doesnt have weight in this round because by shifting the BoP onto my personal opinion as stated by "My Big Issues" on my profile then the locational contextualization is implicitly that of the United States.

3. Shouldnt deny opportunities

--> No you shouldnt however your claim was that marriage was a "right," not simply an opportunity

--> My Counter-Plan of Civil Unions solve

4. Times have changed

--> Non-sequitur. Just because times have changed doesnt negate legal precedent and it doesnt negate notions established in society. You need to establish a link how times changing means that there should bea speciifc policy shift

--> Times havent changed that much. A majority of people in the US reject gay marriage as noted by the Source in Round1

5. No religious meaning anymore

--> Marriage still has a deep religious notion attached to it. As such, civil marriage is invading on another sphere of influence. Thus, the Counter-Plan solves better since it avoids these semantic disputes over the term marriage.

==Con==

1. Extend The framework

A) He has the burden to prove that marriage is a "right" to win the round

B) Marraige isnt a negative right

2. Extend C1 - Marriage isnt dictated as a positive right in the Constitution

3. Extend C2 - A federal mandate to make gay marriage legal across the board in all 50 States would violate the 10th Amendment

4. Extend the Counter-Plan - Civil Unions

*He dropped all my points in his last speech*
Debate Round No. 2
jeeoh

Pro

jeeoh forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Con

Well good debate : )
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
As noted before, his account was closed and this debate is already over.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Grape, it really isn't fair to make his opponent's arguments for him in the comment section. This is one of my biggest pet peeves. Let Pro come to his own conclusions and ideas for how to combat Con. After the debate ends is when it's appropriate to start hinting at problems or holes in someone's case, or assert your own possible contentions.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Yup, I was actually expecting that response from my opponent. So yes privileges which are afforded is the substantive issue at hand which would be solved with civil unions. The 1st right argument was referring to the notion of marriage separate from potential benefits. The 2nd argument extended into an area where there would be conflicting rights. And thats the reason why, I think, civil unions are on balance more preferable. Because 1) the substantive claims are equalized, but 2) the people themselves are afforded the power to decide as opposed to an overarching federal mandate. And then there was the argument I was going to make about political backlash against gay rights if they move to quick to institute "gay marriage" as opposed to "civil unions." But I never got to it. Hopefully that answers your question.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
CiRrk: Marriage itself is not a negative right, but people who are married cease to have certain negative rights denied to them in various ways. The are around 1400 special legal and economic privileges conferred on married couples in the United States, all of which would be rights afforded to anyone in a free society. The majority of these cannot be privately arranged or contracted for due to legal prohibitions. So in an idealized society legal marriage would be pointless and redundant, but in the United States today the side of negative rights strongly favors the expansion of marriage "rights."

Now if you scrape the word marriage entirely and use the phrase "civil union" I suppose it's the same, but it seems just as legally and politically difficult as expanding the right to marry. Why is the specific term used so important?
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
CirRk, wanna debate this with me? I completely agree that there should only be civil unions... and I know for 100% fact that I would automatically lose the debate (because this site is riddled with Libertarians and Anarchists), BUT, I don't think your arguments are very strong and I'd like to debate them just for my own personal satisfaction despite what the votes might reflect.
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
Thank God.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Its unactive*
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Oh....his account was closed : /
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
Yeah thats the important part Kinesis. Marriage and Civil Unions are substantively the same, the only difference is the connotation attached to each term
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
I don't even think there's any important different between marriage and civil unions. As far as I can tell, marriage is just the religious word for civil union.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
jeeohCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was far more professional and presented better arguments.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
jeeohCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, had no sources and Con made better arguments
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
jeeohCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asked a question, misunderstood the answer, it was repeated with moar verbage, Pro decided extreme discretion was advised.
Vote Placed by Grape 5 years ago
Grape
jeeohCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited a round and had no sources. Con was able to extend all his arguments cleanly through because Pro's response was vacuous.
Vote Placed by lewis20 5 years ago
lewis20
jeeohCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit, no sources