The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points
The Contender
devildog3024
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,146 times Debate No: 8975
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (12)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.

For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. For example, from Illinois:

750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex.

Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states.

Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part:

(1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)
(3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution. This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage.

****************************************
Some common objections:

1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages. Therefore, it does
not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages.

Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority.

2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality.
To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities.

2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on these very concepts. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality.

3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash.

Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the same freedom of choice as heterosexuals - freedom of choice is in choosing your PARTNER - not choosing your partner's GENDER.

4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty?

Marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry?? It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent.

5. We cannot say that sexual tendencies give people rights.

But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient.

6. 100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex.

This is the same way as choosing your partner how?

**********************************************

The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that:

1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right.
2) Homosexuals are suspect class.
3) Moral approbation of homosexuals violates Equal Protection.

Any of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard:

First, the law must concern a compelling government interest.
Second, the law must be narrowly tailored.
Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end.

Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs.

AFFIRMED.
devildog3024

Con

You have some really good facts to back your argument.
The biggest issue with gay marriage is that marriage is a religious ceremony. 1 Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. If God opposes it, then it wouldn't be very religious now would it. Genesis 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were SINNING GREATLY against the Lord.

I will spare the bible quotes for a while.

The point is marriage is not a marriage unless it is religious. If you want to get a civil union or partnership for tax, and any other reasons, that's fine.

I truly believe homosexuality is a genetic disorder, and anybody living with this disorder can still have a partnership with someone but not MARRIAGE.

A marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

From my opening argument:

750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex.

Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states.

Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part:

(1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)
(3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created.

******************************************************************

My opponent ignored my definition and legal representation of what the legal institution "marriage" actually is. His entire argument about how marriage *should* be a religious institution is moot - we're talking about what marriage LEGALLY IS, not what it RELIGIOUSLY SHOULD BE.

Extend my arguments.

AFFIRMED.
devildog3024

Con

I was agreeing with the law when I stated "should" referring to marriage should be between a man and a woman. I also gave references stating that in the bible homosexuality isn't even accepted. Therefore making an actual marriage not acceptable because a marriage is religious.
I also agree with the current law of allowing individual states to vote for allowing gay marriage. I obviously have my stand but it would be very interesting to see where each state would stand on the issue.
If you believe in gay marriage please prove to me where marriage is not a religious ceremony and does not contradict the bible.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "I was agreeing with the law when I stated "should" referring to marriage should be between a man and a woman."

And I'm saying that law is unconstitutional. Defend your position.

>> "I also gave references stating that in the bible homosexuality isn't even accepted."

Oops - sorry - the Bible isn't admissible as a source of law in the US. Next?

>> "Therefore making an actual marriage not acceptable because a marriage is religious."

Again - I JUST gave you the legal definitions of marriage TWICE.

>> "I also agree with the current law of allowing individual states to vote for allowing gay marriage."

That law is ALSO unconstitutional. Defend your position.

>> "If you believe in gay marriage please prove to me where marriage is not a religious ceremony and does not contradict the bible."

Marriage is a religious ceremony AND a legal institution. And, once again, the Bible is not a source of law in the United States.

**********************************************************************

This is very disappointing. My opponent has offered no argument other than "I disagree" and "because the Bible says so."

AFFIRMED.
devildog3024

Con

The bible might not be admissible as a source of law in the U.S. But the bible does define what a marriage is. You say the right for states to decide issues among the state itself is unconstitutional, yet that's what the founding fathers wanted. They wanted a small government.

We all know the constitution is interpreted a different way by the next one to read it, but here is my interpretation. If you want a gay marriage then go to a state that allows it. If you want it in your state write your governor to have a vote for it.

If you want to call my argument disappointing that is fine. But without the law in mind. I am just speaking of the Bible, the Bible describes a marriage between a man and a woman. Now lets the bring the law into play. The law would have never put marriage in writing if the bible didn't create a marriage.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "The bible might not be admissible as a source of law in the U.S. But the bible does define what a marriage is. "

Whoop-de-do. So does the Quran, but we don't look there, do we? The Bible is completely irrelevant.

>> "You say the right for states to decide issues among the state itself is unconstitutional, yet that's what the founding fathers wanted."

For an issue that's enumerated in the constitution, (like equal protection) or outlined by federal law (like fundamental rights or suspect classification) the states do not trump the federal government. The founding fathers wanted a small federal government, sure, but on FEDERAL ISSUES, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is supreme.

>> "If you want a gay marriage then go to a state that allows it. If you want it in your state write your governor to have a vote for it."

If you want freedom of speech, then go to a state that allows it. If you want freedom of your speech, write your governor and have a vote... See the problem with placing these sorts of restrictions on rights?

>> "But without the law in mind. I am just speaking of the Bible"

For the last time, YOU MUST OFFER A LEGAL ARGUMENT.

>> "the Bible describes a marriage between a man and a woman. Now lets the bring the law into play"

Oh. My. God. How many times do I need to tell you that the Bible is unrelated to the law?!!??!

>> "The law would have never put marriage in writing if the bible didn't create a marriage."

Faulty reasoning. The Bible outlines a process for killing homosexuals and harlots, but you don't see those in laws do you? The Bible forbids eating shrimp and rabbit, but you don't see laws against that, do you? The Bible forbids having sex while a woman is on her period. Is there a law against that? I didn't think so...

******************************************************************************

My opponent has still offered no argument other than "I disagree" and "because the Bible says so." Obviously, in the spirit of fair debating, he cannot even make a rebuttal against my opening argument because I would have no chance to respond to it.

This debate has been woefully lacking on the part of my opponent. The decision is clear - vote PRO.

AFFIRMED.
devildog3024

Con

The choice is simple right vs wrong. Vote against.
But do remember my opponent had some very legit arguments for legalization of gay marriage. Although this issue seems to be a decision based on one's beliefs. That is what I was trying to prove with the Bible. My beliefs vs my opponent's.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devildog3024 7 years ago
devildog3024
To be honest, I took on this debate from the approact of the Bible. Then after reviewing the title "legal" I realized I was in over my head. Plus Tarzan is a pretty good debater.
Posted by smc 7 years ago
smc
devildog, you state gay marriage should not be legal, as "The biggest issue with gay marriage is that marriage is a religious ceremony." and you continue to quote the Christian bible, however in the united states you don't have to be Christian to marry, the Christian bible also says atheists burn in hell, however they can be legally married in the U.S. , your debate would be much better suited for not allowing anyone but Christians to be married
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "b)"Homosexuals are suspect class" Not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org...... Although they should be, and you could argue it."

Right - that's what I intended to argue, if Con would have actually responded to the argument...

>> "c)"Moral approbation of homosexuals violates Equal Protection."'

Yea - I meant reprobation or disapprobation... And I mean a violation in the sense that legal distinction on solely moral grounds is not constitutional.
Posted by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
Observations:

1) Con argued that the definition of marriage came from the Bible and that the federal government had merely incorporated this definition into law. Con argued that the definition could not therefore be extended into union between members of the same sex, because such unions were not contemplated in the original definition. Con fails to realize that definitions used by federal statutes exist solely to confer rights or causes of action in relationship to parties engaging in particular conduct covered by the statute. That is to say, that rewriting the federal definition of marriage does not alter the colloquial religious definition any more than rewriting the federal definition of person would alter the colloquial religious definition thereof.

2) Pro walloped Con. However, there are a few comments that should be made re: Pro's arguments:

a) sexual perversion - there can be no concept of sexual perversion without conceiving of sexual sanctity, a religious phenomenon that is better jettisoned than argued around. Sexual perversion needs to be replaced with sexual immorality, where the acts cause harm.
b)"Homosexuals are suspect class"
Not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org... Although they should be, and you could argue it.
c)"Moral approbation of homosexuals violates Equal Protection."
http://dictionary.reference.com... If only homosexuals were subject to moral approbation, this whole debate would be over before it began. :) I think you meant moral reprobation. http://www.wordreference.com...

Now, RFD:PRO
(1) PRO.
(2) PRO.
(3) Tied. Whoop-de-do is understandable given that the argument was "but this book says ..."
(4) Tied.
(5) Pro, because Con made a non-argument.
(6) Tied. Statutes vs. the Bible in a test of legitimacy.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Hahaha, of course I am. I voted for you like a day before I posed that "RFD."
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
B & A: PRO
Conduct: PRO; CON didn't stick to the resolution.
S & G: Tied
Argument: PRO; PRO proved his argument effectively, and unlike CON, didn't stray from the argument
Sources: PRO; The Bible isn't a source that is relevant in this debate.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
i hope you're kidding.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Conduct–CON. PRO kept going with snide comments like "whoop-de-do."
Spelling and Grammar–CON. I find PRO's spelling "Quran" like so to be egregious and offensive.
Arguments–CON. CON showed why gay marriage is not only immoral but potentially harmful to society.
Sources–CON. CON used the Bible, the ultimate source.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Yep - pretty much.... why? Might as well head off some of the strong-ish arguments first.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Are all of your "Common objections"

Copied and pasted directly from InquireTruths contentions from your debate with him..
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by twmazer 7 years ago
twmazer
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Rook 7 years ago
Rook
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by whitakerj 7 years ago
whitakerj
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by smc 7 years ago
smc
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 critterrice 7 years ago
critterrice
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Vote Placed by devildog3024 7 years ago
devildog3024
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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:60 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
JustCallMeTarzandevildog3024Tied
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:70