The Instigator
Anjou
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
danielawesome12
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Gay Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Anjou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,582 times Debate No: 32681
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (6)

 

Anjou

Pro

This is my first debate, so I will choose a very broad topic, Gay Marriage

Rules and definitions: Constitutional- in this case, of or legal within the constitution of the United States of America.

Right- inalienable privilege of all people of the United States of America

First round is for acceptance
Second round is for arguments/initial statements
Third round is for rebuttals
Fourth round is for closing statements/no new arguments
danielawesome12

Con

Good luck in the coming debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Anjou

Pro

Specifics of Legality

Firstly, I argue that it is unconstitutional to deny two people who love each other the right to be married IF AND ONLY IF the ramifications include a pastor or priest who is willing to unite the two to marriage. If a pastor is unwilling to declare those two couples a married man and man or woman and woman, the state should be forbidden to officially enforce he must unite the couple even if it goes against his personal beliefs and religion, because that would be a violation of his rights and would render any argument, including my own in this topic, completely moot and hypocritical. In the Declaration of Independence it states that all people have the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness(1).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Why is it unconstitutional if the stated source is located in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution?

Because the Constitution reaffirms the ideals of the Declaration of Independence (2), it is therefore unconstitutional to impede on the rights of all people, no matter what sexual orientation or preference, the right to the same civil marriage as straight couples. Gay couples should not be subjected to the rules of the bible or Christianity itself because it's likely they are either non-religious or don't want to believe in a religion that might forbid something they can't help and they should not be subject to rules of the bible in which we are not governed by or publicly taught. We are a secular-neutral state that does not enforce nor promote and religion of state whatsoever, and it is unconstitutional to do so the congressional legislature, so why use the argument of homosexuality being a the bible if we are not a theocratic government led by Christianity in the first place? (3) In these ways, gay marriage is a constitutional right for all men and all women.

Sources:
(1): http://www.archives.gov...
(2): http://constitutioncenter.org...
(3): http://www.au.af.mil...
danielawesome12

Con

Thank you for your argument, I believe if the founding fathers wished it to be a right it would be, Gay marriage currently isn't a right, and I strongly believe it isn't defined in the constitution as a right.

1. all around men and women are completely different and same-sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship

2. If you can't produce offspring in your relationship then your relationship is unnatural

3. There would be no role model within a child if he never/rarely saw the opposite gender in his household

4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage.
Debate Round No. 2
Anjou

Pro

I'd like to start off with the fact that during the time of the founding fathers, gay marriage was taboo. However, during the liberal movement during the Victorian era, things that were formerly odd and uncommonplace became popular because people wanted the ability to do what they wanted. Because this is an issue now, disregarded what the laws were in the past, we should allow gay people to get married.

1. Why would you say that? How would they destroy meaning? It's the same thing. Two people who love each other. That's the meaning of a relationship.

2. Says who? Some straight couples are completely infertile and need to adopt. Does that make them unnatural?

3. Should the child go to public schooling, he or she could still effectively learn about the opposite sex without the need or a mother or father. If the child doesn't attend public schooling, it's not like women and men have just disappeared in the eyes of all gay children, and their parents aren't idiots. They can explain the situation to their children.

4. What you are doing is denying the people's constitutional rights to be American by keeping two people who love each other from getting married in order to keep holy religious sects that do not predominantly lead the nation by any means and because we are not a theocracy run by religion we should take in concern what they say but should not obey it as law. Despite the fact that fundamentally, these religions have negative views of homosexuality, Americans overall should still have the right to love who they want. As I described in Round 1, gays will only be able to marry if they can find a pastor willing to unite them, therefore not infringing on the rights and privileges of the church.
danielawesome12

Con

Thanks for you previous round, I wish you luck
1. No it's not the same, why do you think it's a issue if it's a right listed in the constitution
2. That's a rare occurrence therefore it's unnatural
3. You explained nothing about role models, you simply explained the couple would teach that gender exists. Children should know about the male and female gender difference before the 6th
4. I believe they have a right to love, but granting them marriage would destroy the purpose of marriages and the church agrees. (this pathetic issue would long have been resolved long before now if homosexuals would simply settle for civil union.)
Debate Round No. 3
Anjou

Pro

1. You said that gay marriage would destroy the meaning in a relationship. I asked you how. You completely ignored that.

2. It's not a rare occurrence for a straight couple to be infertile or just have a lot of problems having a child. It's actually quite common. About 10% of couples cannot have children thanks to total infertility, and be it gay or straight, it doesn't make them unnatural (1).

3. Where is the necessity of a female or male role model in a family anyway? I don't see a study saying one in five children without a role model are committing suicide or growing a third arm or something of that nature. If it's not even initially necessary, why worry about it?

4. How does the church's opinion matter if marriage isn't even an aspect that originates with the church. Marriage is a pagan event practiced long before even Judaism came about. You don't get to define the purpose of marriages because your beliefs didn't even influence how marriage was started (2) (3). Why should gay people who are probably non-practitioners of your religion have to be subjected to the laws of your religion? If I'm a muslim and you're a christian, why should you have to sacrifice your life to Allah if you don't even practice my religion? It's impractical to tell someone who doesn't believe in what you believe in to do as you do.

Sources:
(1): http://www.womenshealth.gov...
(2): http://burnsidewriters.com...
(3): http://www.city-data.com...
danielawesome12

Con

I'm not gonna debate anymore, you seem to have a fiery passion for gay marriage that leads you to misinterpret my argument in every possible way, this is no debate because you have no real sense of what were talking about I'm OK with gay love, (civil unions) but gay marriage is different than normal marriage plus it's not a constitutional right.

"The constitution does not give the right of marriage, if what you are argueing were true then anyone who wished to could marry their dog, or their cousin. On annother point, the constitution does uphold the ideals of the decleration of independance however that does not give the decleration the power of law or constitutional authority." -Julius Maximus quote
He is correct you know, gay marriage wasn't a constitutional right, and still isn't.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Okay, the Debate Coach thread is up, here: http://www.debate.org...

Anjou has asked my assistance. Daniel, you are welcome too.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
I don't know if I agree with your assessment of the "I'm not gonna debate anymore". Con didn't address any of Pro's points for final rebuttal, which seems very much a "We're done here" to me. Granted, Pro's points left a great deal to be desired and didn't really have to do with his motion, but it was up to Con to say that, rather than "I'm not gonna debate anymore". Con could have won in one fell swoop if he'd just pointed that out, but he didn't. I would have not given any argument points if he hadn't thrown that line in, just because both sides definitely have work to do to learn how to present and/or rebut coherently, but that line seemed, to me, in conjunction with the line right after, to be an argument from "You're a stupidhead so I win".

I definitely disagree with your assessment of ""I'd like to start off with the fact that during the time of the founding fathers, gay marriage was taboo." If that isn't a concession, what is it?""

It's a statement that gay marriage was taboo? I'm not sure how that is a concession, or even hurts a constitutional case necessarily. Interracial marriage was taboo, too, but that didn't stop the constitutional question. (I'm aware Pro didn't bring that up, but Con didn't really address the taboo, either, I'm looking at it only in light of the one comment and trying to see if it's a "concession".)

To correct myself, though, on the "mangled case", I agree there was almost no actual case presented here, particularly in light of the specificity of the resolution.

To Pro, and to Con: wiploc's pretty awesome. He could help either of you a great deal. Others would undoubtedly help, if you ask, as well. The forums are a great place to work on your presentation.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
No problem, Anjou. After the voting period is over, if you'd like, I'll be happy to coach you on how to do better in the next one. And your opponent too, if he's interested.
Posted by Anjou 3 years ago
Anjou
I'd like to clarify that this is my first real debate. That, although, is not an excuse. I'm winning, and I know that, but just to exemplify my arguably shoddy performance in the debate, and I sincerely apologize for any mistakes I might have made.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
bladerunner060 wrote:
: Con conceded in the last round, though. "I'm not gonna debate anymore,"

That's not a concession. It was the final round; the debate was over. I'm guessing he meant, "There ain't gonna be no rematch." It wasn't intended as a concession, nor do I think it can be fairly interpreted as one.

Compare it to Pro's, "I'd like to start off with the fact that during the time of the founding fathers, gay marriage was taboo." If that isn't a concession, what is it?

: Then went to ad hominem: "you seem to have a fiery passion for gay marriage that leads you to misinterpret
: my argument in every possible way,"

Definitely poor conduct.

: And rounds out with bare assertion:
: "this is no debate because you have no real sense of what were talking about I'm OK with gay love, (civil
: unions) but gay marriage is different than normal marriage plus it's not a constitutional right."

I thought "it's not a constitutional right" was a high point of the debate. One of the few times either party meandered onto the agreed topic.

: Pro may have mangled his case,

You think he actually had a case? What was it? Can you translate it into lucid English?

: to Con: you have to refute his case,

Pro didn't offer a case for refuting.

Con actually did present a case. It wasn't a strong case, but Pro never attempted to refute it---at least not the parts relevant to the resolution.

Vote however you think is fair. But I don't think you're doing Pro any favors if you give him the impression that he did well enough to defeat a simple demurer.

If you want, we can invite them into the forums, try to figure out what they believe on this topic, and teach them to express that clearly.

Note: I'm all for gay marriage. I have no sympathy for Con's position or his arguments. I was rooting for Pro, but I just don't think he did he presented his case. Nor did he bother to refute Con's one relevant argument.
Posted by Anjou 3 years ago
Anjou
I thank you all for your opinions, and agree or disagree, my opinion matters none. You as the voters are in control of who wins and who loses.
Posted by Anjou 3 years ago
Anjou
I thank you all for your opinions, and agree or disagree, my opinion matters none. You as the voters are in control of who wins and who loses.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Wiploc, to a certain extent I agree with you. There was very little "Constitution" in this "Constitutional Right" debate.

However, Con conceded in the last round, though. "I'm not gonna debate anymore,"

Then went to ad hominem: "you seem to have a fiery passion for gay marriage that leads you to misinterpret my argument in every possible way,"

And rounds out with bare assertion:
"this is no debate because you have no real sense of what were talking about I'm OK with gay love, (civil unions) but gay marriage is different than normal marriage plus it's not a constitutional right."

Pro may have mangled his case, but I'm giving argument points for concession; to Con: you have to refute his case, you don't get to just say "Well, you're terrible and I refuse". Or rather, you do get to technically, but I feel you should be docked arguments for doing so.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Pro had the burden of proof, but Pro lacked lucidity. I couldn't tell what Pro was trying to argue. Con made a clear argument to the effect that if it was Constitutional it would be in the Constitution. Pro never refuted that, so it stands.

Both parties spent the majority of the debate off topic.
Posted by JuliusMaximus 3 years ago
JuliusMaximus
The constitution does not give the right of marriage, if what you are argueing were true then anyone who wished to could marry their dog, or their cousin. On annother point, the constitution does uphold the ideals of the decleration of independance however that does not give the decleration the power of law or constitutional authority.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con flat out gave up the debate and just accused Pro of straw-manning and misinterpreting his arguments, so conduct goes to Pro. Pro actually used sources, so he also wins on sources. And finally the arguments: Pro presented his reasons very succinctly and was able to give actually coherent reasons why GM was indeed a constitutional right with some solid fairly in depth logic, especially when he talked about the nature of infertile straight couples and access to opposite gender role models for children of gay couples. On infertile couples, if they can't have children, does that mean they should not marry? Because of that, Pro wins on arguments.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: When con said Pro "misinterpret my argument in every possible way" I was left wondering how? You literally said things like "That's a rare occurrence therefore it's unnatural" in regards to sterile couples, you used the word :"therefore" wihtout context or argument for how that conclusion can be realized. Even still pro accepted what you said, and pointed out the premise is false, 10% of couples are sterile, that is significant!
Vote Placed by Controverter 3 years ago
Controverter
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources is obvious. Con made some grammatical errors with capitalisation while pro made none. Con ended up conceding the entire debate to pro.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
Anjoudanielawesome12Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did very well. I was disappointed with cons lack of ability to debate. He cited no evidence and used his opinions to say what the founding fathers would have.