The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Itsallovernow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,225 times Debate No: 17894
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

Resolution

Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Burden of Proof

Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

NO VIDEO LINKS !!!

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.

Round 5

Round 5 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 5. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.

Definitions:

Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."

Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.

Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

We will begin arguments in round 2.
Itsallovernow

Pro

I misread the context, but I look forward to this challenging position.

I accept my opponents conditions and definitions. With that, my opponent shall begin with the opening contentions. Good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate, and look foward to a good debate from Pro as one of the more experienced members on DDO.

Opening Argument


Here is my first argument, lets call it the you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument.

P1) Freedom is our default
P2) You need a good reason to make something Illegal
C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

What I mean by saying that freedom is our default is that there is and should be a presumption in favour of liberty when considering what should and should not be illegal. The presumption in favour of liberty is the cornerstone of Western societies.

"This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle(Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. " [1]

The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default. If freedom was not our default then you couldn't even go to the bathroom or make a sandwich until it had been justified that you should be allowed to do so.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

I suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition" [1]

The alternative would be that you DON'T need a good reason to make something illegal.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

The State & the Harm Principle

"The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[2]"

According to the harm principle, if gay marriage doesn't cause harm to others, then there is no grounds to make it illegal.

I think I should also address something about the harm principle, its not enough to ban something just because its not beneficial to the state. The state allows lots of things which are not beneficial to the state even when applying the harm principle for example smoking, obesity etc. Arguable these things are even harmful, but ultimately they harm the individual more and not the general public as such the state is not justified in banning it according to the harm principle. Like wise it may be the case that gay marriage is not beneficial to the state but that still isn't enough to justify the banning of gay marriage.

Closing Remarks

If Pro agrees freedom is our default when considering these matters, and you need a good reason to make something illegal then Pro will have to provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal. Until then the resolution is not affirmed.

I look foward to Pros opening argument.

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Itsallovernow

Pro

I applaud my opponents rich and engaging thoughts. These are certainly profound and inspiring appeals. However, I believe my opponents initial contention of freedom may be slightly misguided. Please, allow me to explain.

1)I will agree with my opponent. The creation of laws in nature are, most often, to protect people, thusly preventing harm. But as food for thought, there are different types of legalities, criminal and civil. However, my opponent is objectifying nonrecognition of marriage as harmful and portraying it into a legal criminal outfit. In this, the state does no direct harm to homosexual couples, and this is a civil matter. In times of slavery in the USA, African-Americans would marry by jumping over a broomstick, because they were not recognized legally as a couple. However, in their eyes, they were married.

What my opponent is fighting for is legal recognition of homosexual couples, therfore I recognize that marriage as a religious reason is invalid. In this, we can operate under the premise that this is an entirely legal debate and not a moral code.

Whether or not it is moral or immoral for homosexual unions, there is the law, which my opponent seems to hold in high reguard. Currently, it is the law of the US Constitution that states regulate marriage laws, and this can not be a federal mandate. Legally, the state retains the right to recognize marriages, and the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Government has the right to recognize or not recognize relationships, but still do not have the right to (dis)organize relationships.

Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple. If the homosexual couple has a problem way with the government is run, they have a long line of straight/gay/bi people as well. There are people who only get involved in legal matters when they feel it affects them somehow. They aren't the only ones with a legal opinion, but as far as legality goes and until the Constitution changes, the government has this right, no question.

2) Gay marriage is not a criminal offense, therefore it is not a crime. Texas tried to make this law at one point and the Supreme Court overturned it. It is illegal in the sense that it is not a legal right to everyone. There are definitions of what marriage is that makes it a legal union. Homosexual couples do not meet these legal definitions (where it is illegal). It's not nessicarily that they have a good reason to illegalize it, but they have good reason in the sense that the couple has not met the qualifications set. Whether this should be changed or not is the purpose of this debate, but I feel this contention was a little bit off. There is no law illegalizing or saying a gay couple can't get married, there is only definitions for marriage.

3) I know the Harm Prinicipal well, and defer this to my first argument whereas "Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple." Once more I point out that it is opinion that they should be married, and personal opinions can create emotions that are up to the person to handle. If they do not handle them constructively, then it may harm them, but that can't be blamed on the state(s)

After the principal, my opponent says "According to the harm principle, if gay marriage doesn't cause harm to others, then there is no grounds to make it illegal." Once more, it's not illegal in the sense of criminality, and there's no ban on it. The state sets definitions for it, and this is where I establish my points.

Contentions:

In the order of establishing licenses (namely marriage) the state has right to regulate how these licenses can be attained. These rights can not be infringed upon because of discomfort or dissatisfaction by an outside party. They must have legal precedence. As such, no legal precedence has been provided to the non-providing states. Therefore, the legal precedence of rights to regulate license production lies herein with the state.

The legal structure of the area surrounding marriage is not faulty, despite opinion. It currently mets all legal standards and regulations, and therefore should remain in effect. Compulsion on opinion and not legality is not a stabilized law.

CONCLUSION:

My opponents contentions are disproven.

1) Freedom- Gay couples have right to be together. However, freedom is met both ways. Gays don't have the freedom to force recognition. The state has the freedom to create it's definition for ascertaining and distributing licenses.

2) Good Reason For Making It Illegal- Marriage is a civil union. Marriage, by legal definition, is not a criminal matter, but a civil one. My opponent seeks a marriage license for gays, but attaining this license is regulated by the state. It is not legal fault that gay couples do not meet these definitions.

3) Harm Principal- It is not harmful what is currently in affect. The state is not harming gay couples.

4) State has right to regulate license distribution.

My opponent has not, with all respect, established where freedom is infringed, that gay marriage is illegal, and that it's harmful. My arguments have legal precedence and my opponents arguments are speculative, and do not pertain to the situation. I thank my opponent and look forward to his/her response.

http://answers.yahoo.com...
http://wikipedia.com... (search gay marriage)
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument.

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro mentions a difference between civil and criminal legalities, but I don't see how this offers a challenge to this premise.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

I don't think Pro argues against this premise.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

The state and the harm principle

Pro mentions the difference between civil and criminal but how does that refute the harm principle ? The harm principle applies to all laws, its makes no distinction between civil and criminal.

Pro says..."However, my opponent is objectifying nonrecognition of marriage as harmful and portraying it into a legal criminal outfit."...&..."Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple"

I think this is a misunderstanding of the harm principle. Even if it was the case that no harm resulted from denying gay marriage that is NOT what the harm principle is going on about. As the harm principle says...""the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The state is not justified in banning something even though it won't result in any harm, the state can only limit freedom in order to stop harm from happening. The state here is denying one person to marry another person, and cause there is no threat by letting them do so, the state is not justified in denying that marriage.

You need more than the law its self to justify its existence.

Pro says...'What my opponent is fighting for is legal recognition of homosexual couples,"

I hate to be picky, but that's not my position. My position is my opening argument, which is freedom is our default and that you need a good reason to make something illegal. If there is no good reason to make gay marriage illegal, then it should not be illegal, that's my position.

It should be obvious but if something is not illegal then its legal by default.

Pro says..."there is the law, which my opponent seems to hold in high reguard."

The only law I would hold in high regard is one that can be justified, it matters not whether its in the constitution, criminal law, civil law or was written by some one on two tables of stone after hearing a voice upon at the top of a mountain.

Pro says..."Legally, the state retains the right to recognize marriages, and the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Government has the right to recognize or not recognize relationships, but still do not have the right to (dis)organize relationships."

Its true that a law can and does exist that ban gay marriage, but you need a good reason for that law. The law its self is insufficient justification for its own existence. Consider the example of when interracial marriage was illegal, some one might argue well a good reason that we should not allow interracial marriage is because their is a law against interracial marriage.

You need more than just the law its self to justify its existence, you need a good reason for it.

Defining marriage to exclude gay marriage

You can define marriage in such a way to exclude marriage to people, for example you can define marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same race and exclude interracial marriage or define marriage as between a blonde man and a blonde women and exclude red heads from marrying.

This is why I find it dubious when Pro says..."There is no law illegalizing or saying a gay couple can't get married, there is only definitions for marriage." Even though it may not be EXPLICIT in the banning of gay marriage its IMPLICIT in banning gay marriage.

Take for example that Defence of Marriage Act that Pro has reffered too which says in section 3..."In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." [1]

What is the purpose of defining marriage in such a way ? clearly it was to exclude and prevent gay marriage. As an article from wikipedia explains..."DOMA's Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages. [1]

As such, in an indirect way gay marriage is banned by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman just like defining marriage between a man and a woman of the same race bans interracial marriage in an indirect way.

The government can determine who can and can't get married

Even if we accept this, it still doesn't refute that freedom is our default and that you need a good reason to make something illegal, whether that illegality comes through explicitly or implicitly. Making a distinction between civil and criminal law doesn't refute this.

CONCLUSION:

1) Freedom- Gay couples have right to be together, then don't stop them from getting married and remove any obstacles that prevent this.

2) Good Reason For Making It Illegal- The fact that a law exists that bans gay marriage is not a good reason to ban gay marriage, nor does making the distinction between civil and criminal provide a good reason.

3) Harm Principal- It has not being shown that harm will result if gay marriage is allowed, thus the state has no justification for banning it.

4) State has right to regulate license distribution.

This right of the state doesn't refute that you need a good reason to ban gay marriage.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Itsallovernow

Pro

Thank you for this debate. I will rebut in chronological order.

To infringe upon freedom, an inalienable right, is a criminal offense both by government and civilian. The government is making no such endeavors to infringe upon freedom or the relationship of a gay couple. It is proven that the government does not do this. I ask my opponent to provide example court cases stating that this freedom is infringed upon or some other evidence than his word to prove that their rights are being infringed (please no unproven controversies).

I do argue against Premise 2. There are requirements and definitions for most every license. It is not illegal to, and they can still get married if the desire, but do not meet the definition of a state marriage. However, in other states, it may be different. Everyone has an interpretation to a definition and with marriage government and some civilian opinions may differ. My point being is that the government must set definitions and requirements to distribute a license, and are not at fault if the people do not meet them.

As far as the Harm Principal, your source states that the definition for the Principal is "The belief "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses " By going by the definition of your own source, your argument is invalid, because the government, as I stated before, is not forcibly preventing APPLICANTS of marriage licenses.

My opponent states, "Its true that a law can and does exist that ban gay marriage, but you need a good reason for that law." I ask him to present this law now. I assert that there is no such law and therefore there is no need just justify a nonexistant law. I assert that there are only requirements. My opponent furthermore states he only respects laws that are justified. In this, he must respect that the state defines qualifications for obtaining a marriage license. In the same light, he must also be able to distinguish when they are purposfully inducing harm.

I fell it VERY important to expound upon DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). This document was provided to states so that if gay couples got married and moved to a state where it wasn't legal, then the state did not have to recognize it because it violated their definition of marriage. My oponent failed to mention that Section 2 (just stated) was a major part of it. Section 3 in whereas they state not to recognize gay marriage is solely because the federal government can not regulate marriages and to give a stance of recogniton would be contradictory towards states where it is not legal. Therefore, they are a neutral 3rd party. They are neither in support or negation of it and this provision was to protect the states rights to regulate marriage, not to define a marriage, since they legally can not. I feel my opponents interpreation was misconstrued. So, no, the federal government was not trying to exclude gay marriages because they can not.

"The government can determine who can and can't get married." No, they can only set qualifications. My opponent sets a strong connection here that because gay's aren't included in state recognized marriage, it is causes harm because gays are being discriminated against and that is the reason they can not obtain a license, because the government purposfully worded it to exclude them. I ask for proof of this vendetta, and refer back to my Harm Principal rebuttal in this round in paragraph 1 and 3.

CONCLUSION:

1) Freedom- There is no written rights being infringed upon. Therefore, freedom is intact.
2) Good Reason For Making It Illegal- I ask for proof of this law that explicitly bans gay marriage. I refuse to believe there is one.
3) The Harm Principal- This does not apply because, by definition of the Principal, it doesn't prevent the way a couple acts. This supports CONCLUSION 1, in that freedom in still intact.
4) The State- The state government has the legal right to set qualifications for marriage, and does not explicitly ban marriages, only setting qualifications for state recognition of that union.

Thanks for this very challenging debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro says..."To infringe upon freedom, an inalienable right, is a criminal offense both by government and civilian. The government is making no such endeavors to infringe upon freedom or the relationship of a gay couple."

A law exists or a law is proposed which prevents two people of the same sex getting married. This is clearly a "limit" on freedom.

The alternative would be that freedom is not our default. This alternative has never been argued for by Pro.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

I don't think Pro has given us any good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.

The alternative would be that you don't need a good reason to make something illegal. This alternative has never being argued by Pro.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

The argument stands unrefuted.

The State & the Harm Principle

Pro says..."The Harm Principal- This does not apply because, by definition of the Principal, it doesn't prevent the way a couple acts. This supports CONCLUSION 1, in that freedom in still intact."

It does apply in this case, cause there are laws on the books or proposed laws that mean two people of the same sex can't get married to each other,thus a restriction on their freedom.

Pro has presented no argument that in anyway suggests that allowing gay marriage will result in harm to others.

You need more than the law its self to justify its existence.

Pro doesn't seem to argue against this.

Defining marriage to exclude gay marriage and the requirements/definition of marriage in law

You will recall that I showed an example of how marriage can be defined as to exclude others from marrying. Like the defining of marriage as only between a man and woman of the same race and thus excludes interracial couples from marrying. Like wise the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman excludes same sex couples from marrying, as Pro them self has said..."Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman."

I think its hardly a good argument to merely point that gay marriage is not explicitly banned by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Allow me to show how ridiculousness this claim is, imagine there is a law that says you can't drive above 100km and the police pull you over for speeding cause you were driving at 120km. You shout at the police officer, the law doesn't explicitly says I can't drive at 120km, show me the law that says I can't drive at 120km !!!....At this point the police officer laughs at you........and possibly tazers you.

Of course everyone understands that if a law that says you can't drive above 100km, it follows logically therefore its illegal to drive at 120 km cause its above 100km. Like wise it follows logically that if the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman then that means that a same sex couple can't get married.

So here we have a law that results in a limit of freedom, the restriction of a same sex couple to get married. So what GOOD reason has Pro given us for that justifies this limit on freedom ? None.

No amount of talking about who and what regulates marriage can change the fact that no good reason has been provided to justify the ban on gay marriage nor does making a distinction between criminal law and civil law change the fact no good reason has been to provided that bans gay marriage.

I find it worrying that Pro is hiding behind the law, but can't justify the law its self.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Itsallovernow

Pro

I realized my opponent has made his case entirely on the basis that there is a law in which states gay couples can not marry. I asked him to provide proof of this law's existance and he has not. He merely states "A law exists that..." but I looked and can not find such law. Failing to provide evidence of this law or specific code of that law, I assert that there is no such law. This assertment can only be disproven with evidence and the code of that law. So, for now, it stands that there is no law forbidding gays from marrying.

My opponent states, "A law exists or a law is proposed which prevents two people of the same sex getting married. This is clearly a "limit" on freedom. The alternative would be that freedom is not our default. This alternative has never been argued for by Pro."

That is correct. I agree that freedom is our default, but the freedom is not being infringed upon because there is NO LAW stating gays can't marry. My opponent has 2 stances. One asserting a law exists that prevents marriage and the other that they purposefully worded marriage to exclude them. With the second stance, he contradicts the first, for if there was a law, his case would be much stronger. But I am going to stress and assert that there is no such law this entire round.

Premise 2: Good reason to make something illegal

Illegal is defined as "1.Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law" by (http://www.google.com...).

We agreed that this would not be a criminal case, so that is invalid. Furthermore, I assert that there is no such law currently as to making it illegal in the sense of criminality or otherwise. There is only requirements for the definition of marriage, and those not meeting the requirements (gays and kin) can not get married or fault the government for creating a definition that excludes a minority party. My opponent wants to reword marriage to include gays. But what about necrophiliacs? This excludes them as well because they do not meet the qualifications for it. They aren't harming anyone either, so they should be included, right? No, it is just simply put that that is not the definition of marriage.

My opponent asserts with the State and Harm Principal that freedom is infringed on the basis of a law that prevents gays from marrying. Again, I failed to research evidence of such law and no law has thusly been presented. Therefore, the State and Harm Principal does not apply. I do not think gay marriage will harm others, by the way, and is not my stance. My stance is that there is no harm in it's entirety because there's no law against gays restricting them, just a definition of marriage, that also excludes kin, pedofiles, and necrophiliacs.

Opponent states,

"You need more than the law its self to justify its existence.
Pro doesn't seem to argue against this."

That's because there IS NO LAW stating they can't get married. I agree with the point, but disagree that there is such law.

The more I read, the more I realize my opponent has built everything on this law, so I'm going to repeat over in this paragraph on Defining Marriage argument in the previous round:

My opponent quoted me out of context when he said I said, "..."Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman." If he would have went on with my quote, I would have said, "the federal government can not regulate marriages and to give a stance of recogniton would be contradictory towards states where it is not legal" He didn't mention that part in appurtinization of my case. The main purpose of DOMA was to protect the states right to define and regulate marriage.

As for your analogy of speeding, it would be impossible to cite every number above 120km, because numbers are infinite. So realistically we must summarize the numbers to include all of the above. If a driver is so inept that they think they can drive above a speed limit, key word, LIMIT, then they shouldn't be driving and they would not pass their licensed test. That test is administered by the government like marriage licenses.

Opponent states: " Like wise it follows logically that if the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman then that means that a same sex couple can't get married. So here we have a law that results in a limit of freedom." It'd be impossible to list specifically all numbers past 100km, so to summarize all numbers, because numbers are infinite and it'd be impractical and impossible to list all numbers.

My opponent closes with, "I find it worrying that Pro is hiding behind the law, but can't justify the law its self." There is no law stating they can't marry, there is only definition of marriage and to meet the definition there are qualifications which they do not meet so the government will not recognize an altered definition. My stance has not been entirely on the law, it is that no law exists to refuse gay marriage, only definition of marriage and the states' have the right, by law, to define marriage.

CONCLUSION:

1) My opponent did not bring evidence of, when asked, a specific law or source stating gay marriage is a direct ban or illegal. Therefore, there is not gay marriage ban, no infringment of freedom, or harm.
2) My opponent has not provided proof, when asked, of a specific court case where there was a ruling in favor of a plaintiff accusing government of right infringement in where the court ruled in favor.
3) My opponent has not, when asked, provided proof of purpousful rewording explicitly to exclude gay and act on biased discrimination.
4) The Harm Principal- This does not apply because by definition it doesn't change the way a couple acts. Therefore, there is no harm.

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro never argued for the alternative which would be that freedom is NOT our default.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

Pro never argued for the alternative that you DON'T need a good reason to make something illegal.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Pro says..."I realized my opponent has made his case entirely on the basis that there is a law in which states gay couples can not marry."

Utterly false, premise 1 & 2 is not based on the law. The harm principle is not based on the law. The argument that you need a good reason to restrict freedom is not based on law. They are applied to the law.

Pro says..."My opponent wants to reword marriage to include gays. But what about necrophiliacs? This excludes them as well because they do not meet the qualifications for it. They aren't harming anyone either, so they should be included, right? No, it is just simply put that that is not the definition of marriage."

Bit late to try a slippery slope argument now isn't it ? If we allow gay marriage I guess we have to allow necrophiliac marriage eh ?

I could merely retort harm will result if we allow necrophilia marriage, but I don't have to justify this cause the topic of the debate is gay marriage and you as the Pro are tying to affirm that gay marriage should be illegal as the resolution says.

The State & the Harm principle

Pro says..."The Harm Principal- This does not apply because by definition it doesn't change the way a couple acts. Therefore, there is no harm."

How many times do I have repeat the harm principle ? The harm principle does NOT say that a restriction is ok, as long as there is no change in behavior for those who are being restricted. It clearly talks about the justification needed for putting restrictions on people.

Defining marriage to exclude gay marriage and the requirements/definition of marriage in law

Pro keeps trying to argue that cause there is no law that says literally something like "thou shalt not allow gay marriage" that they can some how get around my various arguments. This is false and I will show why. Consider an example where the law defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race.

Now imagine that some one such as my self points out, well this clearly restricts an interracial race couple from marrying, and I point out that you need a good reason for this restriction. Now what if the racist was to turn around and say, no we don't, cause there is no law that says an interracial marriage is banned.

Would you buy such an argument ? What if the racist was to defend this argument along the lines of... "My stance is that there is no harm in it's entirety because there's no law against Interracial couples restricting them, just a definition of marriage, that also excludes kin, pedofiles, and necrophiliacs."

Would you know buy into this argument ? its clearly obvious that defining marriage in law in this way clearly puts a restriction on people, in this case it restricts an interracial couple from marrying, just like defining marriage between a man and a woman restricts a same sex couple from marrying.

So, seeing this restriction results, I want to know, what good reason has Pro given us to justify this restriction ? none.

Closing Remarks

The resolution of the debate was "Gay marriage should be illegal", and Pro didn't give us any good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.

Vote Con

I thank Pro for the debate.
Itsallovernow

Pro

Thank you for the debate.

In Round 2, my opponent recognized my difference in legalities of civil and criminal. This is what I've been fighting for. He did not argue my mentioning that if something is not legal, it is illegal. Illegal (since we are arguing civil legality), as defined by Freedictionary.com, "unauthorized/prohibited by a code of official or accepted rules." I have debated this entire match that homosexual marriage does not comply with the requirements (rules) to acquire a state recognized marriage. I would like the audience to note this entire time I have supported the resolution.

My opponent says I never argued Premise 1: I did, but I argued in favor in the previous round stating " I agree that freedom is our default, but the freedom is not being infringed upon because there is NO LAW stating gays can't marry." If he could find one case of biased judgement by finding a law (which I asked) or a court ruling (which I asked) that stated gays were being discriminated against, then I would have conceeded this debate. However, my opponent failed to present both pieces of evidence when asked and my argument still stands. I support Premise 1, that freedom is our default, but continue to assert no freedom is being infringed upon.

Furthermore he stated, " "A law exists or a law is proposed which prevents two people of the same sex getting married. This is clearly a "limit" on freedom." He has not proven the existance of this law, therefore has not proven the limit on freedom, further supporting my case.

With Premise 2, my opponent says I never argued that I don't need a good reason to make it illegal. It is because I also agreed with the premise, but asserted that there is no banning law. I stated, " There is only requirements for the definition of marriage, and those not meeting the requirements (gays and kin) can not get married or fault the government for creating a definition that excludes a minority party." My necrophiliac analogy was not a Slippery Slope argument, it was a comparison to gays, not an inevitable future.

Furthermore, my opponent is wrong when he says the the premises, harm principal, and good reason to restricting freedom isn't based on the law, they are applied. If they are parts to support law or reasoning of it, it makes it a part of law. For example, a gun-stock may not be a gun, but it is part of it. The analogy depicts the supporting parts (i.e. Harm Principal) may not be the law, but they are part of it. They are not nessicary for it to work, but are required to make it more accurate as a whole. However, you can not attach a stock without a gun. E.g. you can't have parts to support a law when there's no law.

My opponent, I'll state again, did not provide proof of the law, therefore his points subsequent as an attachment to the law are invalid, because there is no law that he could present when asked twice. I shall continue though, to rebut.

The Harm Principal: The source you stated says his is the sole definiton of the principal "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others". Like I said, there is no infringement to the 'free acts of others', so there is no Harm Principal to be applied in this case; the definition does not apply.

You do realize, though, that gay couples can marry in every state? It's just that they will not be given a marriage license for the state to recognize their marriage as legitimate. You stated as defining marriage " Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship" They can get married so my assertment that you're trying to reword marriage for states to recognize it is still standing. A marriage license just is for public record and some government benifets along with tax.

Think of it as a personal trainer. A guy/girl is in great shape and can really help people get in shape. But that doesn't mean he/she deserves a license. There are qualifications. They can still practice it independently, but the state will not grant her a personal trainer license for public business/record just because she's good enough to deserve it. There are qualifications which she doesn't meet.

FINAL CONCLUSION:

My opponent has not proven the following when asked:

1) A specific law or source stating gay marriage is a direct ban.
2) A specific court case which ruled in favor of a plaintiff accusing government of right infringement.
3) Purpousfl rewording explicitly to exclude gays and act on biased discrimination.

Furthermore, the following has been proven by me
(THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT NOTES OF THE DEBATE!!!)

1) Since there is no specific law stating they can't be married, and my opponent defined all his arguments of applications to a law, his arguments are not relative to the case. Reason being is because there's no law for them to be applied, and are thusly invalid.
2) I have assereted that gay marriage be illegal in the sense that it is not permitted or recognized as a legal, defined marriage. Therefore, it is and should be illegal. I claim that this is not a law, but a qualification. Therefore, my opponents arguments can not be applied, since they are applications to law.

My opponent is the one urging the change of status quo, and therefore has the burdon of proof. With all of his arguments being invalid, there is no reason to change the status quo, and I have won with the Burdon of Clash.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
Itsallovernow
I hope someone votes.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I didn't see your comment until after I posted but I don't think this will be a problem.

I already defined illegal as "Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law."

I will not be making any kind of argument that to make gay marriage illegal means putting gays in jail for trying to get married.
Posted by Itsallovernow 5 years ago
Itsallovernow
I ask that my opponent, CON (Illegalcombatant), does not persue this as a case of criminality. As in "Gay people should be put in jail for trying to get married." I took this debate within reason and ask the same. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
IllegalcombatantItsallovernowTied
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: I think this was a good debate. What tipped me towards pro was him asking in several rounds which law con was referring to and none was provided. Con could have given a stronger case how SSM marriage being illegal has limited freedoms.