The Instigator
WillDC22
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
aburk903
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal in all 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 1 vote the winner is...
aburk903
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2014 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 66164
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

WillDC22

Pro

I believe that Gay Marriage should be legal in all states for many reasons, the first of which is because the constitution says that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. This isn't my main argument for saying Gay Marriage should be legal, but it is for the way I worded the question.

A few rules before we begin:
1. No Religious texts can be quoted
2. Religion cannot be used to justify an argument (adding on to rule 1)
3. I am tired of the "because marriage is between a man and a woman" argument, so don't use that one

I believe that's all for now
aburk903

Con

Thanks for the topic, Pro. I accept.

My opponent has full BOP on this proposition, especially since my position may be supported by simply maintaining the status quo. As we begin, I would like to clarify that my position is not against homosexuality or the legal union of homosexuals. I fully advocate civil unions as an ideal alternative to marriage for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. My opponent will have to present an exclusive benefit of marriage that cannot exist within a civil union. I additionally add that if my opponent excludes religion from this debate (as I am glad to) then we should also exclude the mere sentiment of marriage as something which is special or "sacred". I believe this is consistent with our mutual goal of keeping this debate within the scope of the empirical benefits (or lack thereof) of gay marriage, and that we can agree to disregard emotional arguments. I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WillDC22

Pro

From my understanding you want to leave this debate to simply benefits of gay marriage and disregard all emotional factors of the debate. I do agree this debate will be an interesting one, especially compared to the debate I thought I was going to get. First off, I would like to ask you a question, are their any real benefits of not legalizing gay marriage? Legalizing it would not hurt the economy or hurt anyone in any way I can foresee. In fact, if anything I believe that gay marriage may have a chance of improving the economy, even if it is a slight improvement. There is also nothing in the constitution that denounces gay marriage. Gay Marriage would also help boost the moral (and levels of happiness) in the country, which we all know is usually a good thing. That is all for now from me.
aburk903

Con

My opponent has made the point that legalizing gay marriage could (in a small way) benefit the economy. Again, I ask my opponent for specific details on how this would come about and why it is exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions. This leads me to my next point, because even if gay marriage simply maintained the status quo but provided a new liberty it could be potentially beneficial. However, I would suggest that the legalization of gay marriage would have the opposite effect on the population from what my opponent suggests. [Please note: the following argument is not religiously based, but is based upon simple statistical analysis of the American population.] The majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Whether or not the Christian faith is true is irrelevant to this topic. However, the fact that Christianity condemns homosexuality and that most Americans are Christians shows that the level of perceived morality and happiness in America would not necessarily increase. Instead, our focus should regard a reform of civil unions that guarantees those involved the same rights as married couples. I extend my arguments from the first round and close this one with the following points of rebuttal: that my opponent must show the potential for economic benefit exclusive to gay marriage and not civil unions (because without it that contention is invalid) and that my opponent's values of perceived morality and happiness in America would actually by harmed by the national legalization of gay marriage in a way that it is not by maintaining civil unions (thus defeating the contention by showing how it is self-contradictory).
Debate Round No. 2
WillDC22

Pro

I believe I have not been informed on "civil unions" (probably because I live in a state where gay marriage is legal) I must comment that this is the most interesting discussion on this topic I have ever have (mainly because I get a lot of people saying the same thing repeatedly), but anyway, back on topic. While I do agree the main populous in America is Christians (a fact that I still feel bitter sweet about), and that Christianity does denote homosexuality, I know that not all Christians condemn homosexuality, in fact some Christians support gay marriage. I feel like gay marriage would cause there to be more money spent (cause weddings cost money) which does not have any negative effects that I can think of. As for civil unions vs gay marriage, from what I understand, civil union means a marriage equivalent for those who cannot marry by law where they live. If that's as far as I can advance the situation of equal rights to, I'll take what I can get, but I do see some issues with it. For 1 I do not know whether this proposal will satisfy the gay rights movement, and that is why I said gay marriage would be better for the moral of the country, because we all know how rights movements can go when the face opposition, and the last thing anyone wants right now is civil unrest.
aburk903

Con

My opponent has made the concession that civil rights are a sufficient solution to the proposition. Although it is purely speculative to claim that there would be civil unrest among the Christian community in the event that gay marriage is legalized, it is equally speculative to claim that the homosexual community would respond in a more negative way if we promoted this just and revised system of civil unions. This claim is furthered by my opponent's acknowledgment that a situation similar to that which I propose sufficiently satisfies my opponent's value of equality. I will additionally point out that while marriage can generate some revenue, much of this money currently goes to the church. If we promote civil unions as a federally established binding of two individuals but still acknowledge it is a celebratory event in the lives of those involved, then we can shift the profit from the church to the state and thereby create a better and more affluent America. Ultimately, when we remove religion and mere sentiment from marriage, it becomes an institution that is easily replaced (and likely bettered) by that of civil unions. This coupled with the comparative lack of controversy and resistance posed by my alternative makes it the more ideal.
Debate Round No. 3
WillDC22

Pro

Are you suggesting we make a new "marriage" for both Heterosexuals and homosexuals that takes the religion out of the equation? If so, I feel like it's a good idea, but I still feel it is abiding by the constitution, the main law in our country, to allow homosexuals to be married, and for the rights given by that marriage to be fully acknowledged as much as Heterosexual married couples.
aburk903

Con

I am not suggesting the formation of any entirely new system or of anything that I would define as marriage in the classic sense. Civil unions already exist and the only changes needed are those which grant individuals bound by civil unions the same federal and legal benefits as those who are married. The purpose of this is not to simply semantically change marriage to civil union, but to depart from the unnecessary convention of marriage as a society. Those religious groups that still see it as an essential institution may of course maintain it, but this is an important step in becoming a more progressive society, especially because this clear separation of church and state is likely more constitutional than the way we go about this now. I still rest on my opponent's concession of sufficiency in my plan, and further state that this revised concept of civil unions is more ideal and constitutional than other alternatives.
Debate Round No. 4
WillDC22

Pro

Con brings up a good point about civil unions and deserves conduct and some other points (If I put the voting system as the default), and that he has informed me about what civil unions are. I would agree that civil unions should have equal rights as marriage. I still think that religious gays deserve the right to marry, (and unreligious gays, but he kind of already made this point with civil unions... So...) as marriage is (most likely) their religions official bond between 2 humans (for sure if they are Christian, but I am sure there are probably religions where this is not true) and, as stated, it would benefit the economy. I kind of am at a loss of anything else to say, I guess I have already used the thought to debate about evolution (I am debating on the side of evolution in two separate debates at once) so, I will end my final statement and say, let the best debater win!
aburk903

Con

My case stands in that no compelling evidence has been presented to show an intrinsic benefit to nationally legalizing gay marriage. I have shown that to not legalize gay marriage is not discriminatory and actually has several societal benefits. Not only is all of this true independently, but my opponent has also recognized the validity of my claims by agreeing that the liberty provided by reformed civil unions is sufficiently just. I urge all voters to vote Con.
Thanks for the debate Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WillDC22 1 year ago
WillDC22
Damn, you're right... I think
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Point of order... "the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
I forgot to mention the constitution in my final statement, but I guess it's too late now
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
I second that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Those concepts are almost contradictory (given that state rights imply a division of the greater majority "the people")
Posted by WillDC22 2 years ago
WillDC22
Please, explain what you mean, I'm curious
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You ever hear of " We the people" and states rights.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
WillDC22aburk903Tied
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: Pro conceded.