The Instigator
A.Kaydence
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized in the sate of California

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 4 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 24785
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

A.Kaydence

Pro

Some people believe marriage is a union between one man and one woman. The definition, at the moment, actually states just that; however, definitions change as time drives on, and I believe its time for a radical change. About ten percent of the population is homosexual, and many of them have legitimate reasons about why they want to get "hitched." Jennifer and Marie have been living together for eight years. They share a house, two cars, utilities, two children, and a puppy; however, their commitment is not legally recognized, they often receive little or to no help financially, and businesses often do not consider the couple as immediate family of one another.

Marriage is a decision that all Americans, including homosexuals, should have the right to consider as marriage allows couples to receive special employment benefits and financial aid, permission to make legal decisions about inheritance, child custody, and visitation rights which could have been disregarded if there had been legal documentation of the partners' commitments.


Situations such as this corrupt the lives of gays and lesbians everyday. Medical, dental, and life insurance for married couples is, in most places, not an options for long term committed gay and lesbian couples. Married couples also receive financial aid from many different sources. Taxes, loans, grants, scholarships, and bills all depend on things such as marriage; in a lot of the cases marriage greatly affects these issues positively and, once again, leaves gays and lesbians to fend for themselves as individuals.



"We the people" say that America is a free country that is dedicated to making sure it's citizens obtain equal rights, yet everyday same-sex couples suffer from the lack of certain rights. I strongly stand for the concept that same-sex couples should be aloud to legally marry; after all, I, too, wish to get married someday, and if the law does not allow same-sex marriages then my marriage will be denied as well. I urge Americans to open their eyes and look at same-sex couples from my point of view. Denying same-sex couples from marriage is denying the basic rights regarding benefits, financial aid, inheritance, child custody, visitation rights, and legal documentation of a married couple.


16kadams

Con

Is there a right to same sex marriage?

My opponent’s main argument throughout the debate is homosexuals need equal rights and have a right to choose whom they marry. But this is irrelevant unless my opponent can prove there is some sort of right with same sex marriage. He must prove, legally, they are being violated of some constitutional right rather then just assuming this right exists. This opinion is not universal; therefore my opponent must justify his claim. My opponent has failed to define or prove his terms on why banning homosexual marriage is illegal based on loss of rights, therefore fails on a legal basis on which the resolution is based.

Benefits of marriage

There are, indeed, many benefits of marriage. All of which cost the state millions of dollars to provide. They give these benefits out as they have subsidized the marriage business, hinting they have some interest in the institution. So they are giving benefits out for a reason, and only if there is a good reason are they obligated to hand these benefits out. So the question here is not what the benefits are, rather why the state gives these benefits out to specific classes of people (married couples). Marriage is a legal institution, which is former around one man and one woman in attempt to create procreative type unions. Many think marriage is about love, but this is a perk of marriage not its purpose. If it were, then ordinary friendships would also be regulated by the state. So the only viable state interest in marriage is a procreative type union that creates proper family structure that helps further the production of society. The states subsidization of marriage means they are using marriage to promote responsible and healthy procreation to raise a healthy society, as only procreation is not in the bests interest of society as a whole, rather how it is done is. Therefore the states interest only applies to heterosexuals, and not homosexuals.

They love each other!!

This is not a valid reason to allow homosexual marriage as love is not a valid states interest nor does it serve any purpose to the state worthy of millions of dollars in benefits. Therefore this point is irrelevant to a legal debate and is only an emotional argument.

Conclusion:

My opponents argument fails to prove on a legal basis whether or not gay marriage should be legal, it first asserts there is a right to gay marriage. But it is only backed up by assertion and not actual evidence. He later argues there are benefits to marriage; evidence suggests some type of government interest in the marriage institution. Therefore its not if there is benefits, rather why the state should grant them to certain people and not others. The reason they grant benefits is procreative-type unions, therefore there is no reason for homosexuals to get these benefits nor do they deserve them. Love is irrelevant as love serves no purpose to the state therefore they have no obligation to recognize their relationship as marriage.

Debate Round No. 1
A.Kaydence

Pro

A.Kaydence forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

Wait till next round
Debate Round No. 2
A.Kaydence

Pro

A.Kaydence forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

This was a non-event.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
A.Kaydence16kadamsTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
A.Kaydence16kadamsTied
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: asdf
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
A.Kaydence16kadamsTied
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: GOOGLE IS EVIL!
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
A.Kaydence16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF