Gay Marriage should be legalized
Debate Rounds (3)
I see that Con is basing his case on rights, but rather strangely denies marriage is a right at all... Currently, the right to marriage (Article 16) is quite clearly stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be interested to hear Con's argument on that...
Please proceed with your opening arguments...
Many pro gay marriage supporters argue to deny someone their 14th amendment rights. This is not true. Cornell University, the 4th ranked uni in the world posted the 14th amendment. For the purposes of this debate I will only provide the 1st section, but will provide the link as well
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now we must define, life Liberty and property
Liberty- The ability for one to have control over their actions
Property- Any physical or intangible entity that is owned by an individual or jointly by a group
Life-characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate
My opp would have a hard time arguing how not passing a law in support of gay marriage would hinder these three things, I would also ask that he defend my claim that marriage as a whole is not a right
I believe that if a law were passed making gay marriage legal, that would hinder other people's liberties. My argument for that is I believe if this law were passed under the current ultra-libral administration, that the gay couples would be given the right to sue any minister or whoever they would have oversee the marriage, if they turned them down. This would infact be a hinderence on that individuals liberties as defined above. if no law were made in support, then no one's rights would be infringed on.
My opp says that marriage is between two people who love eachother. While I agree, there is a deeper meaning to marriage, depending on your beliefs. That deeper meaning is when a marriage is conducted that marriage is to be used not only to show love between husband and wife, but to glorify God. The Bible states that homosexuality is not something that glorifies God. This harkens back to my belief that marriage is not a right. It is a gift given to a certain number of people and gays were not bestowed that gift, much like it was not bestowed on many heterosexuals as well
The vast majority of gays who want to be allowed to marry, want it for the rights that come with marriage. These rights are partially outlined in the following link: http://www.nolo.com...
While I think some of those rights should be universal, i.e., adoption, I do not think one should marry for tax purposes and for ways to get more finacial benefits. And that is what I think the prime reason gay people want to get married
As promised, here is that Cornell link:
As I side note, I'd like to state I am not for any laws BANNING marriage between gays. I just do not think there should be a law for it either
'It says so in the 14th Amendment.'
My opponent bases his first argument on the content of the 14th amendment. He says that by not legalizing gay marriage, we are not infringing any of the 14th amendment rights. Now at first glance, Con's argument is sound.
However, we don't have to delve much further into the amendment to find material that is not too helpful to the point that Con is attempting to make. I am interested in the parts just before and after all that jazz about liberty and property etc...
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"
By just legalizing heterosexual marriage, it is clear that some states are in violation of this. The privileges or immunities of gay citizens are clearly being 'abridged' by saying that only a certain part of American society are allowed these 'privileges'.
"Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You don't have to be a genius to see that only allowing heterosexual couples the right to marry, is not giving equal protection before the law. If we really were all to grant everybody equal protection of the laws then both gay and straight people would be both be able to be legally married. However, I think that the main problem
that gay marriage campaigners encounter, is in fact not from the state, but from the church. I will address this in more detail later on in my arguments...
So as I have just proved, it is actually not at ALL difficult to prove that there is plenty in the 14th amendment to contradict what Con wants it to say.
"If no law were made in support, then no one's rights would be infringed on."
Con is getting in a tangle over rights. First of all, no one has the right not to be sued. I'd be very impressed if you can find me a source of that claim. Suddenly, we have a situation where church ministers have these super rights where it is impossible for anyone to sue them and gay people are just supposed to accept the fact that they are going to be continued to be treated like lesser citizens. Also, since when did the the dignity of certain members of the church become more important than the struggle of the gay rights movement? Did I miss something? I commend my opponent for not basing his entire argument on the bible which is what so many before and after him have done and will do. However, his point makes little sense. Of course they would be sued if they turned gay couples down! It would be against the law! What we should be arguing is not, the personal loss of ministers, but the collective gain of a gay rights campaign that has for too long seen medieval attitudes obstruct their journey for equality.
Alas, he has fallen at the bible hurdle. Gays should not be allowed to marry because the bible says it wrong...
Well, the bible says a lot of things, not all of which my opponent will agree with I'm sure. Did he know that according to the bible, eating shell-fish is a sin?
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
"Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
Did he also know that the bible also says that wearing wool is a sin?
"The garment also that the plague of leprosy is in, whether it be a woollen garment, or a linen garment;"
I could go on but I think that my pointy is clear. You can't just only use the bits of the bible that back up your own beliefs! If you want to use the bible like that, you need to take EVERY WORD literally. And no one does that because most people know that that isn't what you do with the bible. It isn't supposed to be taken literally. Therefore your point doesn't stand.
"I do not think one should marry for tax purposes."
Con says he thinks that these rights should be universal, but if the only way that gay people can get these rights is to marry than surely they should either be made universal or be granting the right to marry. If they are made universal, than I don't see what the problem is. He's saying that they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are doing it for financial gain, whilst simultaneously recognizing that they are marrying for the rights. He tops it off by making A MASSIVE generalization by saying that gay people are only marrying for the rights. He has not statistics to back this up or even some analysis. It can subsequently not be taken as a legitimate point.
I await my opponents response.
Currently there is no law banning gay marriage. Prop 8, you say? let's look at some facts about Prop 8, shall we?
Prop 8 was never actually a law but rather a propsition for a law.
Prop 8 was only in California
Therefore Prop 8 was not Federal.
I also believe Prop 8 was overturned and never got the chance to become an actual law
So it is now up to my opp to explain how a gay couple cannot legally get married
The reason I believe gays want marriage for financial benefits that come with marriage, is because if they loved one another why would a document matter? Do they really need a document stating they love eachother? A document is not, I repeat, NOT love. Love is about a connection, Love is about taking care of one another. Love is about looking passed eachother's imperfections. How can a document prove love?
I understand this is closing argument time, but I would implore my Opp to answer each question. And if he wants to go the route about the marriage document would enable a gay person to visit their spouse in the hostpital consider this:
A straight couple is not yet married. Let's say they are engaged. one gets sick and is hospitalized. According to the gay rights proponents, you cannot visit a boyfriend or girlfriend because they are not legally family. The sick partner then dies. There is no will so the living partner is entitled to nothing. The dead partner's family hates the living partner so they do not allow them to attend the funeral because they are not family. Where's the outrage now?
As stated before I believe there are ways that gays are injustly discriminated against, such as the workplace. But I have a disability and am discriminated against when trying to find a job as well. The good thing is there are laws against discrimination. I just do not think marriage is something you can discriminate against.
newspapers_are_cool forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.