The Instigator
Crayzman2297
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
E.BurnumIII
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Gay Marriage should be protected by the Constitution

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 7 votes the winner is...
E.BurnumIII
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,466 times Debate No: 18946
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (7)

 

Crayzman2297

Pro

Today, gay marriage is legally recognized in 6 states. I believe that the Federal Legislature should amend the Constitution, that it would require all states to acknowledge gay marriage. Arguments against gay marriage are often religion-based or biased, and in a country that purposely does not have a designated religion, I think that it is the duty of our government to work in the best interests of its people, including homosexuals. Prohibition of gay marriage is discrimination just as much as segregation was. I hope that my opponent will be able to logically argue his position.
E.BurnumIII

Con

Separation of church and state is essential to an all inclusive government and therefore any recognition of religion or religious practice by government should be banned. "Pro" is arguing the opposite; that we need a federal amendment recognizing a practice of religion. It is wrong for government to be involved in religion but it is even worse when government can force a definition of a religious practice on churches and other religious bodies. The definition of marriage should be decided on a church by church basis.
Debate Round No. 1
Crayzman2297

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate the issue.
First, because you failed to define "marriage", allow me to do so:

mar´┐Żriage
noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij1a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [A]

"recognized by law": Con is correct with his statement that marriage is a religious practice, however it is only religious if the parties involve wish it to be. Marriage ceremonies may be performed by a certified Justice of the Peace, who is an appointed official of the jurisdiction they represent (town/county/state) [B]

Thus, marriages can be completely secular. The concern that I am raising covers the fact that only six states in the United States of America will grant a marriage license to same-sex couples, granting them the same opportunities and legal benefits as those of a heterosexual couple.

If the Federal Government required all states to recognize same-sex marriages, then not only would it be a great stride forward for equal-rights, but it would begin a more widespread acceptance of homosexuality. It would not, in any way, infringe on the religious rights and beliefs of anybody, because the solution is simple: If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't get married to anyone of the same sex as yourself. However, tolerate and respect the rights and beliefs of those who DO believe in such practices.

[A] Merriam-Webster
[B] http://www.tarrantcounty.com...
E.BurnumIII

Con

I accept Merriam-Webster's definition of marriage.

I will also accept that marriage can be completely secular.

Given that marriage has been defined as, (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, I will redirect my argument.

Government should not make any law regarding marriage because, inevitably, some person or group would be left out. A government should be all inclusive and a law that defines marriage as, (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, is not all inclusive. I agree that if the government recognizes heterosexual marriages it should recognize homosexual marriages but our definition excludes polygamists and they should have the same rights as the other two groups discussed. Marriage laws should be completely open. If a man wants to have a contractual relationship with a man, he should be able to and if he wants to marry multiple men and women and it doesn't break any other contracts, he should be allowed to. Government should only enforce these contracts and not create discriminatory laws.
Debate Round No. 2
Crayzman2297

Pro

My opponent states that should a Federal Law be passed excluding marriage discrimination, it would be required to end ALL marriage discrimination, including unions between multiple men and women.

First of all, my opponent has failed to acknowloedge why recognizing polygamy would be a bad thing.
Secondly, this debate does not concern polygamy, and my opponent has stated in his own words that "Marriage Laws should be completely open. If a man wants to have a contractual relationship with a man, he should be able to".

Government should enforce these contracts, because currently 44 states out of 50 do NOT. When there is such a widespread lack of civil rights, it is the responsibility of the government to intervene and correct the situation.

So it was with segregation, so it shall be with gay marriage.
E.BurnumIII

Con

I never said that polygamy is a bad thing so, if I have failed to "acknowledge why recognizing polygamy would be a bad thing," it is because I DON'T believe it is a bad thing. I clearly stated, as pro points out, that "Marriage Laws should be completely open."

This debate does concern polygamy because our goal is an all inclusive government and amending the constitution with our accepted definition of marriage is not all inclusive. Polygamists would be left with no marriage rights given the fact that our definition of marriage only addresses "A person of the opposite sex" and "A person of the same sex" leaving no room for polygamists.

Pro's heart is in the correct place but he doesn't understand [1] "blowback," [2] the unintended adverse results of a political action or situation. The law would be passed for a good cause but would have unintended negative consequences.

The only way to ensure that everyone is treated fairly under the law is to get rid of all the discriminatory marriage laws. Government's only role in marriage should be enforcing private contracts; not creating laws that define marriage and lead to people being left out. It is very hard, if not impossible, to make laws legislating morality and not, in some way, infringe on someone's rights. [3]In a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle, two law professors from Pepperdine University said, "the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether."

I hope pro has a better understanding of my position now. I am pro gay marriage and polygamy and any other type of marriage as long as there is a consensual contractual agreement but I am opposed to amending the constitution for reasons given above.

[1]http://mises.org...
[2]Google Dictionary
[3]http://www.time.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Crayzman2297

Pro

Crayzman2297 forfeited this round.
E.BurnumIII

Con

Thank you for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
The reason for my forfeiture of the last round was unfortunate circumstance- A terrible snowstorm has knocked out my power for the past 5 days, and I only just recovered it. No power left me no way to update this debate.
I thank Con for this debate, and regret my inability to finish it.
Posted by mylescoen12 5 years ago
mylescoen12
Ok, I think I understand your argument now. I see how your position does place you against the resolution.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"It would be nice if they could file joint tax returns like heterosexuals"

The reason the govt gives that privilege is to ease the economic costs of raising children. Your gay friends can not have children but want the same benefit without the responsibility of children. No that's not trivializing marriage at all. And don't even think of going to the what about those who choose not to and those who can't. Marriage must be defined for all people. The vast majority of people who get married have kids. Whether or not some don't for what ever reason is irrelevant, Are they supposed to do get a divorce because children were no conceived?

And now that we are going to take procreation out of the picture which implies intercourse. One can consider any type of marriage because procreation and intercourse are no longer implied. Now it's just about financial reasons. I can think of a thousand financial reasons for two people to get married. Brother and sister can marry with no problem. It's purely financial, they don't have to procreate or have sex just reap the financial benefits of living together. Then if one of them meets someone they can simply get divorced. That will most assuredly be the next thing to follow after gay marriage is the law of the land. After all it's "about the law". Not the effects on society or the trivialization of marriage.

Given that marriage will be a purely financial entity and have nothing to do with it's intended purpose, one can make a case to marry ones dog. The dog brings the person happiness it costs money to keep a dog. No your not going to have sex with the dog or try to make it have human puppy dogs. It's a companion just like two homosexuals are companions to each other. Homosexuals can choose to have sex if they want or not. Sex and intercourse are no longer implied, It's about a joint tax return. And so is the same for the man or woman who marries a dog. They need to file the dog as a dependant to offset the costs of taking ca
Posted by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
I never once advocated for discriminating against gays. If the resolution was, "gays should have the right to get married" and I was con, then you could say I'm descriminating against gays but the resolution is, "gay marriage should be protected by the constitution." I am not for any type of marriage being protected by the constitution. I do not believe government should be involved with marriage at all except to enforce contracts. I am arguing that amending the constitution is not the best way to achieve equality but rather get government out of marriage and allow people to decide for themselves what marriage is.
Posted by mylescoen12 5 years ago
mylescoen12
I still think pro wins. Saying we shouldn't discriminate against anyone like Con advocates still means we don't discriminate against gays. Con is actually pro.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Well, Sadolite, my gay friends have been married for many years. They aren't trivializing anything, they are just being married. It would be nice if they could file joint tax returns like heterosexuals, but they are married, regardless of whether the law recognizes it.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
I would vote but I am to biased, Gay marriage debates are always about raw legal argument. It is the effect on the institution of marriage by trivializing it with what I believe to be something absurd. I also worry about the societal effects of normalizing otherwise abnormal behavior. It wont stop at gay marriage. It is naive to think it will. I believe the end game for activists for gay marriage is not to be allowed to marry but to eradicate it along with concept of the mother father children nuclear family. Gay marriage is just a means to trivialize it then discard it all together.
Posted by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
Also, I never advocated for the dictionary ruling us. In fact, I argued the opposite. One of my arguments against pro is that his definition of marriage does not include polygamists and would not allow for them to have the right to marry. I argued that marriage laws should be open (No definition of marriage) and that would effectively legalize marriage for anyone.
Posted by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
I never switched sides. I am pro gay marriage and equal rights for all but that was not what we were debating. We were debating whether or not to amend the constitution. Whether people are "nice and good" is of no consequence to this debate. I argued that the only true way to have equality is to eliminate the current laws regulating marriage rather than creating more, then the government can assume one of its most basic roles and just enforce contractual agreements rather than defining what marriage is.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Yes, Pro missed a round, but Con's whole performance was a forfeit.

Con didn't say anything in round one that effectively contracted Pro's argument. He said that law shouldn't regulate the churches, but Pro had never advocated that. There is no conflict between Pro's opening round and Con's. As Con didn't address the resolution, he effectively forfeited.

In round two Con changed tacks entirely, to a new argument (effectively, "We should let the dictionary rule us") from out of the blue. It was like trying to revive a dropped argument. In any case, there is no conflict between letting the dictionary rule us and having the constitution protect us from people using the dictionary discriminatorily. Con was still off topic, still forfeiting.

In round three, Con totally switched sides; he's suddenly agreeing that discriminating is bad, and saying that everybody should be so nice and good that we don't need the Constitution to protect us against discrimination. Not only is that far fetched, implausible, impossible to put into effect, but there is still no conflict between people tolerating each other and having a constitutional guarantee of such toleration. So Con is still not addressing the resolution, still not opposing Pro's argument, still foreiting.

The victory should go to Pro.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate came down to whether marriage ought to be a constitutional issue or not, and I think Co had the better of that. fofeit is a conduct violation.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiting a single round when your opponent fails to provide an argument and even concedes in the second round does not cause you to lose the debate, PRO won this.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I voted Pro. Explanation in the comments.
Vote Placed by DetectableNinja 5 years ago
DetectableNinja
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 5 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro didn't necessarily stay on-topic most of the time, deviating on the things Con said as well as not talking about why it should be amended in the Constitution, but more about why it should be legalized in totality. The Con had a far stronger argument with more resources showing us that what he was saying was true, and his logic was much more solid and on-topic. Good debate, both of you, but my votes must go to CON.
Vote Placed by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 5 years ago
airmax1227
Crayzman2297E.BurnumIIITied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF