The Instigator
Kelisitaan
Pro (for)
The Contender
Chris330
Con (against)

Gay Marriage

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Chris330 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 329 times Debate No: 98363
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Kelisitaan

Pro

Gay marriage should be legal.
Chris330

Con

Resolution: The Supreme Court made the incorrect decision in the case of gay marriage which made gay marriage universally legal across the country.

Case: Marriage has nothing to do with the federal government to make a ruling, Therefore by default, gay marriage is not universally legal across the country.
Debate Round No. 1
Kelisitaan

Pro

Marriage has everything to do with the government; it's a privilege granted by and recognized by the government and our country. To claim that marriage has nothing to do with the federal government is simply incorrect.
Chris330

Con

"by the power vested in me by God and the State of _________, I know pronounce you man and wife."

It doesn't say US or Federal government making this subject a clear power of the states as defined in the 10th Amendment.
Giving the SCOTUS no authority to make the ruling, which means that Obergefell v. Hodges decision is unconstitutional.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Debate Round No. 2
Kelisitaan

Pro

You are changing the argument; the argument was very clear. Gay marriage SHOULD be legal. That doesn't mean that marriage is in the constitution, nor does it mean that the supreme court should have the right to decide whether or not it is legal. It means exactly what it says: gay marriage SHOULD be legal.

What you are doing is creating a strawman and then arguing against that, rather than arguing against the argument. The argument stated very clearly that I believed that gay marriage should be legal. It did NOT say that I believed that the supreme court has the right to decide this.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by toothdok50 1 year ago
toothdok50
I am completely for freedom in choice as to whom one loves and with whom one shares their life. I'm all for the government recognizing a same-gender relationship. What I'm not in favor of is the re-definition of marriage by government edict. For thousands of years of civilization, the notion of "marriage" has been that of a male and female uniting in an institution for the benefit of procreation and rearing of children. Society has seen the wisdom of this sanctioned union and it has strong roots in culture, religion and even in government.
To change what marriage means and what it constitutes by totalitarian means and "constitutional" arguments is preposterous. Marriage pre-dated our nation's Constitution and all other forms of government. To argue that our Constitution, or any form of government, gets to redefine this institution is the height of pretentiousness! Governments are organized amongst men to deal with the realities of society and human-kind, not to redefine such and create reality by edict!
While I can understand an equality argument for gay Americans, such an argument is only valid if gay individuals were prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite gender. They are not. They have been prohibited from taking a spouse of the same gender. When homosexual individuals cry foul and argue that their Constitutional rights are being violated by an inability to marry, what they are really saying is they are being disallowed to redefine what marriage is. Such is akin to an individual with a physical handicap wanting to include a wheelchair onto the football field. Their inability to walk, does not give them the right to redefine the game of football to include such devices. Likewise, if a gay individual cannot engage in heterosexual relationships, they cannot expect the greater portion of society to conform to an idea that's nothing more than a conciliatory gesture.
Posted by Sonofcharl 1 year ago
Sonofcharl
Marriage is conceptual nonsense.
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
If you'd like to debate, please accept one of my challenges or make your own topic and challenge me.
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
It's actually pretty clear how I said it. I'm sorry you didn't understand it the first time; however, the statement is very clear.
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
Chris330
yes, try phrasing in more of a debate style like "The Supreme Court made the correct/incorrect decision in the case of gay marriage.
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
Just because something is legal does not mean it "should" be legal. Understand?
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
I'm arguing that it should be legal. (And it is legal, but that is irrelevant.) In other words, I'm arguing that it's correct that it is legal.
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
Chris330
then whats the point of your claim
Posted by Kelisitaan 1 year ago
Kelisitaan
That is obvious Chriss330, yet irrelevant.
Posted by Chris330 1 year ago
Chris330
it is legal
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.