The Instigator
buildingapologetics
Con (against)
The Contender
John_C_1812
Pro (for)

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
buildingapologetics 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: 2/12/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 4 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 287 times Debate No: 107974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

buildingapologetics

Con

While I object to gay marriage morally, this debate is more about the legality. This debate is about what is commonly referred to as "legalizing gay marriage". I add quotes because I don't think this most accurately describes the debate at hand. No one (at least that I have met) is proposing that we should make gay marriage illegal. In fact, at least in recent history, gay marriage has not been illegal.

The question we must ask is not, "should gay marriage be legal or allowed?". The question should be, "should gay marriage be federally encouraged or promoted by the government?". The government can either prohibit, allow, or promote an activity. I firmly believe the government should stay out of the bedroom and out of our lives, so it should only allow gay marriage, not promote it. In other words, homosexuals should be able to have relationships and call themselves married, but this should not be recognized by the government. In order to show that it should be promoted, It seems two premises must be established:
1) Gay marriage ought to be promoted.
2) The government would do a good job at promoting gay marriage.

Regarding traditional marriage, it certainly ought to be promoted because it is one of the greatest predictors of societal success. This helps everyone, so it should be encouraged. It also does that without immoral consequences. However, since government recognized traditional marriage, divorce rates have skyrocketed. Government cannot competently support traditional marriage, so it too should be allowed and not promoted. Just get government out of our lives in terms of marriage.

Regarding gay marriage, I believe it fails both parts. It is both immoral and does not lead to a prosperous society, so it ought not be promoted. I also, believe the government would do a terrible job at doing so if given a chance. Because of this, gay marriage in particular ought not be recognized by the state.

I also think there is something else that must be addressed regarding this subject. That is the concept of church and state. This statement is not actually a part of our legal system, and the term never meant separating the influence of the church on the state, but the reverse. In law, the government is not allowed to promote or establish any form of religion. Promoting, allowing, or prohibiting gay marriage would not establish or promote any particular religion. A simple proof of this is that Christianity and Islam both deny the legitimacy of gay marriage. If this were put into law, which religion exactly would the government be promoting or establishing? Neither one.

It is also important to note that morality can be enforced legally. Murder is made illegal because it is immoral. Speeding is illegal because it is immoral. Generally, the rule of thumb for law is that immoral practices should be prohibited if they affect others, immoral practices that do not affect others and amoral practices should be allowed, and moral practices should be promoted.

Gay marriage may have societal implications, but it does not directly affect other people, so I see no reason to ban it. On the other hand, it is immoral, so it should not be promoted. I get my morality from the Bible. I do not want to enforce my Bible into law, I want to put my morality into law. Therefore, the Bible is relevant to the question of morality, thus to the question of law. However, this is not an issue of separation of church and state, but an issue of the morality or ethics of that which we are promoting.

This is my stance on the issue. If you disagree with my point of view and would like to have a reasonable discussion, that would be welcomed. I made a few claims this round that I will support next round when I begin my arguments.
John_C_1812

Pro

First: Gay Marriage, lesbian Marriage, and same sex Marriage are all illegal. Hard to prove crimes are not legal crimes.
Second: gay or lesbian are accusation that have both civil and criminal implication.
Third: Separation of church and state is an unlabeled test held in the United States Constitution a legal test as it is not a religious test given to hold political office. A public religious test of intelligence publicly describes as law attaching themselves to long standing likelihood"s with plagiarism.
Fourth: law is nothing more than a public test to support, or decline deception guiding impartial separation. As a winner and looser in court can only ever both agree that a separation as occur as a Unite State to them both no matter the outcome of verdict discovered by jury or trial. This United States can then be set as standard between both counsel and judge in all case take before the United States judicial Constitutional separation.
Fifth: Marriage, Binivir, UnosMulier, VirMulier and Civil Union are all a constitutional separation to support the general welfare on well-defined state a witness can see clear and legal as a unique United State. Without exposure to unneeded consummations
Sixth: The Constitutional common defense to the General welfare describes marriage as a single United State that can be shared in its general witnessing to describe a union between a woman and man who are a citizen of any governing state or nation. Who then by their own entrance alone, by fact create, starting, nurture, and introducing a new never seen citizen into a State, or Nation without need of crossing any state or international border. With no any outside assistance to reposition a living being.
Debate Round No. 1
buildingapologetics

Con

"Gay Marriage, lesbian Marriage, and same sex Marriage are all illegal."
This is objectively false. Homosexual "marriage" was originally handled at the state level, with some states recognizing it and others not. Maryland was actually the first state to "ban" same-sex marriage by saying "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State"
Notice the wording in this statement. No one would be put in jail, fined, or otherwise preveneted from having a marriage ceremony or claiming to be married. The only difference is that same-sex marriages would not be recognized or promoted by the state. Traditional marriage was not even recognized by the government until 1913. Obviously, this didn't prevent people from having marriage ceremonies and claiming to be married.
Your statement is also incorrect on a second level. In 2015, the US supreme court "legalized" gay marriage, forcing all states to then support and recognize it.

"Second: gay or lesbian are accusation that have both civil and criminal implication."
Not sure what your point is here. Gay and Lesbian are titles given to people who are attracted to the same sex; they aren't really accusations.

"Separation of church and state is an unlabeled test held in the United States Constitution a legal test as it is not a religious test given to hold political office."
What do you mean by unlabeled? Also, of course there is no relgious test to be a part of the government. What does that have to do with this debate?
"A public religious test of intelligence publicly describes as law attaching themselves to long standing likelihood"s with plagiarism."
Why are you bringing up religious tests, and what does plagiarism have to do with same-sex marriage?

"Fourth: law is nothing more than a public test to support, or decline deception guiding impartial separation. "
Laws aren't merely tests; they are enforcements of morality, designed to help society. Also, you will have to be way more clear than "decline deception guiding impartial separation."
"As a winner and looser in court can only ever both agree that a separation as occur as a Unite State to them both no matter the outcome of verdict discovered by jury or trial."
I assume here that you are back to talking about separation of church and state. Winner's and loser's in court can actually disagree, both about the outcome and the idea of separation of church and state. What is your point here?
"This United States can then be set as standard between both counsel and judge in all case take before the United States judicial Constitutional separation."
I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here, so I can't really argue with it.

"Fifth: Marriage, Binivir, UnosMulier, VirMulier and Civil Union are all a constitutional separation to support the general welfare on well-defined state a witness can see clear and legal as a unique United State."
Yes, traditional marriage helps society, so it is promoted by goverment (although the government has failed at this). What do you mean by marriage is a constitutional separation?
"Without exposure to unneeded consummations"
What are you trying to say here?

"Sixth: The Constitutional common defense to the General welfare describes marriage as a single United State that can be shared in its general witnessing to describe a union between a woman and man who are a citizen of any governing state or nation."
What do you mean by single United State? If you mean marriage is a fundamental part of self-governance, I completely agree. This is why marriage is generally a good thing, however, same-sex marriages do not provide these same benefits. If you mean sharing as in we all get benefits from people who are married, I would also say this only applies for traditional marriage. Same-sex marriages do not give us the same benefits.

"Who then by their own entrance alone, by fact create, starting, nurture, and introducing a new never seen citizen into a State, or Nation without need of crossing any state or international border. With no any outside assistance to reposition a living being."
Again, creating new human beings, or reproduction is only an aspect of traditional marriages. Of course, same sex partners can adopt, but this usually results in psychological problems for the child.

Forgive me for not understanding everything you are trying to say. I still haven't heard any argument for why same-sex "marriage" ought to be recognized by the state.
John_C_1812

Pro

Introduction by Con and its address:
Con writes:" The first question we ask is not, Should Gay marriage be legal, or allowed." (Address) Yes; it is the very first question that should be asked, and answered. It is not legal, and allowing it should be question on the simple fact the idea start with public plagiarizing of something know by law to have self-value. KNOWN BY LAW. Law.

Explanation to begin, if not completely answered will follow as point made under title Con (A).
The second question might be: "Should Gay Marriage be federally encouraged or promoted by government?" With two guidelines: answered under title Con (B) the response will include the challenge made on bedroom etiquette, and bedroom privacy.
1.Gay marriage ought to be promoted.
2.The government would do a good job at promoting gay marriage.

(Address) Principle of Con is stating government should stay out of the bedroom, this suggesting that immigration of population through the woman"s use of reproduction should be granted full legal immunity to law. While a united State created by sexual assault confirms otherwise. (Precedent) And no mention that all children are in fact not conceived by male female contact as couples in a bedroom only.

This second question translated from a union made with the first question, and the United State Constitution, to be rewritten as just one new question addressing all three states. In a way that is impossible to make personal, as it is already personal (Additional Address) Perjury should be promoted by the federal government as being legal for intelligent people only. As plagiarism openly is the intellectual"s crime. Con"s search for a legalized gay, lesbian, same sex extensions of (marriage) formed response (C) with a test to find crime committed by the plagiarizing, the crime chosen from a list of possibilities, Perjury. It is the one with transferred ability publicly. Meaning all people can easily be in fact committing perjury, just like me as a witness brought under a united State, by request of law. This crime one of the hardest crimes written into law that a person can prove against someone, unless the person who lied confessed to the crime. This form of perjury is cast into the public domain.

"I am making that confession", as I have lied by order of my City, and Governing State trapped in bias enforcement of law created by use, and threat of civil litigation, insisting I perjure. The goal of the perjury was to place an incentive by threat, to finding a legal precedent, in a test to constitution that could hold no legal precedent alone, as the two positions in question are completely opposite states.

Con (A):
Buildingapologetics my colleague in this debate is to take on the daunting task of addressing recognition to Homosexuality as choice only. Good luck. Then not negate an accusation made by a person with two sides, one vicious, and another innocent. Again best of luck. Two states not one, vicious and mean are one state shared by a union made public, while innocent and playful are a second state. This type delicate public matter required that a United States Constitutional separation may need to intervene. In matters of State. If not all the time, at least it stand ready part time to resolve a conflicts of idea. First Amendment exorcise thereof, free-press, free-speech a word which holds no set-value as single definition has multi meaning publicly.

Two states and the public need for separation of those two basic principle of state trapped inside the direction of two words Gay and Lesbian. As the United States Constitution holds the only written separation of a word and state in the world. Nick named "Separation of Church and State." For the sake of law we are asked to presumed innocence on others, not our selves" morality. Not for ourselves on the scope of legal test, morality. While questioning my own morality I will admit to having been accused of Homosexuality, having been call f_g, gay, and homo by more than one woman, and in instigation to aggression by more than one man. In life we might all find this accusation even cast by people we do not expect woman, men, family members, people who have held friendship and trust.

I have knowledge of knowing at least one woman who I accused of being lesbian, and was not, and a woman I believe not lesbian, who in fact was. I knew men I believe not to be gay and who had been, and those who have lied saying they are when in fact were not. I watched woman say they are knowing they are not. I have heard confessions made by woman and men of being gay and lesbian accordingly. The United State these examples share, opinion a person may hold on privacy, sexual intimacy, or as a visible result to be punished by innuendo, then adding misunderstanding within what is seen. Complication. There are no new crimes that are exposed here just old basic crimes of jealousy, or hatred.

Con (B)
So I admit to being Gay, and now claim I was accused. How is legislated promotion of plagiarizing Marriage publicly going to help me? How is it going to help anyone? It can only help those who are stealing credit, this is what plagiarism does. It steals credit from something else. What value is the credit taking?

Why would government want to promote use of public plagiarism in any fashion? Men and woman create babies when sexually interment. With, or without marriage. This gives a legal reason to ask openly from the public if this one man has been seen with this one woman. The answer of yes will start a reasonable line of request which will end when it finds a creator of citizen, not baby, newborn, son or daughter. Citizen he or she belongs with us now. At liberty with all of us. This is okay for many social reasons but does point out issues. There are new legal reason to ask what a man and woman do intimately alone, in the form of relinquishing parenthood right to others, or aid others the powers to create a citizen. I will not address it here in detail, but will say a number of laws can be put to test by this transfer of power given out by men and woman.

UnosMulier and Binivir are verbal separations, confirmations of a type private agreement that need no consummation, a specialized form of witnessing by public witness, a need to place the couple in proximity of each other for sexually activity is not needed, being told a witness must be seen standing close enough to I.D, an idea of union of verbal agreement with no child as consequence is stealing credit for creation of offspring, and bearing new citizen. Not providing such citizen. This is not the same as saying stand close enough to witness by others may see marriage, a visible sign, a display of compassion, willingness to start foundations of human life. Relieve the governing state of it governing power, and express your independent life, liberty, and happiness that has granted you by nature. If not by family, society, and friends this liberty.

Marriage is all about the Governments right to citizen ship, babies are the new entry as U.S. Citizens, the addition to current population, and addition to economy of a Country, as this is also a test going on in immigration right now. What is call by Military distress "Real Time."
http://immigration.findlaw.com...
Naturalized Citizen " One who, being born an alien, has lawfully become a citizen of the United States Under the constitution and laws.
https://www.lectlaw.com...
State " A state of meaning might be described as a line made between two points. (john_c_1812)
State VERB express something definitely or clearly in speech or writing.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Perjury -
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

Addressing closing remarks for point (C)
There is no legal reason under any condition to describe anything as marriage, other than what is see as marriage. What goes on outside of civil basic principle as coaching witness, or threating of witness does not matter. Men and woman can make babies, and this can set a precedent of common law marriage publicly. Any consummation of human life that identical couple, same gender couples may create, or share with the public will take place on medically consent, not social consent. It will take place by relinquishing the right given to a person by nature, and placing it knowingly as a right for someone else, who in fact also by nature may, or may not on their own create new life on behalf of United States, or any Country.

Closing of round Two:
Chose to use the collected human fuel as pool of life created by others. Embryo and sperm (The rules of the baby game have changed) Addressing point (C) will at this point move past my own confession of guilt of perjury, and confront, take on, look at plagiarism with use of wording like Binivir, UnosMulier, Unosfemina, VirFemina and VirMulier distance me form my perjury, and others plagiarism. The only reason identical sex marriage ought to be recognized by state is the plagiarism as any consummation it is null and void to the two states. This debate may really be a sophisticated form of dissolving a credit made by private form of childbirth, so that a legal immunity may be translated from limited groups of public, to a much larger scientific industry, as couples are compelled to make donations to expand their own natural power against a nation for the lives of our loved ones. As the power to create a child in natural has greater value when sold, or given. The plagiarism is not mine, I don"t own it.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 4 days ago
John_C_1812
SlipperyJoe

the bird in the cage might say I'm not so sure Puddy Cat.....
Posted by SlippyJoe 4 days ago
SlippyJoe
Ol MacDonald had a ferm, ey I EY i o. And on dat ferm der were some liberals. Ey I ey I o. With a trigger there and trigger there and a trigger everywhere. EY i EY I o.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 week ago
John_C_1812
I disagree SkySky16 the debate of marriage is all about what legal roll marriage had in society as common defense and why it set legislation as legally obligation to defend any acts of plagiarizing of the likelihood. Law is bound to by the creation of children made by its agreement.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 week ago
John_C_1812
Gay marriage has always been illegal and never enforced by its complicated description.
Posted by buildingapologetics 1 week ago
buildingapologetics
@SkySky16 I actually agree with you. I had trouble coming up with a clear and specific title, so I opted to title it as this debate is usually framed then iron out the specifics in the introduction round. Gay marriage is accurate since it is the subject that is really what people are discussing, it just is usually argued incorrectly.
Posted by SkySky16 1 week ago
SkySky16
The title of this debate is misleading. You aren't arguing about gay marriage but about government boundaries. That vague title isn't even the right subject.
This debate has 2 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.