Gay Marrigae should be legal and gays should not be discriminated against
Debate Rounds (3)
People should not fear holding hands with the person they love, or kissing them in public. And everyone should be free to Marry the person that they love. This isn't gay rights, It's human rights.
I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I would note that I agree "gays should not be discriminated against". However, I do not think that they are discriminated against. As Con, I will be defending the idea that gay marriage should not be legal. I look forward to a good discussion!
I will begin by addressing my opponents opening statement, then I will move on to my own argument as to why gay marriage should not be legal.
"Homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals."
"They deserve the same rights."
Again, I agree. It seems to me that they have the same rights.
"We are spending time money and energy fighting love."
Who is "we"? I am certainly not spending any money or energy fighting love.
"It doesn't matter if you believe that it is right or wrong, it's still love."
I agree, though I fail to see why this is relevant.
"People should not fear holding hands with the person they love, or kissing them in public."
I don't see any reason why someone would hold this fear.
"This isn't gay rights, It's human rights."
How original. Please provide evidence to support your implicit claim that a certain group of people are having their "human rights" violated. I can't argue with a case that hasn't yet been made.
Before beginning my argument, it is essential to point out that my opponent is arguing in favor of "gay" marriage as opposed to "same-sex" marriage. There is a key difference, as we will see.
In 1996, the United States Supreme Court"s decision in the Romer v. Evans case prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. As a result of the finding that this sort of discrimination was unconstitutional, the United States government must be blind to sexual orientation (among other things) when enacting policy.
But the concept of "gay" marriage proposes to do just the opposite. In the case of traditional marriage, the law is blind to sexual orientation. A heterosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual woman, a homosexual man is legally able to marry a heterosexual women, a heterosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman, and a homosexual man is legally able to marry a homosexual woman. In no way does the traditional idea of marriage discriminate based on sexual orientation. This traditional idea is consistent with the 1996 Supreme Court ruling.
In contrast, if "gay" marriage were to be enacted into law, it would mean that only homosexual (I'll use this term when referring to the orientation and the term "gay" when referring to the marriage idea) men and women would be allowed to be joined in a "gay" marriage with other homosexual men and women. This means that while a homosexual man would legally be able to marry a homosexual man, and a homosexual woman would legally be able to marry a homosexual woman, a heterosexual man would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual man, and a heterosexual woman would be prohibited from marrying another heterosexual woman. The orientation-based discrimination in this case is clear. The idea of "gay" marriage would unconstitutionally discriminate against a heterosexually-oriented individual"s right to the same type of marriage that would be given to a homosexually-oriented individual.
Thus, by its very definition, "gay marriage" is inherently discriminatory.
I agreed with the majority of what my opponent had to say in his/her opening statement, but I saw no arguments or evidence in favor of his/her position that gay marriage ought to be legal. In contrast, I provided an argument that shows "gay" marriage is inherently discriminatory, as it would prohibit heterosexual males from marrying other heterosexual males and would prohibit heterosexual females from marrying other heterosexual females. This is the very reason why no one would dare try to enact a "gay" marriage law; the battle is instead over the idea of "same-sex" marriage, which is not what my opponent has chosen to defend in this debate. Thus, it seems to me that we have no reason to accept the assertion that gay marriage should be legal, whereas we have ample reason to think that gay marriage is discriminatory, and, therefore, ought not be legal.
chanchilla forfeited this round.
I do not have anything to add, as my opponent has forfeited their argument.
chanchilla forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
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.