The Instigator
policydebater
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
KevinL75
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Gay marriage and equal rights

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,298 times Debate No: 650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (8)

 

policydebater

Pro

In America right now there is a huge flaw within the system. There are second class citizens living among us. WE are the nation that calls for equality and understanding. If so how is Gay Marriage illegal? Whether these people are born this way or choose to live that life style rights are being taken away from them. These rights include working benefits, hospital visits, the ability to have a family, and rights as humans. Now why is gay marriage illegal? The majority of the population base it on their religious views. condemning it as "immoral" and its "between a man and a woman" if this is so, what happens if I don't believe in your faith? then as a straight person am I denied these rights? What the flaw in the system is.... based off another persons idea of what it means to be 'human' have to have the ability to have these rights trades off with anothers happiness. Who is to say that you can define what someone can or cannot do with someone they love? can you really justify illegal gay marriage just on what you believe?
KevinL75

Con

The first thing I'd like to say is that I'm 100% in favor of gay marriage, but I accepted this debate to see how I would do on the other side of the issue. This should be interesting!

The first thing I'd like to point out is that gay marriage is not universally illegal in the U.S. - it is accorded the same weight as heterosexual marriage in MA.

I'd also like to point out that homosexuals, as individuals, have the same rights when it comes to marriage and unions as heterosexuals - everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, has an equal right to marry someone of the opposite gender. It's different types of COUPLES (not individuals) that are being treated differently.

What about the illegality of gay marriage deprives homoseuxals of "rights as humans"?

The crux of your argument can really be summed up here: "can you really justify illegal gay marriage just on what you believe?"

I don't know, but I'll try! First let's be clear that the legalization or criminalization of gay marriage is a state issue, so the voters and legislatures of each state are the ones deciding the fate of gay couples in that particular state. Many other things on the state level are decided based solely on beliefs. Let's look at some examples:

Bob is running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will cut taxes for his district. His constituents don't have any inherent right to lower taxes, but they vote for Bob, and their taxes are lowered.

Fred is also running for the Texas state senate on the promise that he will repeal restrictions on hunting ducks in his district. He is voted in, and duck hunting restrictions are lifted. There also aren't any inherent rights to duck hunting.

So these two representatives passed or repealed laws based solely on the wills of their constituents - not because they were delegates of inherent rights. If laws similar to these are passed based on beliefs alone, why can't gay marriage be criminalized in a state where the majority of citizens vote for state representatives who they know will criminalize it?
Debate Round No. 1
policydebater

Pro

sweet, i'm glad you agree, this will be an interesting and fun round ;)

On your first point, you say that gay marriage is legal in such states as mas, however you then go on to say that it is a state issue. what happens in the scenario that if a gay couple were to be recognized as married in mas, but then move to Idaho. Would Idaho recognize them as married if gay marriage is illegal in Idaho?

Next.
Although yes gays do have the right to marry whomever it is the moral fact of who they CHOOSE to marry. Look toward this example, if marriage towards an african american and white person were illegal, yes both of them could marry other people but they don't have the right to marry who they choose. That is what it all boils down to is that we cannot marry who we choose.
Then you move on to say that it is state based and all decisions are based on a person belief, however if that may be true all those examples never clearly hurt any one or taken away human rights. Which goes to say that Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens solely on the rights that they are denied, such as work benefits, hospital visits, the right to adopt. ect.

And this Union argument. what is a "union" do hospitals recognize that, do work offices recognize that? NO and many of these union things require the participants to have lived with each other for at least 7 years. When has a heterosexual couple had to wait 7 years to get married? The fact that we dont recognize their love or choices and have to limit them to UNION that leads to disasterous results. First off is that why can we not recognize it as marriage? why do we have to segregate them from the "norm" of society just so they are easier targets to discriminize? A non Christian can get married, but a gay cannot. Logically that doesn't work

what it boils down to is that illegal gay marriage does lead to human rights being taken away, with those examples from above. And look this nation was founded on the constitution and bill of rights, which guaranteed freedom of religion and eqality to all men. the fact that they are not treated as

"Normal" couples and they physically have rights taken away from them is what is flawed in the system
KevinL75

Con

So before I start this round, I've promised myself I'll refrain from using the "But then people will start marrying children and goats and 5 people at once" argument, because it's absolutely idiotic, and I refuse to invoke it, so I'll stick to other things. Moving on...

You said: "what happens in the scenario that if a gay couple were to be recognized as married in mas, but then move to Idaho. Would Idaho recognize them as married if gay marriage is illegal in Idaho?"

Theoretically, Idaho would have to give full faith and credit to the laws of MA, and recognize that couple of marriage. In practice, because of how federal courts usually interpret that clause of the Constitution, and because of DOMA, marriage is essentially the sole province of each individual state - being married in one state isn't necessarily the same thing as being married in another. But that's not exclusive to gay marriage. The point I was trying to make was that gay marriage isn't universally illegal - it's up to each state, and not each state has banned it.

You said: "That is what it all boils down to is that we cannot marry who we choose."

Yes, not everyone can marry whom they choose in most states. But choice isn't a human right - you haven't proven that everyone should be entitled to marry whom they choose.

You said: "Which goes to say that Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens solely on the rights that they are denied, such as work benefits, hospital visits, the right to adopt. ect."

This may be true in some states - I know it's certainly true in Texas where I used to live. But let's examine how to rectify this problem. Is legalizing gay marriage the only solution? Surely there is a way to grant homosexual couples similar rights to heterosexual couples without legalizing gay marriage. This is a separate issue from gay marriage, and can have a separate solution.

You said: "And this Union argument. what is a "union" do hospitals recognize that, do work offices recognize that? NO and many of these union things require the participants to have lived with each other for at least 7 years."

Again, legislatively there is a solution that doesn't touch marriage at all.

You said: "A non Christian can get married, but a gay cannot. Logically that doesn't work"

First, it doesn't have to logically work. Logically someone making $40,000 a year shouldn't vote for a Republican, but it happens, a lot! If certain types of laws are really coming straight from the people, we can't apply logic to that.

Second, the criminalization of gay marriage isn't about Christianity the religion, it's about the morals that are distilled from Christianity. A non-Christian marrying someone of the opposite sex still conforms to those morals despite not being Christian, whereas a homosexual does not.

You said: "the fact that they are not treated as "Normal" couples and they physically have rights taken away from them is what is flawed in the system"

I'm not sure how you physically take rights away from someone, but you are correct that this is a flaw in the system. But like I've said before, it can be rectified without legalizing gay marriage. If your only argument is that gay couples don't have the same rights as heterosexual couples, as far as hospital visits, etc., that can definitely be addressed without even going near gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebater

Pro

Thank your for not bringing up that incompetent argument :)

Now on to your first point. We continually are arguing about the states power, and how "no one has a choice"
look even if I conceed that no one has the ability to choose who they want to marry, they still get benefits. Yes so in a heterosexual marriage situation with "no choice" they would still have all the rights that come with marriage ( those examples) you say choice is not a human right. I would beg to differ, our constitution and bill of rights grants us choices in life and that in reference to the bill of rights does outline what we as a nation believes to be human rights. The choice of religion, the choice of quartering a solider ect.
you then go on to say that there are " other solutions to grant homosexuals these rights" Even if I conceed this all I have to win is that with out the choice to define their commitment as marriage their human rights are taken away.
Look you go on and say there are other ways to solve the flaw within the system. The flaw is the mindset. It does not matter if you come up with a union system or a commitment system the fact is most americans are not OK with homosexuality. Lets say this union stuff passes, that does not necessarily mean hospitals or work offices will still recognize them as equal to marriage. The ONLY way to guarantee that these people have them is marriage, which ties back into the identity argument. Why do we have to identify love in different forums? Identifying the other as this object to which we minipulate and push into this bubble of how we can accept this just proves how messed up this nation is right now. When we cannot recognize another human being as equal and as free to have the same choices as we have, when we identify the differences that will only increase this sterotype and hatred towards this group of people. You cannot deny that there are hate crimes, abusive language, and dehumanization towards the gay community. Why should we separate them anymore?
KevinL75

Con

KevinL75 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SeducedbyPoetry 9 years ago
SeducedbyPoetry
You both are pro gay marriage so (even though I can't actually do it here) you both get my vote! But thumbs up to Kevin for having the guts to put himself on the other side of the fence. Not everyone can do that. Nice job dudes!
Posted by spazybanana 9 years ago
spazybanana
First off I give you kudos for being a policy debater. I my self and am a public forum kid. Anyways being gay is a sin in many religions. We can already tell that because of this, this will be a never ending debate.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 7 months ago
Mharman
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by BadBoi 9 years ago
BadBoi
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by KevinL75 9 years ago
KevinL75
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
policydebaterKevinL75Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03