The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
FlameofPrometheus
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Gay marriage is not a civil right

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 4 votes the winner is...
kenballer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,586 times Debate No: 21209
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

kenballer

Pro

FIRST ROUND WILL JUST BE FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY

In this debate, I will explain how gay marriage is not a civil right as part of my argument and how its detrimental to society if we decide to legalize it or redefine the purpose of marriage.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

I would like to thank you for challenging me specifically and I accept your challenge. I understand the rules and will gladly debate this topic with you.
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of
the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

This quote is an example of why the U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage or even plural marriage. In fact, in both cases, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage.

After the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 regarding the issue of Same sex marriage endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today: http://www.cas.umt.edu...

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."

As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times. There are also plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling. Let me explain precisely why this is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage:

The traditional view of marriage is based on the anatomical possibility or "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders.

Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature either by accident or by choice. The state regulates this procreation by encouraging procreation and child-rearing to take place within a marriage. This is done in order to make sure they do not procreate and rear children in an unstable environment.

The Means to Achieve this Purpose:

The state uses the traditional idea of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships. There are two theories about the definition of marriage that potentially helps to achieve this purpose:

A. The Responsible Procreation Theory

The responsible procreation theory involves establishing family stablity where the state encourages heterosexual couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a environment that is best situated to raise children. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process.

There is empirical evidence that supports this theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

Just go to this website for the studies p.2: http://eprints.qut.edu.au...

B. The Optimal partnership theory

The optimal partnership theory involves establishing family structure where the state promotes the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. Family structure is about who the child is being raised with during the child development process.

There is also empirical evidence supporting this theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement. Here is an institute that mention the studies:
http://www.urban.org...

Therefore, it does not matter whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home for children.

WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE COUPLES?

The Fundamental right to marry:

Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny since it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. There are two more reasons why they allow the infertile to marry along with any other scenario regarding heterosexuals couples.

Responsible Procreation:

In order to actually know that couples are in fact infertile, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children. However, therapy and the availability of long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women) making it medically impossible to fully establish infertility. Not to mention, the state would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive and child rearing potential on the part of heterosexual couples.

Marriage:

As stated before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action.

Therefore, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous.

Next round, I will get to the equal protection clause
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Due to unforseen circumstances I will not be able to continue this debate.
When im off restriction i hope we may resume.
I should be able to re do this debate in 10 days.
I hope we may continue tyhis once my restriction is lifted
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Let me make something very clear here first. Bans on interracial marriage were deemed discriminatory because there were actual laws in writing that said it and directly targeted those relationships as a result. There are no laws that target and only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". The only law that exist is marriage only being between a man and a woman as it always has been in America.

The point is this is not about whether a law banning same sex marriage is constitutional. The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination.

Discrimination: " The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." [1]

1. Sex Equality

Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes ,which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination. When it comes to the Sexes, The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination. Thus, there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex.

2. Sexual Orientation Equality

Traditional marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause because providing a separate institution like civil unions to same sex couples is constitutional in this situation. For example, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against.

In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests. Just like marriage with gays and straights in this situation.[2]

In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well:

"Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation."[3]"it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber."

Obviously, this is all because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman. In order to show that discrimination exist between opposite sex and same sex couples, CON would have to provide a court case that establishes gay marriage to be a fundamental right as well.

JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW

Now, the existence of an infringement of a liberty or equal right would not automatically make a law unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Let's pretend for the sake of argument we are discriminating on same sex couples or gay individuals. I will even pretend that they are a suspect class ,which would require passing strict scrutiny from my side. Even if this is the case, my arguments would still pass the strict scrutiny test and justify the discrimination. I showed earlier how there's a compelling state interest for traditional marriage laws; now I will show how they are fully narrowly tailored:

GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE

My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in practice and/or in principle, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how:

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way.

THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT

Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well.

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible.

Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to continue advancing this interest in using the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place within a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case.

Now, the burden of proof is shifted onto CON. He must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. How is this good public policy?

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2] http://law.justia.com...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Before I begin I would like to thank pro for the brief interrmission on my part.
It was good sport of him to forgive my absence in round 2 now I will continue with my case
Resolution: Gay marrage is not a civil right
OBSERVATION 1.
The resolution does not state any country so thus it is the pro's duty to prove it isnt a civil right universally and it is the CON's duty to prove same sex marrage is a universal right
OBSERVATION 2
The resolution was never really stated accept with in the name of this debate so i must also look toRound 1 since that is were me and my opponenet agreed on the rules
OBSERVATION 3
According to Round 1 my opponent must prove how gay marrage is not a civil right also how it detrimits society.
Now to my arguements.

"Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and were not U.S. citizens. Since passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision has not been a precedent case, but retains historical significance."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Above is an example of when the supreme court has been proven wrong.
So thus even if they dictate a civil right and it may be law of the land, the still could, by moral standards be proven wrong.

Contetnion1
Universal Declaration of human rights
"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

http://www.un.org...

According to the Declaration of human rights a declaration sighned by all countries (Including the US) There is not limitation of marrage as long as the person is a man or a women.
Thus if the world agrees (Most of it either way)
That there is no overall ban on same sex marrage.
Since the entire world did not ban same sex marrage according to Observation 1 it is possible tha somewhere same sex marrage is a civil right.

"Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden."
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Above are countries that belive same sex marrage is a civil right, so thus, in some place it is a civil right and the resolution is wrong.

Contention 2.
Seperation of church and state
It is apprant that the united states holds christian values
Example:
Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"in the holy state of matrimony;"

Yes i may have cut a single peace out but it states "holy"
Holy- Specified or set apart for a religious purpose. Free dictionary.com
(also in my opponents he clearly states that the judicial system has a belief in �genisis� and they act apon the biblicaal book)
Thus according to the defintion matrimony is a religious matter thus the government holds it own version of religion.
Thomas Jefferson stated that there should be a seperation of church and state within the U.S.

Thomas jefferson was a leading founder and wished a state diffrent from britain( Which held its own idea of religion)
"Jefferson's metaphor ... cited repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thus according to a supreme court justice and many cases freedom of church and state is part of the first ammendentment or a crucial part to our country

IMPACT: Why this matters
If the state views marrage as part of its religion then it is not seperating church and state.
The united states constitution, the very thing supreme court justices are supposed to interpret, makes it unable for the state to enforce its religion on its people. Thus according to my esteemed opponent, the state is influencing its religion on the populus going against the foundation of the government and over stretching its powers
when a state over streches its powers it uses its new found power to benefit its self at the dtriment of its citizens.
this is all accomplished by the "morality " its is trying to preserve
Contention 3
socialtal effects of homosexual unions
premise: logic
in the first round my opponent tries to stae that if gay marrage detriments society for two reasons
A. governments duty to to influence morality and civilization.
B. that not having 2 biologica leads to terribel conditions for a child.
below are my counter arguements
A. Adolf Hitler belived he wass supporting civilization by discriminating and creating laws against certain peoples. and we both know his actions were moral.
also it is not the governments duty to advance morality and society (hey may have good intentions but often lead to disasturus affects)
B. the study he presents does not account for homosexual couples it merely states that in generalnot having 2 authentic parents leads to bad conditions.
it does not strictly mention homo sexuals and since itis not related to this subjectand no viable conjecture is made the evidence is useless.
in the next round i will present my rebuttal
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

I would like to apologize to my competitor. As many of you who followed my debates have already noticed, I am really bad at forming the right resolution and being consistent with that resolution.

The resolution was suppose to be "gay marriage is a civil right". My arguments above were geared more towards disproving this claim like in the context of a court room. To prevent a conduct violation, I will go along with this resolution.

PRO'S FIRST CONTENTION

Nevertheless, the nature of my arguments can still apply anywhere and to this resolution because I don't just say that gay marriage is not a civil right merely based on what the government and courts have randomly declared as CON even alluded to. I explain the moral and philosophical aspects behind it. For example, when Con mentioned Article 16 of the universal declaration, he put it out of context:

"Article 16
1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "

(If you noticed, In article 16, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER or the ARTIFICIAL family.)

Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well.

Its also important to explain the difference between civil rights and Human rights. Human rights are natural rights that exist absence of the government. Civil rights are rights that reside within constitutions of a particular nation that may or may not be recognizing a human right [1]. This means something can be a civil right but not a human right, but I am going to assume he means Civil rights in the context of human rights like I am referring to and not something separate. The Dred Scott case is a perfect example of something being a civil right but not a human right.

PRO'S SECOND CONTENTION

Again, CON puts another legal document out of context and this time he even admitted it by only mentioning the religious component. The point of showing the U.S. supreme court cases Murphy v. Ramsey and Baker v. Nelson was to show that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here. Instead, It is actually gay marriage supporters who are actually using the law to super impose their morals and beliefs onto society .

PRO'S THIRD CONTENTION

As I explained before, Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married. As a by-product, it provides a shared framework of concepts such as adultery, remarriage, divorce, etc. to be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for families as a result.

Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives;
the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them by the state as CON is implying. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts.

For example, The mere appearance of a green/ red traffic signals helps us know when to make the right choice to drive so drivers won't harm themselves and others. This is done to maintain order in the public arena. Is this also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality? I think not.

In the previous rounds, My arguments established the "is" portion by showing that gay marriage "is" not a civil right. Now, we are at the "ought" portion regarding public policy and legislation. I will explain why it should not be made into a civil right as part of why its not a civil right. Civil rights are about fairness and justice. They govern behavior to make sure we have order. The concept of gay marriage does not provide fairness nor is just and it potentially creates disorder if we consider making it into a Civil right.

LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE

The Social ramifications:

Based on the arguments and studies I mentioned in Round 1&2 involving the promotion of non-traditional views of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage as well; it logically follows that vulnerable future generations, will be programmed to formulate choices (like divorce, fatherlessness, etc) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result.

Legal ramifications:

The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [2]

THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE

This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (not subjective) reality in the process or else live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will impose their convoluted notion of equality and human rights. Nevertheless, these immediate effects of redefining marriage will also give us more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable:

Schools:

In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.

Now, I have explained how gay marriage is not a civil right based on the "is" and the "ought". CON must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole. However, even if he was successful in providing an argument for gay marriage, the benefits would have to outweigh the costs for gay marriage to be considered a civil right as its defined.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.law.harvard.edu.... 959-964
FlameofPrometheus

Con

SOURCES IN COMMENTS
I first would like to thank my opponent for providing a good rebuttal.
I will begin with attacks against my own case then move on to my rebuttal of my opponents
ATTACK AGAINST MY CASE
Contention 1
"the nature of my arguments can still apply anywhere and to this resolution because I don't just say that gay marriage is not a civil right merely based on what the government and courts have randomly declared as CON even alluded to."[1]
I never said courts randomly declare anything, but if one goes through my opponent's case one will find all of his evidence is directly related to court systems. He himself says its geared toward the courts
He goes on to state that he applies moral aspects
His whole banking behind "moral" aspects is that his morality has been determined by courts that 1. I have proven these courts wrong ( See dredd scott case) 2. That the court is trying to influence morality which is not the purpose of the government (more in contention2)
He has two remaining attacks against C1 They are as follows
A.I miss quote the universal declaration of human rights
B.Human rights vs. civil rights

A.Im not miss quoting
He states that a "family" must be created for marriage and that is what makes his argument moral (His source is a court case)
I WILL ATTACK THE MORAL IMPLICATIONS OF A FAMILY IN MY REBUTTAL
Also he states I am miss quoting the U.N. cause of family
Look below
Article 29
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
In other words you can't use this document against the U.N. Since the U.N. can appropriately interpret the document
Look below:
[2]
According to the above source the U.N. supports homosexuals and wishes them to have equal rights
Thus my opponents attack is invalid since he is using the declaration of human rights against the U.N. who clearly have respect for the rights of homosexuals
Thus the argument does not stand since my opponent himself misquoted the U.N.'s ideals
B.Human rights vs. civil rights
I am assuming that this is an attack
"Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rights.[4] They comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
(This comes from the same source pro used to clarify civil rights)
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"This means something can be a civil right but not a human right, but I am going to assume he means Civil rights in the context of human rights like I am referring to and not something separate."[1]
So my opponent and I agree that civil rights come from human rights
"The Dred Scott case is a perfect example of something being a civil right but not a human right."[1]
Or do we?
The Dred Scott case essentially said that
(excuse the terminology)
1.Black people are slaves regardless of there situation in the united states
2.Black people are also not citizens
This violates both the three natural rights (Life liberty…) AND the Declaration of human rights.
According to the definition it is also a civil right

CONTENTION 2
"The point of showing the U.S. Supreme Court cases … was to show that traditional marriage is an OBJECTIVE reality as well as a religious belief, so there is no religious encroachment in civil matters here."[1]
My response:
NO!
You can't seriously say that you are being objective and then throw in religion!
Objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: -dictionary.com
The state is not being objective if it's using a religious belief!
It is stated by Pro that they are using a religious belief
Since this is happening their laws are reflecting that,
They are impeding on rights
So my contention still stands since they are using religion that affects their laws and they are pressing their religion on the populous resulting in inequality and rights violations
"Instead, It is actually gay marriage supporters who are actually using the law to super impose their morals and beliefs onto society."
Just, just stop that. No.
We aren't using the law because there are no laws in America that allow homosexuals to marry.
That is erroneous and an insult
CONTENTION 3
"For example, the mere appearance of green / red traffic signals … Is this also a situation where the state is imposing someone's morality? I think not."[1]
Above is from opponents attack (look to his case for full attack)
1rst. I have yet to find anyone to have a morality that is against red and green lights so no one can actually be offended
2nd I never said everything a state does is bad. It is the states duty to protect your life. They didn't put lights for any religious purposes they place them there cause its their duty
3rd That whole example has nothing to do with civil rights. When has there ever been a riot over red lights and green lights? The two subjects aren't even close!
"Civil rights are about fairness and justice... The concept of gay marriage does not provide fairness nor is just and it potentially creates disorder if we consider making it into a Civil right."[1]
So the pro tries to ban gay marriage because having a particular sexual leaning is un-fair to the populous…
How can something be fair to everyone if its singles out a single group?
MY REBUTTAL
"CON must provide a compelling state reason for how redefining the purpose of marriage benefits society as a whole."
No I don't have to prove society will benefit, I just have to prove you wrong in that society won't change.
PURPOSE OF MARRAGE.
My opponent has stated that the purpose of marriage is to found a family and produce offspring. Also that it is the governments job to enforce this
I am refuting it now
MY OPPONENETS reason for saying the marrage is to start a family is that civil courts have said so.
I have already proven the American Court systems wrong (Which has gone un-refuted)
Because the courts are 1. Religious 2. They have made mistakes in the past (Dredd Scott case)
So thus their view cannot be used here
He says that by letting homosexual marry it will cause children to be lead astray
He supposedly has two empirical sources
ONE DOES not even mention homosexuals so it does not apply
THE OTHER does not have any statistical evidence only proof that homosexual numbers are increasing. (urban.org) other than that they offer no hard evidence of anything
SO THUS, same sex marrage does not destroy the family as my opponent would say
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
"There are no laws that target and only say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married"
This may be true but there was no laws saying that Blacks could get the same jobs as Whites so thus Blacks could only get certain jobs. This was a discriminatory practice until a law was passed creating "Equality"
Even though equal protection isn't "discriminatory" it still creates Inequality thus making homosexual in this case not equal to heterosexuals
THE PRO'S EQUAL PROTECTION is still promoting inequality and downgrading homosexuals not giving them the same rights as heterosexuals
SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
"In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal"
The civil rights era has already proven that separate is in no way equal. Inequality is still produced by creating restrictions on rights
LONG TERM EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE
The Social ramifications:
Ive already proven those studies worng
Legal ramifications:
There are countries as ive stated before that promote same sex marrage and they haven't collapsed obviously what ever the ramifications were (He quotes a book and offers no assement) they wont collapse America
THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE
He states that same sex marriage laws will offend people and not allow them to live with freedom of conscious
Well at the moment that is exactly what is happening with homosexuals. He is statingwe should lower homosexuals so heterosexuals feel better
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Pro

Contention 1

Well first off, unlike in the Dred Scott case, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children.

However, What CON does not seem to get is even if the U.S. supreme court overturns baker v. nelson today or the country establishes gender neutral marriage into our constitution, same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. What societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature. It is a relationship that we apply the word "marriage" to, but the relationship is what comes first and the central aspect of this relationship is the sexual union that brings about and develops the next generation which is an absolute necessity for the civilization to continue or any civilization for that matter. Since the continuation of society is the first concern of the state. The government has a vested interest in protecting the institution of marriage ( the relationship).

This is why virtually every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes and secular nations regulated marriage as defined.

Instead of my opponent addressing this argument, he starts talking about how gay people have human rights according to these governments. I have already explained how gays and lesbians and their relationships are being treated equally and are not being denied anything in the first place. This is because gay and straight individuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex to potentially procreate and rearing children or enter into a civil union.

Cons objection is that separate but equal has been proven to not work out in the past. If he is referring to the race segregation, then he would be correct. However, this is simply not true for men and women in principle or in practice and CON does not bother to address my refutations on this. In this situation, we are dealing with the Sexes and/or a minority as well, So my argument stands without refutation.

Contention 2

Just because the bible and religions also recognize a fundamental truth does not mean that this objective truth originated in the bible and religions. Marriage is a social institution that precedes state and church. I have a question to CON. Is attempting to ensure the well-being of children a religious belief? the religious aspect of marriage is simply a secondary effect.

CONTENTION 3

Lets just assume for the sake of argument that the traditional definition of marriage is purely a religious belief. It still does not follow that the state would be imposing this belief by merely referencing the definition of marriage. Again, The mere appearance, existence, or understanding that marriage is between a man and a woman ,which encourages us to procreate inside a marriage and not outside of it, is not imposing a morality anymore than our understanding that green light means "go" and red light means "stop" is imposing a morality.

Instead, This is moral rule which can be applied in all circumstances (making it universalised) which is justified (not using others as a means only). In other words, The law does not make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. This is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life in both situations. However, the difference is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. You have the freedom to marry or procreate and not get married or procreate. What CON says simply has no basis. Therefore, the state merely recognizing an objective biological reality cannot be considered imposing a morality

"So the pro tries to ban gay marriage because having a particular sexual leaning is un-fair to the populous…
How can something be fair to everyone if its singles out a single group?"

Again, The marriage laws on the books don't say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". When states legalize gay marriage, they do not call them gay marriage or straight marriage. They redefine marriage to just two people regardless of gender by no longer referencing the gender.

If, instead of "disallowing gay marriage", CON meant " legally recognizing marriage only between a man and a woman" , then the argument would be subject to the fallacy of equivocation ("traditional marriage" does not equal "disallowing gay marriage") in the same way that "disallowing satanism" does not equal "Christianity"); it would therefore be structurally unsound."

Nevertheless, Continuing to define marriages between one man and one woman for responsible procreation, along with providing civil unions for same sex couples, benefits all people including gay people as I demonstrated earlier. Therefore, since this purpose helps all people, it provides fairness and equality to all people . Ensuring the well-being children ensures the future of any country.

CON is attempting to redefine and change this purpose of marriage, So the question becomes why should we redefine marriage to just two people? How does this benefit society as a whole? the onus is on CON to provide an answer and argument because I satisfied my burden of proof as to why marriage should be defined traditionally.

If CON does not provide a reason that equally benefits all people, he would attempting to discriminate in favor of same sex couples in a unjust and unfair manner. Just because it would discriminate in favor of gay people rather than against does not make it any less discriminatory. In other words, Special rights are not civil rights.

CON says his argument is based on proving that society won't change at all. Well first off, I could have easily said the same thing and said that traditional marriage laws won't change or hurt same couples. However, even if we accept this as a bonafide argument for gay marriage, it conflicts with empirical observations. let's assume the long term effects will not happen, the short term effects I showed earlier clearly changed society for the worse. Therefore, my argument stands, especially if he does not provide an argument for this Non-traditional view of marriage.

Besides, this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated
the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage.

In conclusion, Other than mere assertions, CON refused to provide arguments that gay marriage is a civil right and simply made no effort to fully address the heart of my arguments and my refutations of his claims. Most importantly, he still did not provide a compelling state reason for his Non-traditional view of marriage that benefits all of us. Therefore, this is a concession on CON's part and I urge a PRO vote.
FlameofPrometheus

Con

Abbreviations
R1=Round 1
R2=Round 2
PR1=Pro' round 1
CR1=Con's round 1
C1
"Well first off, unlike in the Dred Scott case, the U.S. supreme court has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural … that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to promote responsible procreation and rearing of children." PR5
Two things
1.The Dred Scott argument was not about consistency it was proof that the supreme had in fact an immoral decision. So they are fallible if one looks above they will see this.
2.Pros theory of marriage is defined by a court in the U.S. I have shown that they are incredibly biased ( More on this later)
"same sex couples still would not and cannot be married because it is impossible by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. What societies, religions, and governments (including our country) call "marriage" actually flows from our very human nature." PR5
1.His only source for this reasoning is the supreme courts who are biased based on their moral and religious grounds
2.For us to argue that gay marriage is a civil right or not means that to say its not a civil right is to implies that it exists. ( This should not be considered a new argument since it's a basic principle of logic.
3.There are governments that exist that accept gay marriage (THIS HAS GONE UN REFUTED)
"Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden."
http://en.wikipedia.org...... CR3
So these governments obviously have their own idea and definition of what gay marriage is.
Why should we follow the United States definition only then?
"This is why virtually every government in the history of the world even the most simple tribes and secular nations regulated marriage as defined." PR5
Look at #3 above "Since 2001,"
Really now? This fact has gone un-refuted and it is clear our definition of marriage is completely different. But governments above regulate marriage to allow same sex couples.
"I have already explained how gays … are being treated equally and are not being denied anything in the first place. This is because gay and straight individuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex..."
They are denied happiness, maybe freedom from oppression or the value of equality. Also since gay marriage exists (Above source) and your denying that from them too.
"Cons objection is that separate but equal has been proven to not work out in the past… and CON does not bother to address my refutations on this. In this situation, we are dealing with the Sexes and/or a minority as well, So my argument stands without refutation." PR5
1.I rebutted this in CR4 so my opponent couldn't refute it till PR5 "does not bother to address my refutations on this" So what refutations did your offer? The only refutation is the one directly above so I didn't address any refutations cause they didn't exist
2.My argument is that separate but equal does not work you may try to be fair but one still denies a small group of people (homosexuals) rights held by normal people, so even though that is not discrimination ( According to the state.) It is still removing rights from a minority. Pro would tell you that this is in fact fair.
PRO DROPS the Universal declaration of human rights thus proving that the UN and other governments believe in gay marriage thus proving the resolution false.
CONTENTION 2
Below is his response to contention 2
"Just because the bible and religions also recognize a fundamental truth does not mean that this objective truth originated in the bible and religions. Marriage is a social institution that precedes state and church.... Is attempting to ensure the well-being of children a religious belief? the religious aspect of marriage is simply a secondary effect." PR5
1.Using the bible to move your decisions is in no way being OBJECTIVE (I should know I am an objectivist) You can't quote the bible then turn around and say that it has not influenced your decision.
2."Marriage is a social institution that precedes state and church." PR5
That is a new argument we have not discussed this at all. And he provides no evidence
3.Protecting children isn't a religious belief. But that clearly not why the court in every single one of your accounts disallowed gay marriage
4."The religious … effect." PR5 Religion should not be decided by the united states look below
"In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."
http://en.wikipedia.org...; CR3
(THIS HAS GONE UN-REFUTED)
So our First amendment clearly states that the even if religion is the secondary affect ( Which in reality it is not) It's not the government's duty to force religion on to people.
So all the attacks against Contention 2 fail
Since it is not the government's duty to dabble in religious matters according to our constitution THIS WAS NEVER REFUTED.

C3
"It still does not follow that the state would be imposing this belief by merely referencing the definition of marriage. …which encourages us to procreate inside a marriage and not outside of it, is not imposing a morality anymore than our understanding that green light means "go" and red light means "stop" is imposing a morality." PR5
1.Just because the state has 1 definition of marriage does not mean it applies everywhere.
If one looks through Pros entire case the only place this definition of marriage comes from is the court system which
A.Does not do its job correctly since its strayed from our constitution
B.It uses religion to influence its decisions results in a biased system
C.It is imposing its own version of morality In no way protecting life liberty and property thus if it is using its own morality it is going against the good of the country.
There are other countries that allow same sex marriage so thus PRO's definition cannot be applied everywhere.
"is not imposing a morality anymore than our understanding that green light means "go" and red light means "stop" is imposing a morality." PR5
Stop lights protect your life the fundamental duty of a government is to protect its citizen's life that is why it is formed. A red light does not impose morality. It gives a warning : If you continue you will get hurt and could possibly die. That is the purpose of traffic lights
TURN: As stated before how is the subject of banning gay marrage protect life liberty and property?
It doesn't. My opponent states that it is the government's job to rear children in the correct place.
One will find that is not in our constitution. (argument is from MY contention 2)
"Instead, This is moral rule which can be applied in all circumstances (making it universalized) which is justified (not using others as a means only)." PR5
This sense of morality is the categorical imperative. This is a brand new argument and should be thrown from the round. Also PRO previously stated morality is derived from the state.. Also Immanuel Kant (Founder of the imperative) Also states that regardless of anything all human beings are entitled to equal rights.
Also For the empirical studies of pro
" He supposedly has two empirical sources
ONE DOES not even mention homosexuals so it does not apply
THE OTHER does not have any statistical evidence only proof that homosexual numbers are increasing. …SO THUS, same sex marriage does not destroy the family as my opponent would say" CR4
this attack went undefeated
Voters
1.)I have won the debate on the definition of marriage
2.)PRO drops the universal declaration of human rights and The argument of Thomas Jefferson so C1 AND C2 stand undefeated
3.)Since I have negated the all counter arguments all of my contentions still stand
4.)I have left PRO with no room to stand on.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
Conduct to Pro due to the forfeit of round 2, and he had the better S/G. I hate to judge off of semantics, but considering the fact that the resolution states "Gay marriage is not a civil right" and not "Gay marriage should not be a civil right", all the Con had to do was prove that it was a civil right somewhere. The UN argument was iffy, but his claim that there were countries somewhere in the world that endorsed it as a civil right was correct and so it properly negates the resolution, even if the vote was off of semantics that's the only fair vote in my opinion. If I were the pro I'd work on structuring your resolutions better, and if I were the con I would work on your spelling and grammar, it was pretty bad.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
Pro may have finally formulated a resolution his stock arguments will support.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Easy win for pro if he knows what he is doing
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Eh, Pass.
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
No thanks :)
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
I'm going to have to pass for now....
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
Hmmm..... It looks interesting. :) I'd like to take a whack at NOM's ridiculous talking points, and this seems fun enough.

But I see you have this debate going with lots of other people too. Perhaps you should finish those first.

Also, I don't do rive round debates. And being the affirmative, it would be proper that I go first. I'm a bit busy now, but I can try to free up some time in the near future.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kenballerFlameofPrometheusTied
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: The winning points where the due process clause and the purpose of marriage which he adequately defended. He showed if the laws worked against them as long as due process was included it wasn't unconstitutional. The purpose of marriage wins always as it shows a right to marriage, but the right to same sex marriage is void as it dies not exist, and as homosexuals cannot procreate they don't apply. Overall pro wins.
Vote Placed by 000ike 4 years ago
000ike
kenballerFlameofPrometheusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: counter to MouthWash. Not only does that RFD show no evidence that he read the debate, but he grants an obscene amount of points to Pro only to skew the result of the debate.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
kenballerFlameofPrometheusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It's quite obvious. Con ignored the bulk of Pro's arguments and used strawmen (e.g. objective marriage point). Conduct for forfeiting and his spelling was atrocious.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
kenballerFlameofPrometheusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments