The Instigator
michigainman56
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
JeffDaRef
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

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 3 votes the winner is...
JeffDaRef
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 873 times Debate No: 76096
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

michigainman56

Pro

Hello welcome to the debate! I will be pro for gay marriage. And con will be against gay marriage. 1ST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCE ONLY!! Good luck to you! (Please don't use to much religion to back your claim.) This is my 3rd gay marriage debate. Have a wonderful day! Thanks!
JeffDaRef

Con

Gay marriage should be depending on the senators and governors, although they may not accept for all 50 states. This violates religious beliefs, and should be illegal.
Debate Round No. 1
michigainman56

Pro

Thank you for joining I wish you the best of luck. This I plan will be opening arguments so set your case. In this round I will talk about how gay marriage helps the economy and how these people should have their freedom. And I will present other things that are legal today which violate religious beliefs. I will put sources in the comments at the end of the debate.
The economy: A study by the huffingtonpost finds that gay marriage unions would boost the economy by 166 million dollars. It would help the wedding industries. In the state of Massachusetts they enjoyed a 111 million dollar boost in their economy which they could be spending on a vast majority of things. So the anti-gay marriage supporters claim it will damage Americas economy but it will actually do the direct opposite. It will help it grow.

Freedom: Preventing people from further enhancing their love is a direct violation of the constitution. Why do we keep these people from marriage it is their sexual preference. Why should they be affected by a religion that they don't even follow? Lets look at abortion for example. Does it violate religious beliefs? Yes it does but is it the ethical thing to do to give women their freedom? Yes it is. So saying it violates a religious belief is true. But, is it the ethical thing to do to give these gay couples their freedom to marry? And, how does there marriage affect you? Will it change your life? If you haven't noticed a growing number of the U.S population is now in favor of same-sex marriage. By about 20 percent that's because Americans are now realizing that its the right thing to give these people their freedom. A very conservative and catholic nation: Ireland recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage even some Catholics voted in favor of this event. Like I said before people are now realizing that today is a different world. Do you think 2,000 years ago people came out as gay? No, but some people were probably gay. So for the freedom of the gay community gay marriage should be legalized. Have a nice day everyone. (Remember your opening argument should be fairly short)
JeffDaRef

Con

As my opponent says, gay marriage will save the economy millions of dollars. But what about religious beliefs and freedoms?

The site http://www.billtrack50.com... says "eculiarity of the marriage equality debate is the fact that the most vocal opponents of laws legalizing same-sex marriage are the people who are arguably the least affected by them. It is easy to understand why some people favor marriage equality " people in same-sex relationships, and their friends and families who support them, have a fairly tangible stake in the outcome. It"s harder to identify what is at stake personally for marriage equality opponents, so their arguments are usually made on behalf of society as a whole. Their main arguments fit into the following categories:

Same-sex marriage "de-values" traditional marriage;
God says he doesn"t like it;
Slippery slope to other non-traditional marriages (i.e., to animals, polygamy);
It threatens the religious freedom of clergy members.
The first three of these arguments hardly merit discussion"not because they aren"t contentious, but because debate is practically futile. The first two are wholly based on personal values and belief systems that are unlikely to change based on rational arguments, and slippery slope arguments are logically fallacious on their face. Even if these arguments were valid, it is difficult to see how the advocates of these arguments are affected " if your god doesn"t like gay marriages, you won"t get one; and if you don"t like the idea of polygamy, you won"t take multiple spouses.

The potential threat to religious freedom, however, is at least worth examining because it could directly impact people other than those entering same-sex unions. The supposed threat here is that laws allowing same-sex marriage will require religious officials to solemnize marriages to which they object based on religious doctrine, require churches to make facilities equally available for same-sex marriage ceremonies, or at the least expose them to civil lawsuits for discriminating against same-sex marriages.[i] There is something personally at stake for religious officials and clergy in this case. Even most supporters of same-sex marriage would agree that this would be a significant transgression of First Amendment religious freedom as well as bad public policy. However, as one examines the various laws allowing same-sex marriage or other unions, this seems to be a threat in only theory and not in practice.

States Recognizing Same-Sex Relationships

Full civil marriage rights are currently afforded to same-sex couples by six states " Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont " as well as the District of Columbia. Two more states, Washington and Maryland, have passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage, but face the possibility of being overturned at the polls this November. And of course there"s California, where stays in the Prop. 8 appeals process has left marriage equality in limbo.

In addition, there are ten states[ii] that do not offer same-sex "marriage" but allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions or domestic partnerships. These range from civil unions that are legally equivalent to marriage and even require a ceremony (such as in Delaware) to domestic partnerships that confer a more limited set of rights and obligations than marriage (and often stricter requirements, such as proof of cohabitation for a specified time period) and involve no ceremony, just filing registration paperwork with the county clerk.

Religious Freedom Clauses

Of the nineteen aforementioned jurisdictions offering (or about to offer) same-sex couple recognition, fourteen of them have statutes explicitly exempting religious officials from the obligation to offer marriage solemnization to same-sex couples. Many, such as Washington"s, not only exempt clergy from performing ceremonies, but also allow religious organizations to refuse any sort of accommodations, facilities, privileges, or goods relating to a same-sex marriage, and provide immunity from any civil action relating to such a refusal.

The five states that recognize same-sex couples but do not have such statutory religious exemptions are California, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. However, there is still very little danger that religious freedom would be infringed in any of these states.

Wisconsin"s and Maine"s domestic partnership laws are explicitly intended to be much weaker than marriage. The first section of the Wisconsin law provides: "the legal status of domestic partnership as established in this chapter is not substantially similar to that of marriage. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as inconsistent with or a violation of article XIII, section 13, of the Wisconsin Constitution" (which limits marriage to one man and one woman"
Debate Round No. 2
michigainman56

Pro

Jeff Da raff has broken a debate rule. I clearly stated that the opening argument must be short. He made it as long as it could be. Jeff Da Raff will be forced to forfeit. If, not then the voters will for sure vote pro.
JeffDaRef

Con

dude.... the spaces between the columns make up some of them.
Debate Round No. 3
michigainman56

Pro

You still broke the rules of this debate. Due to con breaking the debate rules. He has lost the debate. Vote Pro. I mentoined the rule in the 2nd round.
JeffDaRef

Con

I forfeit. You win. I went to the like model UN camps, not these camps. Good game tho, and i have learned a lot of debete here. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
==============================================
>Votes reported: CookieMonster9 & 9spaceking // Moderator decision: sufficient

[*Vote report*] Both voters failed to give effect to the rule that Con broke.

[*Reason for non-removal*] If you want to limit the space for argumentation, make the character space requirements shorter. This is not a rule that moderators will enforce, especially since as CookieMonster9 points out, what constitutes a "short argument" is arbitrary.
===============================================
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
===============================================================
> Reported vote: HomelySherlock // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con actually made logical arguments. Pro refused to debate because Con made too many arguments. In my eyes, that's as good as a forfeit.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain S&G and sources points.
================================================================
Posted by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
CookieMonster9
Should and have are a big difference. Yes you do have to pick the direct words of what you mean.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
Con clearly forfeited back in the 4th round.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
VOTER I REPORTED YOUR VOTE HE BROKE THE RULES I CLEARLY stated that rule in round 2.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
He broke the rules?
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
Ha how foolish of you. Do I have to pick my direct words I choose? You still broke the rules. It SHOULD of been short. It wasn't you broke the rules. Due to rule breaking I get the win.
Posted by JeffDaRef 1 year ago
JeffDaRef
you said SHOULD, but it doesn't have to be short. Should and have have a big difference.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
michigainman56
Jeff da Raff has broken a debate rule. He will be forced to forfeit.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
michigainman56JeffDaRefTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Violation of rules and forfeiture
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 1 year ago
CookieMonster9
michigainman56JeffDaRefTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets argument points because Pro would not argue the arguments but instead complain that supposedly Pro broke the rules for a short argument. There are two things I have to say about this. First off all rules have to be cleared in the first round. If he wanted Con to make a short opening argument he should have said it in the first round instead of the second round. Second off there is no definition to a "short argument". It is based on perspective, so when you say a short argument that is not really specific of how long or how short. Con got source points because Pro had no sources.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
michigainman56JeffDaRefTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: con's argument was pretty short. (about 5,000 characters is nothing) I don't see why pro is complaining and giving up.