The Instigator
Jzmn282
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kingcripple
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
kingcripple
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 582 times Debate No: 44395
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Jzmn282

Pro

I seen in a comment on one of the debates I was in you said you would love to be in a debate with me on "absolutely anything" so I decided to start one with you. Of course to know what I should debate you on I looked at your profile to get a grip on what things we might disagree on and I seen you disagree with gay marriage. Since I agree with it, it's the perfect topic.
This round is for acceptance.
I'll define the terms involved:
Gay- homosexual or attracted to people of one's own sex
Marriage- (depending on which definition you use)
1- the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
2- the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
3- an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected
4- an intimate or close union

To put a little format to this debate:
Here's how the debate will be formatted

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing statements

The rules here are simple:
No cursing
No "dumbing" down the opponent
Have good "sportsmanship"

I'd like to wish my opponent good luck, seeing as thing sort of thing has become much more accepted by the general public it's going to be hard to win. Of course, I'm not too good at winning debates so I guess that gives you a head-start.
kingcripple

Con

I accept, however the second definition of marriage you mentioned would effectively nullify any arguments i have. withdraw that second definition as that is what the debate is about. We are not debating the definition of marriage, and that second definition you mentioned is not, nor has it ever been the definition of marriage. other than that i accept
Debate Round No. 1
Jzmn282

Pro

Jzmn282 forfeited this round.
kingcripple

Con

I see my opponent has forfeited her argument round. Whatever the reason, I shall still post my opening arguments. I had one thing in particular I wanted to point out, but it may be a rebuttal than an actual argument. I wrestled with whether it was a rebuttal or an argument, so I will just wait til round three. Nevertheless here we go

First I am going to clarify my position on this topic. I am against both a federal and state laws allowing gay marriage, however I am also against both federal and state laws BANNING gay marriage as well. I would just as soon have the government stay out of it. Leave it up to the people conducting the marriage, be it judges, pastors, priests, rabbis, etc.

1. Marriage Itself is Not a Civil Right

Many proponents of gay marriage claim it is a civil right. But what is a civil right? A civil right is defined as, "right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress". I got this from Google. Now, let's take a look at the 13th and 14th amendments. I am only including these two as "subsequent acts of Congress" is not defined, but this shall still drive my point home.

13th amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. [1]

Even the staunchest of gay marriage proponents cannot argue that not making gay marriage legal would cause slavery or involuntary servitude, therefore we need not discuss this amendment any further

However, the 14th amendment may prove to be a little tricky

14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[2]

There are five sections of this amendment, but it is only the first one we need to pay attention to. Let's look at this carefully, shall we?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

This is the part where people argue that laws should be made allowing gay marriage. I can see how a very weak argument could be made, but that argument would be dead in the water.

The only case this could have an argument against is BANNING gay marriage. Nowhere does it elude to gay marriage being a civil right and therefore, laws should be made backing it.

The next part we need to look at is "nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property"

Let's define each of those shall we?

Life- he condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Liberty- quality individuals have to control their own actions [3]

Property- something that is owned by a person, business, etc. [4]

We could easily and safely assume that the right to life would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws. Likewise we could easily and safely assume liberties would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws, as well as the right to property would not be infringed upon by not making pro gay marriage laws.

However, making pro gay marriage laws WOULD infringe upon another man's liberties. Think of the pastors and other church leaders who do not wish to preside over said marriages. By using the definition of liberty, we can say that if gay marriage laws were passed, allowing gay couples to get married, church leaders' liberties would be denied as they would be forced to preside over gay marriages against their will. This would also fall under denying those same church leaders their 13th amendment rights.

I could even go as far as to say that not marrying, in any form would not infringe upon these rights,

1. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
2. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Jzmn282

Pro

Jzmn282 forfeited this round.
kingcripple

Con

My opponent has forfeited 2 rounds now. I suspect she is busy with something. That is just as well. Anyway, I have but one rebuttal. It was to a comment she made: "Definitions change over time. Gay used to mean happy". While she is right that gay means happy, she is wrong that definitions change and that gay "used to mean happy". It is still a synonym for happy. It also took on a slang meaning to also mean homosexual. This does not change the synonym meaning between gay and happy. That never changed. Just like the definition of marriage never changed to include same sex marriage. She is committing a category mistake here.
Debate Round No. 3
Jzmn282

Pro

Jzmn282 forfeited this round.
kingcripple

Con

for whatever reason pro has forfeited every round. oh well. Guess i win
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
It's a shame Jzmn Forfeited every round. Would've been alot more fun if she hadn't
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
I vote Pro, but not because of Pro's arguments (or lack of). I vote because I support gay marriage (or civil unions) as a simple matter of fairness, and because Con's arguments ignore many important issues. For example, Con states that we need concern ourselves only with the first part of the 14th Amendment. Con completely ignores the "equal protection of the laws" section, which is frequently the most solid basis of arguments in favor of gay unions (whether you call them "marriage" or "civil unions"). By ignoring this, Con has simply not made a valid argument.
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
be sure to vote. pro forfeited every round.
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
It is correct that "marriage" is (or at least originated as) a religious doctrine. This is why many European countries specifically separate "marriage" from "civil union." Two people may or may not choose to get married in a church, but the government will not recognize that marriage for legal purposes. In order to be recognized by the government for legal purposes (taxes and such), you must have a civil union. This is separate from any ceremony that may have been performed in a church. Perhaps this is the system that should be used in America. The arguments against gay marriage are apparently objections to the use of the word "marriage" rather than the concept of two people legitimizing their relationship.
Posted by DragonMan 2 years ago
DragonMan
Firstly the term marriage is a religious one and therefore cannot be amended by those who have no faith just like you can't say what should be written in the bible if you don't follow it.
Secondly the purpose of marriage was already given to gays with civil partnerships which for all purpose was exactly the same except it wasn't blessed with a religious ceremony?
May I ask then why Gays feel they want more when they have practically the same being provided
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
it was just a few observations. To be fair, I haven't won any debates either, so we are on equal ground there.
Posted by Jzmn282 2 years ago
Jzmn282
Comments on the "pre-debate" thoughts:
1. I apologize so much for saying seen instead of saw grammar Nazi, it's a common mistake.
2. Also, sorry to "rub it in" wasn't trying to really, just pointing out the fact that it is becoming more widely accepted and that I do in fact suck at arguments.
3. It wasn't an incorrect definition. I found that definition on Websters website dictionary and in fact, Webster happens to be a highly recognized dictionary. Definitions change over time, isn't that obvious in the fact that gay used to mean happy??
Posted by kaufmanj1973 2 years ago
kaufmanj1973
The typical excuse used against gay marriage is that, if two guys are allowed to get married, this will somehow "harm" heterosexual marriages. Yet, when asked exactly HOW such harm would occur, there are no answers. Does this mean that if Bob and Joe are allowed to get married to each other, then Dick and Jane from down the street are going to get a divorce, because now Dick is going to turn gay? If two guys are allowed to get married, is that suddenly going to make all of these heterosexual guys say, "Gee, now that I can get married to a guy, I guess I don't like vagina anymore"?
Posted by bro20 2 years ago
bro20
in my opinion everyone should be able to be happy and if that means marring a person of the same sex, then let them. whats the problem with gay marriage
Posted by kingcripple 2 years ago
kingcripple
Pre debate thoughts-

1. Grammar needs to be noticed. Already in laying down her challenge, Jzmn has committed a few grammatical errors "i seen a comment" "i seen you are against".

2. Jzmn has admitted that society has come to accept homosexuality thus guaranteeing herself a win. She is rubbing in that this may very well be her first win due to sly tactics.

3. Incorrect definition of marriage
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SPENCERJOYAGE14 2 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Jzmn282kingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF...
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Jzmn282kingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no arguments, provided no sources, and forfeited every round.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Jzmn282kingcrippleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, Pro made no arguments or citations.