The Instigator
HailedPanic913
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
rings48
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,133 times Debate No: 58661
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

HailedPanic913

Pro

Give me a good reason why it is bad. People deserve marriage just as much as anyone else. How would it feel if gays decided weather heterosexual marriage is illegal or not. How would it feel?
rings48

Con

I don't believe gay marriage is mad. I have several gay friends but making gay marriage legal in the current society and more problems than people would think.

1. Current laws are written for heterosexual marriages so many would have to be rewritten. Many laws, especially with those concerning children and divorce, have references to wife and husband which would bring to question "Well we are both wives so what now?".

http://www.hg.org...
2. In a divorce, precedent gives favor in most states to the female as having priority to the children. What happens with both parents are female and precedent gives both priority? What if one is transgender? Could they be argued as male instead, which would be unfair?

For Gay Marriages to become legal, there needs to be a comprehensive solution. So until a laws arise that deal with the federal and state laws and make them gender neutral, gay marriage shouldn't be legal.
Debate Round No. 1
HailedPanic913

Pro

If you and your former spouse agree on custody, the court will normally ratify your agreement without considering the details of how you lead your life. A judge won't know (or necessarily ask) whether one of you is living with another person unless your ex brings it to the judges attention.

If you and your spouse are battling over custody, however, the traditional advice is to not live with a new partner and to be discreet in your sexual activity, at least until the court makes a decision. This advice applies to both fault and no-fault divorces, as a parent living arrangement is always admissible in a custody dispute on the theory that a court needs as much information as possible to determine "the best interests of the child.'

The text above is from here
http://www.nolo.com...

Now anyway in any relationship one member Hetero or not one parent takes over as the dominate one. If you read above it talks about how the judge decides based on the kids perception of who he/she wants to be with. As for transgendered example boy to girl the boy would consider themselves a girl but they're actually a boy so if the judge would need to go to detail about that they will. But transsexual is when the individual gets surgery to change sex then they would be the opposite sex officially.
rings48

Con

I would like to say I want us to stay away from any religious and lifestyles contexts, especially those explained in the comment section.

And thanks for the link, I always wondered how courts perceived the issue (legally classifying transgender/transsexual).

1. Now going back, my first point still stands. Laws in marriage relations and divorce say wife, husband, father, mother. By making gay marriage legal suddenly, more problems would arise out of the wording of certain laws which would cause unnecessary complication. By creating civil unions, previous marriage laws could be argued that they don't apply.

2. Court case also would need to exist at a federal level to solve this: Is "gay marriage" the same as the previously noted "marriage" in court cases and laws?

3. Complications also arise in legal and medical paperwork listing "mother" or "father". School paperwork has the same issue.

My point is that "gay marriage" shouldn't be legal because it would cause such a massive number of legal problems. Should everyone be treated the same, yes, but writing laws to say "gay marriage " is legal is a bad idea.

Presenting a solution I thought about last night: Change the laws to not be gender specific. Otherwise a hundred years of laws will have to be brought up in court to be dealt with for the next 50 years. By changing the laws to not be gender specific, there would just be marriage that doesn't recognize gender.

Yet this still aligns with my argument because gay marriage would not be legal. Marriage would be marriage, without denoting the genders of those married. Yes gays would be able to marry then, but "gay marriage" would not exist. (I know my debate is falling into semantics but that's how the legal system works. Also the method means a completely different thing socially. Removing the denotation of gender in marriage says we are all equal and all marriages are equal. Gay marriage separates gay marriage from the traditional marriage which as you said, "people deserve marriage just as much as anyone else".)
Debate Round No. 2
HailedPanic913

Pro

.1 so isn't gay marriage very similar why does gender matter though? Take your example and basically it's like hetero both parents take the roles that a mom and dad would take . There can be children in both types of marriages that's their choice . Divorce is no different either one parent gets the kids or they both just keep the kid

2. What's the difference? Marriage is Marriage why does it matter if its gay or straight you don't call it (Straight Marriage).

3. Just change it from mother or father to the other if needed its not that big of a problem

4. You tell me a mass number of legal problems and give me some.

5. The Pledge of allegiance even says 'Liberty and Justice for All' For ALL including Gays which includes marriage

6. Marriage is all equal it shouldn't be labeled by gender I said what I said because ITS NOT LEGAL YET.
rings48

Con

Important Note: Acheiving the same goal by different means are two different things, they mean different things. Calling myself out, but my debate is partly based partly (like 60%) on semantics but the legal system lives off of semantics, so though I am not a fan of it, it must be used when you talk about laws.

Making gay marraige legal is to make homosexual marraige legal. This means writing a law that says homosexual marriage should be legal. This creates the legal term gay marriage, creating a difference between the previous marraige and the new gay marraige.

The largest roadbloack is state laws similar to DOMA that define marraige. "In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as 'only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife' ".

Ways to allow homosecuals to marry:

A. Making gay marraige legal. Adding a law that adds/amends DOMA style laws. By ameding DOMA, there must be a difference between marraige, the civil union of a male and female, and the gay marraige, allowing same sex marraige. This is the solution that cause problems. This is the solution we are arguing and that I am arguing against.

B. Making no such thing as gay and traditional marraige. Removal of DOMA and replacement with a law that does not differentiate in marraige. First you would have to get two bills for congress (removing Doma, then replacing it), which could leave the US in a state of limbo if the first finals. Finally, things would need to be solved at a state level. Which varies per state, but it would mean removing or amending a number of laws. This the solution I advocate but is not making gay marraige legal. It just means changing how we express gender in laws.

Analogies can be expressed as:

A. Red apples are the legal apples. And changing this to, red apples and green apples are the legal apples. But other laws and court cases say "Red apples must be healthy and from a tree". What about green apples? What if the the apple changes color, what now? What happens when laws refer to a specfic red apple tree (mother) and another specfic red apple tree (father)? By making it fair to green apples, you just made the system complicated and unfair to green and red apples for the next 50 years.

B. Removing the previous law and saying, "Apples are legal". In the court of law, there is no green or red apple, there is only apples. Green apples are not legal, there is no such thing as "green" apples.


Rebuttals:

1. How do you define in a marriage of two females who is the wife/mother?

Take Idaho for example: "The earnings and accumulations of the wife and of her minor children living with her or in her custody, while she is living separate from her husband are the separate property of the wife."

http://www.hg.org...

The point still stands.

2. But there is a difference. As solution A states, expressing a difference between marraige and gay marraige would mean that gay marraige would not inherent court cases and laws expressing gay marraige without each court case and law being amended.

3. Again, have fun changing laws on every state, then dealing with the court cases. :)

4. Look at state laws concerning divorce (which is most laws concerning marraige). Not every single one, but most have differences between genders.

http://www.hg.org...

http://www.law.cornell.edu... has less but it ignores other laws that influence marraige (often banning gay marraige).

5. Yeah they have the liberty to do as they please. Gays are represented in court as equal citizens to everyone else. That does not mean laws are equal to all. Taxes, affirmative action, etc are all unequal and legal.

6. You never said the debate was removing gender from laws. You said gay marraige should be legal. Again I refer to the difference between genderless laws and making gay marraige legal.

What I am NOT arguing gay marraige should be illegal. I am agruing that gay marriage should not be legal. Different things (semantics and definition in the court of law)
Debate Round No. 3
HailedPanic913

Pro

HailedPanic913 forfeited this round.
rings48

Con

*Twiddles Thumbs Awkwardly*
Debate Round No. 4
HailedPanic913

Pro

Sorry for the inconvenience but I was out of town and gay marriage is already legal in 19 states an you don't see the Limbo that you.

It doesn't even affect You or at all evolve you. This doesn't evolve the DOMA a bill signed in 1996 remember its 2014 and times have changed 19 states have legalized gay marriage and they are doing just fine.

As I said earlier Gay marriage is already legal in 19 states which the school system still hasn't collapsed.
"Gay marriage" is just a way of easily organizing the topics that gays should marry. When gay couples get married, they get married, not gay married.

What makes no sense why if you were gay and you wanted to get married how do you think they feel having to move away from there friends and families just to be married. When they SHOULD be allowed to marry anywhere.

Other people should not get to decide weather they can get married just because you love someone. People commonly base it off religion which there are homosexual religious types out there. But the reason they are so against it I because it bans them and being who they are.

You said '5. Yeah they have the liberty to do as they please. Gays are represented in court as equal citizens to everyone else. That does not mean laws are equal to all. Taxes, affirmative action, etc are all unequal and legal.' How? Taxes how are they any different tell me that.

'Gay marriage isn't it's own entity, it is saying gays should be able to get married.' Worded from fellow debater YaHey
Which is very TRUE.

It isn't anyone else's choice except them weather they can get married or not I don't think its fair weather people get to vote on if two people can get married that is taking away there rights. If you were in their shoes you wouldn't want other people to have the power over you. When you can't legally combine love with the very one you love.

having to change things legally isn't a reason to keep the idea of gay marriage illegal

A. Making gay marriage legal. Adding a law that adds/amends DOMA style laws. By amending DOMA, there must be a difference between marriage, the civil union of a male and female, and the gay marriage, allowing same sex marriage. This is the solution that cause problems. This is the solution we are arguing and that I am arguing against.
Which is there is no reason like I said in the very beginning.

DIVORCE the same either way no absolute difference between mm ,mw, ww . JUST GENDER

Instead of noticing healthy apple relationship and give rights and marriage equalities to both green and red apples and there applied.

So That Concludes My Argument For my first debate and I don't looking forward to loosing.
FYI I will enjoy the court cases if that what it takes :)
rings48

Con

Its fine if you were out of state, and I would prefer if people didn't just vote for me because of a ff round.

Rebuttals


1. "gay marriage is already legal in 19 states an you don't see the Limbo that you" - Most are done by court cases. Look at the court cases. The court cases use the logic of all people are equals, not gay marriage and traditional marraige are equal. As society changes, marraige is becoming more widely considered gender neutral. Thus reflecting in court cases where courts say that the law was unfair to cite a gender. They are not changing the courts cases on "make gay marraige legal".

http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...; - "policy for the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was determined at the county level at the discretion of local issuing authorities."

2. "How? Taxes how are they any different tell me that." - Taxes are higher on those with larger incomes. Though it is morally right for them to pay higher taxes, it does not treat all people as perfect equals. Because the individual is able to make more money means they should have more taken from them, which is unequal. I am definity NOT an advocate for the FLAT tax. I am just saying that taxes for those with higher incomes is unequal.

4. (NOT A REBUTTAL) "having to change things legally isn't a reason to keep the idea of gay marriage illegal" - This is pretty much signifies why I debated aganist you on this. How many people actually think about the legal process and the best way to make gay marraige legal? No one. They make demands and don't think the process.

5. "FYI I will enjoy the court cases if that what it takes :)" - Going to court is expensive, and can take a dramatic toll on people, relationships and families.

Arguments

Most of my points still stand, especially those on divorce laws.

Finally,

Gay marraige should not exist or be legal, because it identifies it as seperate from traditional marraige. Marraige without gender is a more appropiate means of accomplishing your goal (and is how courts are allowing same-sex marraiges).
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
Well today the issue is not that foster homes are terrible. There is really not many group homes, like on tv, but single family homes that open up to bring in another child. The real issue is that there is no long term placement for the child so they move around constantly. The whole point of the foster system is to take kids from a high risk home and put them in a stable low risk home. With things that I mentioned and the abundance of other risks involved, I would classify a homosexual household as pretty high risk. This is my opinion though and know that many will disagree but it is where I stand.
Posted by lightingbolt50 2 years ago
lightingbolt50
It's always disgusted me how people actually think having no parents is better than having 2 gay parents. No matter you position on gays, you should realize that foster homes are horrible, over-crowded places that no child deserves to live in.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
However, lesbians cannot create life without a male not themselves. Why should they embrace a temptation, no matter what it is. From a Christian perspective this should not be the case in any circumstance. Even not from a Christian point of view the health risks involved people should discourage homosexuality.

For instance, we now discourage smoking in society. Very few people say embrace smoking go for it, although not illegal it typically is negatively viewed or has negative connotations involved. Why? It is a bad habit, terrible for health, puts others at risk, decreases life spans by about 10 years typically. Well homosexuality, decreases life spans by 24 years. (Lifesite news) (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA) (Center for Disease Contol). So homosexuality is much worse than smoking regularly.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. ( The National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC) (National Aids Trust, NAT)
- MSM are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. (The National CDC and Prevention)

From children being exposed to health risks and having a greater chance of watching their adoptive parents suffer from diseases and STD's no homosexuals should not get to adopt.
Posted by HailedPanic913 2 years ago
HailedPanic913
cwt002

But lesbians commonly use sperm donors which creates life and men adopt which takes kids from foster care and gives them a home. If people have a temptation for same or opposite sex they should embrace it.
Posted by cwt002 2 years ago
cwt002
Why is there not a focus on the negative lifestyle of homosexuality? For instance the increase risks of diseases, or the first homosexual couple to ever adopt, the decreased life spans......

Christians are to be like Christ, meaning we should seek perfection (attempting to do what is right). Since homosexuality is a sin Christians should never embrace this lifestyle. Now, Christians are still people so we are imperfect and will make mistakes. But a true Christian recognizes their short comings repents and tries to improve their lives (Unfortunately this does not always occur but it is what we should do). If someone claims to be attracted to the opposite sex, their temptation, they should work to flee from it.
Posted by Jikpamu 2 years ago
Jikpamu
Defense of Gay Marriage Act = DOGMA
You can't be born gay if you are aborted.
I choose life because I was born that way.
I am Pro-Choice on Homosexuality and Pro-born-that-way on abortion.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
dumba 14: What about single parents? Should single parents be stripped of their right to parent?
Posted by HailedPanic913 2 years ago
HailedPanic913
dumba 14,

If a homosexual couple adopts a child isn't it better than going through a life without any parents?
Also in any relationship both people has a dominate personality than the other.
Posted by HailedPanic913 2 years ago
HailedPanic913
Kosovar,

You know there are also gay religious people and also the reason there aren't many homosexuals into religion due to its against them. Also you can't be learn to be gay from watching a role model.
Posted by dumba14 2 years ago
dumba14
Gay people should be given the rights to marry each other or do whatever they want to do because that is what freedom is about, but, after marriages the option of adoption of children should not be given to gays because according to the natural norms a child deserves the right to a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
HailedPanic913rings48Tied
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: Con didn't respond to what I felt was Pro's strongest argument, that gay marriage isn't separate from straight marriage, but just a way of organizing the topic of letting gay people marry.
Vote Placed by Mray56 2 years ago
Mray56
HailedPanic913rings48Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited 4th round. Conduct points will be granted to con. Cons arguments seemed easily resolvable, didn't present strong arguments. For Pro, arguments weren't very strong either, as pro arguments consisted of more opinion-based. For convincing arguments I will put as a tie.