The Instigator
Fanath
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 6 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/24/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,525 times Debate No: 57056
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (6)

 

Fanath

Pro

This is for the DDO Tier Tournament take two. Lannan and I have been paired up to debate.

Rounds:

Pro

(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/rebuttals
(4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements

Con

(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals
(3) Rebuttals/Closing statements
(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else

Rules

(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling. This will result in a ff.
(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.
(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.

Thanks to Lannan for agreeing to debate this.
lannan13

Con

Contention 1: Overpopulation

Here's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.realclearscience.com...)See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. ( http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.


Contention 2: Homosexuals should not get married.

First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.


Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. (http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.

Contention 3: Civil Unions

Now I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.

  • the same sex
  • over 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)
  • not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriage
  • not closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)
Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).

Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
Fanath

Pro

In this round I only make contentions, then in the next round I present rebuttals as well, due to the debate structure agreed upon. I'll go right into showing my contentions now:

Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals

When gay marriage is not legalized, gays lose a considerable amount of rights. These include hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [1] This is something that married heterosexual couples would have, yet homosexual couples who are not able to get married do not receive. In fact, a New York Times article notes that this results in an increase of roughly
$41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over the course of a lifetime when compared to married heterosexual couples. [2] It clearly isn't fair to do this to homosexuals. An alternative to marriage could be civil unions, but that fails as it still does not give gays the rights that married couples have. For example, "Legal match" shows several rights that are given to married couples yet not people in civil unions:


    • "Legal recognition of the relationship in other states

    • The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married

    • Tax benefits available to married couples only

    • Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse

    • Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance" [3]



We can conclude from this point that only offering civil unions to gays and/or not giving gays the right to marry is an unfair rule that prevents equality and makes life harder on homosexuals.

Financial gain from gay marriage

Gay marriage certainly has an economic benefit to it as well. For example, it the first year gay marriage was legalized in New York City, a gain of $259 million resulted from the legalization. [4] The money comes from wedding related purchases made by people. Furthermore, as economist Adam Stevenson tells, legalizing gay marriage would bring in a 20-40 million dollar increase in taxes received. [5] This is obviously beneficial to the USA, as the money can be used for a variety of good things. By not legalizing gay marriage, the United States loses this money.
With these things in mind, we can conclude that gay marriage is economically beneficial to the USA.

We can conclude from the evidence shown above that gays deserve marriage, denying them it to them is unfair, and that it would be in the interest of the United States to legalize it due to economic reasons. Until these points are negated, I suggest that we all have good reason to think that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. In the next round, I'll rebut my opponents arguments.

Have a nice day.


Sources:

[1] http://www.freedomtomarry.org... (How does marriage strengthen families?)

[2] http://www.nytimes.com...

[3] http://www.legalmatch.com...

[4] http://money.cnn.com...

[5] http://www-personal.umich.edu...
lannan13

Con

Since my opponent only presented his arguments during this last round I'll extend my arguments across the board.







Now on to his contentions

Contention 1: Gay Couples should have same rights as heterosexuals.

Well my opponent is incorrect when he brought up how horrible Civil Unions have it compared to straights, but here is what he did not tell you is that Gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Take a look at a state that has legalized gay marriage, Massachusets for example. They have all the same defects as Pro had listed. (http://www.lambdalegal.org...) So if they are the same in that term then what makes legalizing gay marriage any better than a Civil Union.

My opponent is incorrect on the disolving of Civil Unions as you can disolve a Civil Union in other states. (http://www.wikihow.com...) and (http://civilunions.aclu-il.org...)

President Obama has also come up with equal Civil Unions. Here is his quote.

"We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." (http://reason.com...)

Contention 2: Financial gain from gay Marriage

Civil Union produce tons of money as well. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Debate Round No. 2
Fanath

Pro

My opponent mentions at the beginning of his round 2 arguments that I haven't addressed his points yet. This is because the debate structure prevented me from responding to his arguments in that round. If I had responded, that would have both violated the rules and would have given me an extra round of rebuttals. I just want to make sure everyone on the same page with this.

I'll address Con's contentions first then I'll defend mine.

The world does not have a population problem

Con provides some statistics on the world birth and death rates. He doesn't have any conclusion to this argument, so what the actual point is remains unclear. If he's trying to argue that gay marriage should not be legalized because the population is already decreasing, then the argument fails due to homosexuals not having children regardless of whether they can get married or not. They wouldn't have an effect on the population.

Homosexuals should not get married because it goes against various religions

"First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.


Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lithe with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.""

Con's verses don't advocate against gay marriage, rather they advocate against gay sex. These are obviously two different things, banning gay sex is an entirely different debate.

"Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women"

Con's source for this is a page on AmericanCatholic.org describing the seven Catholic sacraments. When we look at the section on marriage, it merely says:


"For Catholics, the Sacrament of Marriage, or Holy Matrimony, is a public sign that one gives oneself totally to this other person. It is also a public statement about God: the loving union of husband and wife speaks of family values and also God's values"

The words "for Catholics" limits these lines to only those who are Catholics, not everyone in the US. The bible is not the law of the land.

"Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene"

Con now claims that the US government would be violating separation of church and state if they legalized gay marriage, while the exact opposite is true. The First Amendment to the US Constitution forbids entanglement of religion with the state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [1]

Laws must have a secular purpose, not a religious one. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals for religious reasons obviously violates this, as it is saying that because a religion is against gay marriage, it should be illegal. The separation of church and state directly prohibits religion affecting laws. It isn't as if gay people getting married are somehow restricting a Christian's ability to pray.

Civil Unions over marriage


In many locations where two-partner unions exist that aren't classified as "marriage" the actual set of rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with those unions falls short of those recognized in marriage. For example, in New Jersey, one of the examples my opponent had brought up, civil unions have failed in guarantying gays rights. [2] There isn't any reason to keep this going, and legalizing gay marriage would prevent this from happening as companies wouldn't be able to find loopholes.

"So if they are the same in that term then what makes legalizing gay marriage any better than a Civil Union"

Calling a two-partner union a "marriage" for heterosexuals but a "civil union" for homosexuals is like the failed doctrine of "separate but equal."

Thank you.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...

[2]
http://blog.nj.com...
lannan13

Con

I know what the rules are, I was just stating the obvious.

Contention 1: Overpopulation

The reason I brought up this argument is that many people that I have faced on this topic bring up gay marriage will slow the birth rate of an already overpopulated world. I had to go first in this debate and did not know what Pro was going to bring up so I made this argument so I'd be ready, but considering Pro did not wish to have a debate under this contention we'll just leave it behind.

Contention 2: Homosexuals should not get married based on religious reasons.

At first my opponent states that the Bible is against gay sex, but let's all be serious here. You get married and you have sex. Even YYW and Bsh1 are contiplating it. (http://www.debate.org...) It's obvious that there is a link here.

Marriage is in other religions as well. Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage. (http://www.billionbibles.org...) Many religious groups do not support Gay Marriage, but do support Civil Unions which I'll get into later.



My opponent is incorrect on the 1st amendment as of a few days ago the Supreme Court Released it's Ruling on Religious institutions. The Hobby Lobby Case has implemented that companies have religious freedom and can't be enforced to cover contraceptives. (http://www.tpnn.com...) You might be asking yourself now, what on Earth does this have to do with Gay Marriage. Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional. Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (http://www.loc.gov...)

Contention 3: Civil Unions

My opponent brings up New Jersey, but he fails to bring to light how I proved last round that Civil Unions do work and Illinois is a huge example. He also drops how I stated that Civil Unions provided things that gay marriage doesn't in my last round. So I extend that across the board. He also drops the fact that many more people support Civil Unions compared to Gay Marriage. Heck, even more liberals support Civil Unions than Gay Marriage. Also, look to see how Collage grads support Civil Unions 21% more than Gay Marriage legalization. (charts above as source)

Contention 4: Financial gain from Gay Marriage

This was my opponent's own contention that he brought up in his own case, but failed to bring it up last round. This is a dropped argument and you can obviously see that states make more gains from the legalization of Civil Unions then from the legalization of Gay Marriage that I have brought up in my last round.

Conclusion

In conclusion, you can see that Civil Unions should be legalized over gay marriage for many reasons. Legalization of Civil Unions are better for the economy and more popular than gay marriage. The government cannot infringe on religions and doing so would in in violation of the first Amendment proved by the Supreme Court in the Recent Hobby Lobby case. Also Pro has Only brought up 2 contentions and has dropped his financial gains contention and by doing so has showed that Civil Unions are more economically friendly and beneficial than Gay Marriage. He has also dropped several arguments that I have made about Civil Unions being better than Gay Marriage.

So with that I thank you and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Fanath

Pro

Homosexuals should not get married based on religious reasons.

"At first my opponent states that the Bible is against gay sex, but let's all be serious here. You get married and you have sex"

People can get married for non sex related reasons. Homosexuality isn't purely a form of lust, it's a form of love. My opponent confirms that he is arguing that gay sex should be illegal. The odd thing in this is, he seems to think that gay marriage should be illegal because of gay sex, yet he supports civil unions. He's cherry picking information by claiming that married couples will have sex and not realizing people in civil unions will likely have sex as well. His argument can be used against him. Even if it couldn't, I've already shown how religion can have no effect on laws.



"Marriage is in other religions as well. Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage"

The number of religions who are against it doesn't matter. Religion can't have an effect on laws as I said last round.





"Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional"

I'm not sure where my opponent gets the idea that this somehow makes it un-constitutional. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force someone in a company to do something against their religion.

Secondly,, if we're going off of supreme court rulings, the supreme court has ruled multiple times that marriage is a fundamental right.
http://m.huffpost.com...

"Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

The Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a company to do something against their religion. This isn't to say that all things that may conflict with someone's religion is illegal... This also doesn't connect with gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force companies to have sex with someone of the same gender.

So my opponents argument here seems to be this:

P1: The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot force companies to do something against their religion.
P2: Gay marriage is technically an industry.
C: Gay marriage should be illegal.

The premise that he has to prove for this argument to work is: "Gay marriage forces companies to do something against their religion". He hasn't mentioned it nor has he proven this premise. I also want to point out that we can't say that providing benefits to gay couples is against people's religion, because the examples my opponent has brought up seems to be against gay sex, not marriage.

Contention 3: Civil Unions

"My opponent brings up New Jersey, but he fails to bring to light how I proved last round that Civil Unions do work and Illinois is a huge example"

I had said that civil unions don't work in many states and we need marriage to gave gays equal rights was the rebuttal I gave, yet Con is not responding to this, and is instead pointing out that they work in some states. Regardless of whether they work in some, others need gay marriage legalized to provide equality.




"He also drops the fact that many more people support Civil Unions compared to Gay Marriage. Heck, even more liberals support Civil Unions than Gay Marriage. Also, look to see how Collage grads support Civil Unions 21% more than Gay Marriage legalization. (charts above as source)"

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy... The statistics also have been outdated, as fifty percent of Americans say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not, according to a poll recently taken at march 5th 2014. The remaining 9 percent had no opinion either way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...


Financial gain from Gay Marriage

"This was my opponent's own contention that he brought up in his own case, but failed to bring it up last round. This is a dropped argument and you can obviously see that states make more gains from the legalization of Civil Unions then from the legalization of Gay Marriage that I have brought up in my last round"

I'm not sure how my opponent reaches this conclusion. I dropped the argument after realizing that both civil unions and gay marriage can give an economic benefit, and that the difference between the money gained is so small that it wouldn't be worth arguing about. My opponent said that civil unions give money as well, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean that civil unions would give off more money. Saying "This also has a financial gain" doesn't mean that it has a bigger impact. We can't really compare them on anyway, as there's to many factors we need to put into it. Population, current financial state, etc.

My opponents arguments have all been completely refuted, while my argument that gays deserve the same rights still stands. Vote Pro.

Make good choices.
lannan13

Con

No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 1/9:

An interesting debate to read!

The format of this debate was a bit strange. Based on the resolution, I would have assumed Pro had the presumptive BoP. But Con was given first round of argumentation, to argue AGAINST the motion, which might indicate he has the BoP. I'll caution Pro that he should make it clear how BoP should work, particularly when the debate is structured like this, where there might be conflicts in presumptive BoP. Luckily (spoiler alert!) I think Pro's case wound up being strong enough no matter how the BoP falls. But it could just as easily have been a bigger issue.

Con opened with his negative case. He rebuts overpopulation. Since Pro hadn't made this case, I'm not sure how it factors into Con's constructive at all, so, C1 seems irrelevant.

C2 from Con starts with a Bible verse. Prima facie, this is not a good strategy from Con. I mean, I'm obliged to wait for Pro to rebut, but using his own religious text to argue to assert his opinion over even those who do NOT have the same religion is not going to be likely to be a strong argument.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 2/9:

Con lists 2 bible verses, then says that homosexual marriage is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is abetween a man and a women [sic]. He admits that "the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene." What's odd here, again, is that prima facie this argument doesn't stand. I doubt we can "all agree" that marriage is a religious sacrament, nor does its LEGALIZATION equate in any sense with its OBLIGATION, any more than churches are obliged to marry interfaith couples when they don't want to. Obviously, again, these are things Pro has to bring up, but it just seems like a bad argument on its face.

Con moves to C3, Civil Unions. Con supports Civil Unions, saying they are "a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have." He admits here, that Civil Unions are NOT directly equivalent to marriages. He says he's against gay marriage because of Contention 2, that because some religions oppose it it should be illegal for all. It is, again, a strange tactic to take, just in general, but more specifically in his opening. He then argues that NJ and VT both have Civil Unions, and that "they give you the same exact right as a married couple". This is a contradiction from his definition of Civil Union, which says they get "some' of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have.

Con then gives some statistics as to the popular support for Civil Unions and Homosexual Marriage, respectively.

Pro opens R2 with his own contentions--rebuttals come in R3.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 3/9:

I'll note to Pro that his text was VERY tiny--sometimes that happens when you use the Rich Text feature (which is why I rarely use it, I hand code emphasis if I need it in the plain text window). Try to use a larger font, please, Pro!

Pro's contention is that Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals. He gives examples of ways in which gay couples suffer in comparison to straight couples, including hospital visits and taxation/inheritance rules, and protection during relationship dissolution. He notes Civil Unions, but says that CU fail "as it still does not give gays the rights that married couples have." He then lists some of the things that are available to married couples, but not to those in a CU. All of the things that Pro brings up are secular issues.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 4/9:

Pro says "We can conclude from this point that only offering civil unions to gays and/or not giving gays the right to marry is an unfair rule that prevents equality and makes life harder on homosexuals", and he seems to have strongly made that case.

Pro moves on to argue that gay marriage has an economic benefit as well, with wedding related purchases. He gives evidence that millions of dollars more are spent, which results in higher tax revenue.

Pro concludes, saying "We can conclude from the evidence shown above that gays deserve marriage, denying them it to them is unfair, and that it would be in the interest of the United States to legalize it due to economic reasons. Until these points are negated, I suggest that we all have good reason to think that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States." Though his text was tiny and his constructive relatively short, at this point it seems that he's fulfilled any burden that can be applied...but of course, the debate ain't over yet!

R3 starts rebuttals. Con says he extends his arguments, which seems a bit unfair considering that's how the debate was structured. He gives us graphs for his statistics, and then moves on to rebuttals. Con asserts that gay marriage has all the same problems as civil unions, but the source he gives is one about civil unions in New Jersey--it does not support his contention. He asserts that "you can dissolve a Civil Union in other states", which his own source flatly contradicts ("By entering into an Illinois civil union, you agree that the Illinois courts have authority over your relationship." In other words, you have to return to Illinois to get it dissolved.)

Con argues Obama "has also come up with equal Civil Unions", using a quote where Obama said "All those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal".
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 5/9:

Con hasn't shown they ARE equal with Civil Unions--especially since his very first definition contradicted that. Nor has he shown why it shouldn't be "marriage" under the law, and should be Civil Unions instead. While it could be argued that that's not necessarily his burden, the problem here is that if they're identical in EVERY way, he needs to give a reason why there should be a difference at all, and if they aren't equal in EVERY way, he has to justify that lack of equality.

Con argues that CU gives financial gain as well. This doens't negate Pro's point, but it does equally support Con's.

Pro opens R3 (his rebuttal round), by noting that debate structure prevented him from rebutting in R2.

Pro points out the irrelevancy of the population argument from Con. I agree that it seems irrelevant, I assume Con was trying to anticipate an argument from Pro.

Pro moves on to talk about Con's religious arguments. He quotes the majority of Con's case, which, just as a note, isn't really necessary (you could have summarized, Pro). Pro points out those verses advocate against gay sex, and that banning gay sex is an entirely different debate. An interesting point, actually, given that gay sex is already legal. Pro then notes that Pro's sources were Catholic-specific, indicating that those lines apply "only to those who are Catholics, not everyone in the US. The bible," Pro notes, "is not the law of the land".

Pro objects to Con's framing of the issue as one of religious freedom to those who are opposed to gay marriage. He says that "laws must have a secular purpose, not a religious one. Limiting marriage to heterosexuals for religious reasons obviously violates this, as it is saying that because a religion is against gay marriage, it should be illegal. The separation of church and state directly prohibits religion affecting laws. It isn't as if gay people getting married are somehow restricting a Christian's ability to pray."
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 6/9:

It seems a strong point.

Pro moves on to Civil Unions.

He points out that in New Jersey, civil unions have failed to guarantee gays rights, with a source that supports that. He equates it to the historical and failed policy of "separate but equal" in race relations--a compelling comparison.

Con opens the next round agreeing that he knows what the rules are, saying that he was just stating the obvious. I have nothing but respect for Con, so will assume no ill intent.

Con admits he brought up C1, for want of a better term and because it's funny, prophylactically. He says that it's a common argument he's responded to. He agrees to leave it behind, since it's irrelevant to Pro's case and doesn't do much to support Con's.

He moves on to C2, and argues that there's a link between sex and marriage. While true, it rather avoids the point that Pro was making, which was that the thing ACTUALLY being prohibited by the texts (gay sex) was allowed, while the thing not talked about at all (marriage) which merely is linked to sex, should be prevented under Con's framework.

Con then claims that Pro is incorrect on his 1st Amendment arguments. He uses Hobby Lobby, claiming that "he federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional."

Since the Hobby Lobby case was determined by the RFRA, and NOT the constitution, Con is clearly wrong on this point. Further, the ruling by SCOTUS was regarding the "least restrictive" clause of the RFRA, and actually just means that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to provide the contraceptives, but that they have to be provided by the Federal Government (or the carrier at no charge). While it is largely up to Pro to contest this point of Con's, it's so wildly WRONG on the facts of the case that I have a very hard time doing anything but completely disregarding it.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 7/9:

For Con's reference: the issue was that the law had already given an out for religious organizaitons, and SCOTUS ruled that that out should just as much apply to closely held corporations which are owned by religious people, so that they can ALSO use that out, wherein the government steps in to take care of those employees. It FLATLY does not mean that gay marriage is illegal now, and it DID NOT address the constitutional question. It was about secondary accommodation. If Gay marriage were legal, the US would be obliged to ensure that its legality was done in teh "least restrictive" manner possible while still achieving the aim of legalizing gay marriage.

Con moves on (thankfully) to Contention 3, complaining that Illinois is a huge example of Civil Unions working, and handwaving away New Jersey. He also brings up his statistics again, which I really don't think supports his case as much as he thinks it does. While it does factor in to the "should" question, the "should" question could still be yes even if an overwhelming majority were opposed.

Con makes the curious contention that he's shown that "states make more gains from the legalization of Civil Unions then from the legalization of Gay Marriage that I have brought up in my last round." He showed a higher number in a different state, but failed to show that that was in any way consistent, or that CU consistently provided MORE gains. I was willing to give him that the two were equal--that the financial benefits of gay marriage would be there just as much with CU, but if he really wants to argue that there are MORE gains, he's going to have to prove it.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 8/9:

He concludes, saying that CU should be legalized over gay marriage for many reasons, claiming that they're better for the economy (which he hasnt' proven), and that they're more popular (which isn't necessarily relevant). He then repeats another cringe-worthy comment about the Hobby Lobby case. I'd urge Con to read something like scotusblog.com, because wherever he's getting his information from seems to not be providing accurate information.

The final round is R4 from Pro (since Con's last round is, per the rules, "No round as agreed upon"). This is Pro's last chance for rebuttals.

Pro argues that sex is not necessarily directly linked to marriage, saying that people can get married for non sex related reasons and that homosexuality is a form of love. He notes that Con has basically conceded that his arguments would be better applied to making gay sex illegal. Pro points out the contradiction of Con's position in support of Civil Unions, since he's so against marriage because of the sex angle. It's a valid criticism. Pro notes that religion can't control laws in the US.

Pro notes that Con's statement regarding constitutionality is clearly mistaken (and for good measure includes a source noting that SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right).

Pro also doesn't seem to understand the ruling at hand, saying "The Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a company to do something against their religion." That's not what they said. SCOTUS ruled that you can't force them to do something against their religion, when the goal of the law can be achieved WITHOUT doing so--in the case of contraceptives, there was already an "out" in the law for religous organizations.

Seriously guys, PLEASE, BOTH OF YOU, TRY TO LEARN ABOUT THESE THINGS. YOU'RE GOING GIVE ME APOPLEXY.
Posted by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
RFD 9/9:

Pro moves on to show that Con's argument regarding this seems incoherent (though not in those words), which is true.

I'm mostly going to have to just throw out this whole supreme court thing entirely. Both sides seem to not understand what's going on with it, and are making assertions that aren't actually true--and not in the "I, personally, disagree with you" sense, but in the "you are saying the ruling says things it does not say". So in terms of scoring, rather than going to either side, it's getting ignored.

Pro notes that even if CU works in some states, they're inherently problematic enough to warrant the legalization of gay marriage instead.

Pro then finally gets to the statistics that Con keeps going on about. Not only does Pro argue for the irrelevancy of the statistics, he also gives some of his own showing that 50% think gays should have the right to marry, with 41% opposed, thus negating Con's point.

Pro admits he dropped the economic benefit argument when it was shown that CU also had benefit. He objects, to my mind rightly so, to Con's statement that CU provides MORE money.

In the end, Pro's correlation of CU with the "separate but equal" problems in racial relations was VERY compelling, while Con's arguments were weak and based on religion, which he could not justify as reasoning for law in the US, and the arguments against gay marriage could be cross applied against CU as much as marriage. He made several unsupported assertions, and got some facts wrong. Pro also got a few facts wrong, and I wish he'd addressed the statistics sooner, but in teh end Pro's case stood.

I didn't think conduct, S&G, or Sources warranted scoring. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Thanks for everyone who placed a vote!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Fanathlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct. S&G - Tie. Neither had any major grammatical or spelling errors. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources throughout this debate to further support their claims. Neither out-did the other in terms of quality or quantity that is worth awarding points, for this, they tie. Arguments - Pro. Con presented several rebuttals contentions including overpopulation which was eventually conceded by Con himself. Biblical scripture which Pro overcame due to semantics and Con's inability to prove that marriage automatically means sex will occur, and then church's position, which was the only thing Con really had going for him. Unfortunately for him, Pro overcame that as well by showing that gay marriage being legalized wouldn't affect the religious who would stick to their religious rules. Lastly, the financial gains point, was ultimately dropped by Con. For me, Pro maintained his burden through every round. For these reasons, Pro wins arguments points.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Fanathlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments, when it's done--various circumstances came up limiting my ability to vote earlier, for which I very much apologize to both debaters, and I need to vote quickly as a judge--I will attempt to get it up tonight or, at the latest, tomorrow (and then edit this to just say that the RFD is in comments). The short and poorer version is this: Con's religious arguments fail in the context of the debate, and Pro pointed out the flaws of the "separate but equal" notion of Civil Unions. But like I said, more detailed RFD up soon, with my profuse apologies.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Fanathlannan13Tied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: I am awarding this to pro with a slight edge. con actually did pretty well and Im giving him sources because his were actually interesting to read and added to his arguments. The issue for me was the points con brought up. He used things such as population control which were shot down by pro promptly. Essentially saying something *could be used* to control the population does not mean it is viable. Cons strongest point was possibly religion and civil unions, but it did not overcome pros crux which was equality. This entire debate was derailed and con never really rebutted the point about equality well enough to refute it leaving it up. From that point on it was about whether or not the bible justifies gay marriage and religious reasons, which was just minute compared to equal rights. Thus args to pro, sources to con
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Fanathlannan13Tied
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: RFD in comments (comment 13)
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
Fanathlannan13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave better arguments. Gay marriage is not the industry, it is the product of an industry which is the church offering marriage. As industries cannot be forced to do things against their religion, the civil union model presented by con was a stronger argument.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Fanathlannan13Tied
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: Pro's critique of biblical teaching was inaccurate.