The Instigator
DebatingPerson911
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Government should restrict same gender marriage.

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 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 741 times Debate No: 45670
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

DebatingPerson911

Con

Suppose you are a boy and you just happened to fall in love with another boy. After a couple years of dating, you want to get married. Then you go to the state authority to get your marriage license...only you can't. The government is not allowing same gender marriage. First of all, government doesn't have this power and secondly, they can't limit our rights.

In the enumerated powers in the Constitution, government was never given the power to limit same gender marriage, so why should we give it to them? The answer is we shouldn't because of the following.

The purpose and function of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people. This would be achieved by limiting the power and abuse of power of the government. However throughout the years, government has went against the purpose and used implied powers (powers twisted that is not an enumerated power) and, in some cases, didn't protect the rights of the people, which could be the result of letting government restrict same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage is legal in only a few states. In these states, the government is not protecting the rights of the people; they are limiting it. If we give the government this power, they are only limiting the rights of us, the people. Plus, if we give the government this power, we are giving government the power that they don't have. This expansion of power is not limiting the power government has. Plus, the government my abuse this power.

Therefore, the government shouldn't restrict same gender marriage.
donald.keller

Pro

Outline:

To prove the Resolution false, I will first prove that Gay Marriage isn't a protected right in Argument I, then move to show why the Government acknowledges Marriage in the first place in Argument II, showing that acknowledging Gay Marriage is outside the Governments reason for acknowledging Marriage.

Argument I: Right To Marriage.

The US is a Constitutional Republic. This means that the will of the people can not go against the Constitution. However, Marriage isn't a Constitutional Right.

Doing a quick Word Find on either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, we find the words Marriage or Civil Union are brought up not once.(1,2) Neither documents ever granted the right to marriage. Marriage isn't implicit, either. The 9th Amendment only works if the right is implicit, as of United States v. Vital Health Products(3) There is no right to marriage, therefore being denied marriage is not unconstitutional. Passing such an Amendment requires a super majority, but only half of Americans support any such law to make it legal.(4)

Because the right to marriage doesn't exist, the states are free to decide. 6 States have slightly less than 50% approval, 10 states have quite a large majority opposed to gay marriage, and 4 states are widely against Gay Marriage (5). As is the law of the Constitution, those 20 states should NOT legalized Gay Marriage, as it would go against the will of the people. Making them approve of Gay Marriage would be unconstitutional, until an Amendment is passed making them, and without a super-majority, passing such an Amendment would also be unconstitutional.

1) http://tinyurl.com...
2) http://tinyurl.com...
3) http://tinyurl.com...
4) http://tinyurl.com...
5) http://tinyurl.com...

Argument II: Purpose of Marriage

The law has one job, to accomplish a practical goal. This is the only reason the law recognizes Marriage, and to recognize Gay Marriage would be outside of it's place. Marriage is to encourage the creation of new children. Gay Couples can not produce new children. Therefore recognizing Gay Marriage goes against the law's main job.

The Government invests in Married Couples. Tax Cuts and benefits that cost a lot of money. Just one child will make that back many times over, so it's a valuable invested. One that can not be accomplished with Gay Marriage. Since Gay Couple can not produce new children, it can not pay back the investment made. Gay Marriage goes against every practical reason behind the Governments recognizing Marriage in the first place. And would be very costly.

Conclusion:

Gay Marriage is NOT a Constitution Right. It is recognized, and invested heavily in, for one reason. The creation of new children. Without that ability, Gay Marriage goes against every practical reason Marriage is recognized by the state, and would cost the Government a lot in Tax Cuts ans Benefits that they can not pay back in new Children.

The Resolution does not hold.
Debate Round No. 1
DebatingPerson911

Con

Exactly, same gender marriage is NOT a Constitutional right, so government doesn't have the power to restrict it. Giving government this power will go against the whole purpose of government!

You talk about how being denied marriage is not unconstitutional, but it is. Government should protect the rights of the people. By not letting you marry who you want, you are denying the people's right to get married. Honestly, that sounds unconstitutional to me, since it is going against the whole freaking purpose of the Constitution.

In Amendment 10, it says all power not given to the federal government will go to either the State or the people. In this case, it went to the state. So the states should be the one to decide if they want same gender marriage.

In your last paragraph of Argument 1, you state that same gender marriage would force them to allow it, but that is not completely correct. Like the Constitution, it will only apply to the people who agree to it. Plus, if the majority of the states don't like same gender marriage, then mostly the people won't do it, and only a small minority will have same gender marriage. So it shouldn't be a problem in the states.

Same gender marriage is a power given to the states, not the federal government, and if the states are so against it, there would be a very small amount of same gender marriage.
donald.keller

Pro

Rebuttal I: Constitutional Right.

Con does not understand the premise of not being in the Constitution. Being a Right in the Constitution means it can NOT be restricted, with exception of course. Not being a right means it can be restricted.

The Government does protect the rights of the people, all 25 or so of them (1). Marriage, not being in the Bill of Rights, isn't a right. Con can not claim the Government should protect the right to Marriage, when there literally is no such right. In order for Con's argument to stand, Marriage must be made a Right. This requires an Amendment, as I've already said. An Amendment requires a super majority, but we aren't even close to one. Making an Amendment protecting the right to marriage would be unconstitutional without the support of a super majority.

Rebuttal II: The States.

I've already stated that 20 states do not approve of Gay Marriage. Making them approve of Gay Marriage is unconstitutional. The States shouldn't make Gay Marriage legal, they should do what their constituents want, while keeping Practical. The Majority wants X, but the Government can't give X because it's not practical. Those 20 states shouldn't legalize Gay Marriage because theirpeople are against it, and the other 30 shouldn't because it's not practical, as mentioned in Argument II. Con brings up how Gay Marriage only effects a few. That isn't how laws work. If the majority in a state is against Gay Marriage, that state can't legalize it. Doing something against the will of the majority is unconstitutional. The Constitution applies to everyone, even those against it. This is why people completely against it still have the Free Speech to talk bad about it.

The next restriction to Gay Marriage was the role of Marriage, which was entirely dropped by Con. Government doesn't control marriage, it just invests in it hoping to make a profit off the creation of new children. That is the ONLY reason Government recognizes marriage. Gay Marriage goes entirely against that principle.

Conclusion:

Con has dropped my entire Argument II case, and argued that Marriage was a right, when I've already proven it wasn't. Since Gay Marriage is outside of the practical purposes of Marriage, Government has no place recognizing it.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DebatingPerson911 3 years ago
DebatingPerson911
Good job Donal.Keller.
That was a good argument.
May the best debater win!
GOOD LUCK!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
DebatingPerson911donald.kellerTied
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: He made a better point
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
DebatingPerson911donald.kellerTied
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 wrote "government" in the topic, but I think meant "Federal government," because Con was arguing for states' rights. In the status quo, the United States Federal Government has not opposed same-sex marriage. It is entirely a states' right issue already. Furthermore, you did drop DK's "marriage is about kids" argument. I don't think it would have taken much to refute that; forgetting to do so will cost you Con. Winner is Pro. Both debaters are very insightful: Thanks.