The Instigator
gomergcc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 758 times Debate No: 67460
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

gomergcc

Pro


The topic of the debate:


Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories.



Con as the honor of posting their argument first.


kasmic

Con

Thanks for the debate and good luck

The following is taken from the New Member Orientation.

"The burden of proof

Be aware that there are least four theories as to who has the burden of proof:

1. Whoever is Pro.
2. Whoever instigated the debate.
3. Whoever wants a change in the status quo.
4. There is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins.

"Often 1, 2, and 3 are the same person, but not always.. 4 is usually only favored by novice debaters. Sometimes a debater calls himself Con, but is clearly the proponent of the resolution."(1)

As such Pro is 1,2,and 3. Both of us have competed in more than 15 debates and have an ELO over 2,300. Therefore I think it is reasonable to conclude that we are not Novices. Neither of us would have qualified to participate in the begginer tournament. Therefore, It is reasonable to conclude that Pro has full burden of proof.

It is up to pro to show that Gay marriage should be legal in all U.S. States and Territories. My role is to show that he has not met this burden.

As such, no argument has been made that can support the resolution. Thus far Pro has failed to fill his burden.
The resolution is negated.

(1)http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 1
gomergcc

Pro

I clearly stated to Con in the comments how I set up the debate. I don’t have to be a novice to make a debate in this style. I personally would consider myself still a noob to the site since I have only been on the site for 3 weeks, and a lot of my wins are from the other member forfeiting the debate.


“As to your claim that full burden of proof that is not correct. Currently there is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins. This is a recognized debate style by this site. Also it does have an argument currently supporting it. All though I do admit it is just an opinion based argument with no source other than myself. This is still an argument. If Con wishes to lose there one round advantage making such a semantic argument that is on them.”


Since Con knew before the debate started that there was no burden of proof and it would be who ever made the best argument this stands for the debate accepting this debate without any notification of the non-acceptance of this term Con as agreed to it.



The Debate:


The US is founded upon liberty and freedom. Not allowing Homosexual Marriage is violation of these principles. It is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage. There is no justifiable reason to have 14 supreme court cases, since 1888, ruling that marriage is a fundamental right to everyone and then deny a group of people this right. If I made an argument that senior citizens should not have the right to free speech, women the right to privacy, people wearing blue shorts could not cross state lines, or brown haired people don’t have the right to bear arms you would laugh at the ridiculousness of my argument. Homosexual marriage bans are no different. It is still denying a group of people a fundamental right.



http://www.law.cornell.edu...


http://www.gallup.com...


http://www.afer.org...

kasmic

Con

Very well. Voters just vote for the better argument. For the record I am not personally against gay marriage, no need to get mad at me for my “position” in this debate. I am con in this debate and will play my role.

1: Marriage, Religion and Government

Marriage has deep roots as a religious rite. As such in the United States anyone can marry anyone or anything else within their religion. The debate over legalizing same sex marriage rests on Marriage in relation to the Government. As such, the debate is over whether the government recognizes a marriage or not for legal purposes. I bring this up as an example that a same sex couple is perfectly able to marry each other. However, that does not mean that such a marriage is recognized by the State. Ergo, this debate rests on if the Government should recognize same sex marriage.

2: Marriage as a right

Pro says of Homosexual marriage bans “It is still denying a group of people a fundamental right.”

Marriage is not an unalienable right, rather it is a Inalienable right.

“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."(1)

“Inalienable rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.”(1)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence)

Our society is founded on the idea that governments are instituted to “secure” not to “grant” unalienable rights.

In the U.S. every State requires a marriage license. This must be purchased and each State has requirements that must be met to acquire such a license. For example, A state may require…

“A marriage license issued by the county clerk or clerk of the court (along with payment of a fee).

Both man and woman are 18 or older, or have the consent of a parent or a judge if younger.

Proof of immunity or vaccination for certain diseases

Proof of the termination of any prior marriages by death, judgment of dissolution (divorce) or annulment.”(2)

From this it is reasonable to conclude that Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. This is the case as being licensed requires being granted the right to do the licensed activity provided you meet the standards set by the State. I.E. Driving, or in this case, Marriage. “You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government.”(1) While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable.

3: Principles of our democracy

Pro says It is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.”

“What's important to remember is this: It's up to the states to decide who can and can't get married.”(3)

In the State of Utah “57 percent of residents oppose same-sex marriage, while 36 percent support it and 6 percent are undecided, according to the survey conducted by longtime pollster Dan Jones & Associates/Cicero Group on Jan. 14-16. It has a plus or minus 3.6 percent margin of error.”(4)


As marriage is left to the states it matters not if 55% of Americans are for same sex marriage if in individual States the majority are against it. My opponent seems to support the majority opinion as a reason to make something legal or illegal as he has sited it as a democratic principle. As such, democratically it is reasonable to conclude that if a majority of residents in any given State oppose same sex marriage, it would be reasonable to not recognize such a marriage. As is the case in Utah.

4: Examples given by Pro

Pro says “If I made an argument that senior citizens should not have the right to free speech, women the right to privacy, people wearing blue shorts could not cross state lines, or brown haired people don’t have the right to bear arms you would laugh at the ridiculousness of my argument.”

It should be noted that the “right” to free speech and privacy are unalienable rights, unlike marriage. I do not need a license for either. As far as the other examples, pro is right, I would laugh at the ridiculousness of his argument.

5: Conclusion

This debate is about what “should” be done. What should be done is respect for democratic principles. State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected.


(1) http://unalienable.com...
(2) http://usmarriagelaws.com...
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(4) http://www.deseretnews.com...

Debate Round No. 2
gomergcc

Pro


State Rights:


While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state most recognize the marriage of another state. A state can’t say it not a marriage because immunity or vaccination for certain diseases was not a requirement by another state. Bans on homosexual marriage have been doing this. One state recognizes the marriage issue a marriage license. The couple moves to another state and then it not a legal marriage anymore. How is this any different than stopping people wearing blue shorts at the state line and making them change into pants? At the state border you have made the couple change from a marriage to a dating couple.


http://www.wbir.com...




State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected.


Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle. Is it reasonable to allow the state to make a requirement that enables a fundamental right to be denied because of the views of a religious group? No it is not. This was already determined when states had banned interracial marriages. If you allow this were does it stop? Can states ban building permits to Jewish people? Can they ban marriage to white women? Ban brown hair people from gun permits?


There has to be a line that says that is too far. Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though. Many of my examples sound ridiculous because we all understand this. When it comes to homosexual marriage many people don’t see that the arguments against it are just as ridiculous as my examples. All I have done is change it the arguments to another subject matter. All of my examples are taken from real world arguments against homosexual people.



kasmic

Con

Note Extended Arguments:

Pro did not dispute the fact that Marriage is not an unalienable right.

Rebuttals:

State Rights:

Pro says “While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state must recognize the marriage of another state.”

This is half true, as it depends on which Government Agency you are dealing with… Federal or State.

“Since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down DOMA's definition of marriage as unconstitutional, the federal government must now recognize valid same-sex marriages.

However, the eligibility rules for benefits do vary among federal agencies. Some agencies, such as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the IRS and the US Office of Personnel and Management, will recognize all valid same-sex marriages, regardless of where same-sex married couples reside. All legally married, same-sex couples will qualify for immigration status, federal tax benefits and federal employee benefits (if either spouse works for the federal government), even if they reside in states that don't recognize their same-sex marriage.

But other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, only recognize marriages that are valid in the state where the couple resides. So a same-sex married spouse living in a non-recognition state will not qualify for Social Security benefits under his or her spouse's work records.”(1)

So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not.

The flaw in my opponents argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State.

“recognize there are so many variances in our state to state laws, the average individual may have difficulty keeping up with those laws well enough to prevent them from breaking the law, especially as they travel.”(2)

Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others.

Pro says “Is it reasonable to allow each state the ability to make requirements that in sure each party is of able mind and body to enter into the contact that marriage is under the law? Yes more than reasonable it is a sound logical principle.”

I agree, however the logic my opponent and I see in this is matters little. Pro argued initially that a ban on gay marriage "is also in violation of the principles of democracy, as 55% of Americans agree with allowing gay marriage.”

However, now that it has been established that such a ban is the result of the principles of democracy he rebuts by saying “Mob rule cannot be allowed to do anything it wants. Yes it is great that we as a people get to have a voice in the laws of our states. This has to be kept in check though.”

Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.”

Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected.

(1) http://www.nolo.com...

(2) http://www.handgunlaw.us...

Debate Round No. 3
gomergcc

Pro

So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not.
Imagine using the argument my opponent has when it comes to Marijuana. Say I legally buy some in the great state of Colorado, and then take it to Utah and get arrested then to claim Full faith and Credit Clause from the Constitution of the United States. Not all laws or rights protected in one state are honored by others.

The flaw in my opponent’s argument is easily seen when applied to other State “rights.” For example, States do not always honor conceal carry permits from another State.

What my opponent as failed to understand is that a marriage license is a vital record. Can a state ban death certificate of homosexual people from other states? Can they ban birth certificates of homosexuals from another state? The confusion of my opponent and there argument is that it is called a marriage license and the other vital records are called certificates. My opponent also fails to understand that this is like a driver’s license. Each state might have the right to make different rules on how to get one, and what rules you most follow once you get one. They most still recognize all drivers’ licenses issued by another state. If a state as the right to ban marriage licenses issued for a homosexual couple they then would also have the right to ban driver’s licenses issued by another state. There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states. This is why there is a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution. Otherwise you would lose all you vital records when you travel to each state. Homosexual marrage bans are making you lose a vital record when you travel to each state.




Just to be thorough, my opponent first argued that a majority supported his side and we are a democratic country and thus should support the resolution. Then when shown that an argument of democracy could easily be used to support the opposite view he calls the application of the same democratic principle “mob rule.”

In part of an argument that the issue was about freedom and liberty. The statements are interconnected. When the majority supports an action against freedom and liberty it is violation of our principles as a nation. The unchecked majority support for slavery was against our principles. It left a stain on our country. While the issue of homosexual rights is treated more humanly it is still leaving a stain on our country.


Which is it, does my opponent believe in the principles of democracy… or believe that democracy is “mob rule.” Thus far it seems that pro supports democracy so long as it agrees with his view. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I believe in the principles of democracy. I also believe there must be a check on democracy to insure the mob rule does not infringe upon the rights of others. This is why we live in a Republic. America’s founding fathers understood this. Though this check against mob rule we have as a nation become more and more free.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin


State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected.

Do homosexual people banned from marriage feel they have liberty and the pursuit of Happiness? No they don’t because they don’t have it. Is it liberty to turn on the news every day and here how you are an abomination and will destroy the country? We have free speech and people say a lot of stuff like this. We can't and shouldn't stop this. Then states made laws in agreement with this statement. Being married and raising a family as best you can is part of your pursuit of happiness. Do they have this right under the bans? No they do not. They are banned from being married any all the benefits that come with that. In Utah they cannot adopt and raise children together. My opponent’s argument that bans don’t violate unalienable rights is as ridiculous as my examples.

http://www.adoption...help.org/qa/are-there-laws-prohibit-same-sex-couples-adopting

kasmic

Con

Pro says “What my opponent as failed to understand is that a marriage license is a vital record.”

Vital: “extremely important” (1)

I invite my opponent to validate a marriage license as vital…. I contend it is not.

Pro says “There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states.”

I am unfamiliar with this being a right. I invite pro to validate this statement with a source.

Pro says “This is why there is a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the constitution. Otherwise you would lose all you vital records when you travel to each state. Homosexual marriage bans are making you lose a vital record when you travel to each state.”


The full faith and credit clause does not mean that all certified documents and professions are recognized in all states automatically. A lawyer or doctor may have to apply to get a license to operate if he/she moves to another state. Teaching certificates also have to be approved by each state. Conceal carry permits may not be recognized etc.. Some states cooperate on recognizing such certificates, but they are not required too. Pro claim of the application of the Full faith and credit clause is empirically false.

Pro says “When the majority supports an action against freedom and liberty it is violation of our principles as a nation.”


For example, the freedom and liberty each State has to determine the qualification of marriage?! As mentioned already in this debate, anyone can be married to anyone else, it is not an unalienable right to have such an arrangement recognized by the government. This has already been established and not refuted. In round two it was established that marriage is not an unalienable right, which pro has yet to dispute.

Democracy:

Pro says “I believe in the principles of democracy. I also believe there must be a check on democracy to insure the mob rule does not infringe upon the rights of others. This is why we live in a Republic. America’s founding fathers understood this. Though this check against mob rule we have as a nation become more and more free.”

As someone who has a degree in political science, I grow tired of the Republic/democracy debate. Our Republic is a democracy. The founding fathers did say negative things about democracy… for example the quote pro provides.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

Likewise they said negative things about Republics… “James Madison said "In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority."(2)


I agree that there need to be checks on the power of the majority. As the Declaration of Independence states… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Governments are instituted to secure unalienable rights. Again, unless pro is going to contend my round two arguments that marriage recognized by the State is not an Unalienable right, a ban on types of marriage is not against the principles of this nation.

Pro asks “Do homosexual people banned from marriage feel they have liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?” Sadly concluding that “No they don’t because they don’t have it.” Are there laws that prevent love? Are there laws that prevent marriage? No! People are free to pursue happiness in this nation. Including homosexual couples. They are free to marry, they are free to move, they are free to live with whomever they desire. I am a happily married man of 3 years to a wonderful wife… truth is, I couldn’t not care less if the Government recognizes my marriage. Weather they do or not, my wife and I recognize our marriage. My faith recognizes my marriage. I do not need the government’s recognition to be happy. Nothing dictates that the government has to validate someone’s marriage as a unalienable right. Including one man and one women.

Pro says “They are banned from being married any all the benefits that come with that. In Utah they cannot adopt and raise children together.”

All the “benefits” that come from a state recognized marriage should be available to all law abiding adults. However, it should have nothing to do with being “married.”

If pro were to argue that unwed couples should be able to adopt, I would agree with him.

Conclusion:

Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable.

Therefore, State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. Such is in standing with the founding principles of this nation.

Unless pro can show that marriage recognized by the State is an Unalienable right, the resolution will remain negated.



(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2) http://www.infobarrel.com...

Debate Round No. 4
gomergcc

Pro

While my appoint does not see a marriage license a vital record the government disagrees with my opponent. While I used to common term vital record they are legally known as vital documents. They are housed in each state in the Office of Vital Records under the health department and used by National Vital Statistics System. This includes births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoption records, and fetal deaths.

http://www.azdhs.gov...

http://www.cdc.gov...


Pro says “There is another fundamental right in the US that you should be able to travel freely with in the states.” I am unfamiliar with this being a right. I invite pro to validate this statement with a source.

I already sited my source for the legal term of fundamental rights and what it included. Here is a direct quote:

Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu...


The full faith and credit clause does not mean that all certified documents and professions are recognized in all states automatically. A lawyer or doctor may have to apply to get a license to operate if he/she moves to another state. Teaching certificates also have to be approved by each state. Conceal carry permits may not be recognized etc.. Some states cooperate on recognizing such certificates, but they are not required too. Pro claim of the application of the Full faith and credit clause is empirically false.

I agree only vital documents, federally issued certified documents, and driver’s licenses. None of my opponent’s examples on this point are one of them; however, my examples are. My opponent is using a straw man argument by not using examples that are required by law to be shared between states. The fact the when crossing a state line a marriage license in now longer valid throws off the figures that state is required to submit to the National Vital Statistics System. They have deleted a marriage statistic without an accompanying document stating it was due to divorce or a death.


I agree that there need to be checks on the power of the majority.

The we agree that what counts is liberty and freedom

Are there laws that prevent marriage? No!

Yes there are and it is the current debate topic. It is not recognized by the state then technically it is not a marriage. Your examples are for common law marriages that are not recognized under the bans.

People are free to pursue happiness in this nation. Including homosexual couples. They are free to marry, they are free to move, they are free to live with whomever they desire.

They are not free to marry in several states. They are not free to move anywhere in this country without losing rights of next of kin and parents’ rights over their children.

I am a happily married man of 3 years to a wonderful wife… truth is, I couldn’t not care less if the Government recognizes my marriage. Weather they do or not, my wife and I recognize our marriage. My faith recognizes my marriage. I do not need the government’s recognition to be happy.
You might really care. If the state does not recognize the marriage you lose the following things:

  • The right to make health care decisions for your wife in an emergency.
  • The right to leave you property to you wife if die and you don’t have a will.
  • The right to have parents rights over your children automatically at birth and would have to take her to court to gain them.
  • The right to be informed if your wife was in an accident.
  • The right to make funeral arrangements for you wife if she passed.

If the state does not recognize your marriage you are just her boyfriend and her family gets all these rights. They don’t have to ask for your input, even though you know her wishes. The law says you don’t know any of her wishes and her family does. It does not matter how long you were together. How would you like the cops to tell someone else she was in an accident and that persona have no legal obligations to ever inform you?



All the “benefits” that come from a state recognized marriage should be available to all law abiding adults. However, it should have nothing to do with being “married.”
The benefit I was talking about was stated above this comment. It is a benefit of marriage that you are your spouse’s next of kin. It is a benefit that you get to make the decisions that your spouse would make in case they are unable to. They are not available to all law abiding adults. This does make since because you would not want someone that just started dating a week before some tragic event to have the authority to make decisions for you. Under the law it does not matter if you have acted like you were married for 25 years if you are not officially deemed married by the state you only have the same authority as someone that just stated dating you a week ago.


If pro were to argue that unwed couples should be able to adopt, I would agree with him.

Con has missed my point on this matter. If you adopt a child legally in one state that should be your child in every state. You should not cross a state line and it been deemed that is not your child. Adoption records are another vital statistic. I used both due the parallels between to two issues.


Marriage is not viewed as an unalienable right in the U.S. Rather it is an Inalienable right. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. While Marriage may be a “fundamental right” that does not mean that it is unalienable.
Unless pro can show that marriage recognized by the State is an Unalienable right, the resolution will remain negated

The flaw in my opponent argument is that unalienable rights are not protected under the law. Unalienable rights are only mentioned in the declaration of independence. All rights under the law are fundamental rights. All rights under the constitution are labeled is fundament rights. Another quote from my source:

“Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process.

http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Until my opponent can show any laws for unalienable rights most of their arguments are negated.

kasmic

Con

Rebuttals:

Pro says “I agree only vital documents, federally issued certified documents, and driver’s licenses.”

Again, Under current law the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not.

Pro’s resolve is not that the Federal government needs to recognize the marriage, it is the States and territories. Of course any federally issued certified documents have to be recognized by the Federal government. We are not debating Federal, rather we have been debating State laws.

In response to my statement “Are there laws that prevent marriage? No!"

Pro says, “Yes there are and it is the current debate topic. It is not recognized by the state then technically it is not a marriage. Your examples are for common law marriages that are not recognized under the bans.”

I am not referring to common law marriages… I am referring to the religious rite of marriage. There is no law that prevents people from marrying within their religion, and living with whomever they desire.

I mentioned that I do not care if the government recognizes my marriage. Pro responds with…

“You might really care. If the state does not recognize the marriage you lose the following things:

  • The right to make health care decisions for your wife in an emergency.
  • The right to leave you property to you wife if die and you don’t have a will.
  • The right to have parents rights over your children automatically at birth and would have to take her to court to gain them.
  • The right to be informed if your wife was in an accident.
  • The right to make funeral arrangements for you wife if she passed.”

Again, I would be upset if the State did not allow me to exercise these rights. However, there is no inherent tie of these rights to the religious concept of marriage. As I mentioned I do think these so called “rights” should be available to all consenting adults regardless of how the relationship is defined.

Pro’s argument fails to show that such rights could not be made available without the state recognizing a traditionally religious rite known as marriage. These rights could be and should be separated from the religious institution of marriage. As such it is not a necessity that marriages be recognized state to state for such rights be respected.

Closing Statement:

Thanks to pro for this debate. This is a touchy subject, as I mentioned this is kinda a devil’s advocate debate for me. It has been very challenging. Though, I do feel as though my case stands at the end of this debate.

State by State majorities can decide what should or should not be legal. As marriage is not recognized as an unalienable right, this is reasonable. Also, as each State has different requirements as to what qualifies one for a marriage license it is reasonable to allow each State the ability to determine the criteria to be met. Including defining marriage as between a man and a women if that is the case. Therefore if a majority in any given state, like Utah, deems same-sex marriage illegal. That should be respected.

Marriage is a religious rite that the government has used for convenience, not necessity. There is no reason the rights my opponent has mentioned could not be respect without reference to a religious rite.

Due to the religious nature of marriage, as well as States rights, U.S. States and territories should respect our nations democratic process and allow the power of the people to define what constitutes marriage in their respective states. If a people in a given state, like Utah, deem same sex marriage illegal, then in the State of Utah same sex marriage should be illegal.


Vote Con!

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
@kasmic It was nice to debate this topic from a legal aspect.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
I am pretty sure I will lose this debate. I did not debate very well. Also @Gomergcc well done. It was good to debate you I am not sure we will get many votes as many will find this too long to read.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
@JustAnAtheist That was my thinking to.
Posted by JustAnAtheist 2 years ago
JustAnAtheist
what does the burden of proof even have to do within this debate?
This debate is not about factual evidence, but about whether or not Homosexual Marriage should be allowed. You cannot test that. Therefore the burden of proof is totally irrelevant. The question should be:
Why should homosexuals be allowed to married or not. --> The arguments alone are what let one of you win.
Posted by gomergcc 2 years ago
gomergcc
My resolve is straightforward and there is little need for a opening statement beyond what the topic is. I am however at a disadvantage since I have no idea what type of argument I will face. For example it will most likely be a religious argument but I have no idea what religion. Also I like being the underdog and this leaves me one less round my Con.

As to your claim that full burden of proof that is not correct. Currently there is no burden of proof. Whoever makes the better argument wins. This is a recognized debate style by this site. Also it dose have a argument currently supporting it. All though I do admit it is just a opinion based argument with no source other than my self. This is still an argument. If Con wishes to lose there one round advantage making such a semantic argument that is on them.
Posted by kasmic 2 years ago
kasmic
Why would Con argue first? You have the positive side of a positive claim... you have full burden of proof. Con has nothing to say in the first round as currently the resolve has no argument supporting it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.