Homosexual Marriage Should be legal in all US states and territories
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note Extended Arguments:
Pro says “While each state does have the own rules and requirements to marriage each state must recognize the marriage of another state.”
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)
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.”
So the Federal Government must recognize valid same sex-marriages however, the States do not.
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.
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.
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
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.
Pro says “What my opponent as failed to understand is that a marriage license is a vital record.”
"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
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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. “
Until my opponent can show any laws for unalienable rights most of their arguments are negated.
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 mentioned that I do not care if the government recognizes my marriage. Pro responds with…
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.