The Instigator
RaveScratch
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Emmo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuals Should Be Allowed To Marry in The USA

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 Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 35708
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

RaveScratch

Pro

This debate will consist of 5 rounds. The first round shall consist of opening statements representing each sides opinion with supporting facts (if necessary). Round 2-5 will consist of debating specific points.

I personally will be listing my points in "abc fashion." I thank my opponent in advance for responding. and I wish them the best of luck. Without further delay let's begin.


A. Separation of Church and State

I wanted to point out that using any religious viewpoints should be null and void because of the "separation of church and state." This is not a point I want to fight because it's fact, it's just something I wanted to state before religion was used to support an argument that it's null and void in.


B. "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness"

This is a quote from our Declaration of Independence (1), the foundation that this country was built on, and not allowing gay marriage takes homosexuals' "liberty and pursuit of happiness."


(1) http://www.ushistory.org...

I apologize for the short body of this first round, but not much about my point must be said. However, since my opponent does not have to argue until round 2, he/she will have plenty of will be able to use what I say to their response to the round 1 post.

Debate Round No. 1
RaveScratch

Pro

RaveScratch forfeited this round.
Emmo

Con

Marriage is defined as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
(this definition has been endorsed by the highest court in the U.S.A- The Supreme Court)
Con argues that this is a very simple definition and it is clear and ambiguous and has no room for misinterpretation.
Now that the technicalities are out of the way. Why should the law change in order to cater for Homosexuals getting married, when legislation is clear in its wording what a marriage constitutes, does pro propose we overhaul the whole system by changing the very definition and foundation of a legal marriage?

Socially throughout history marriage has been understood to be sacred covenant entered into by one man and one woman (as the definition in the first paragraph points). This covenant, has been protected throughout time as it protects the values and importance of a family in particular the nuclear family and this type of family has long been regarded as the norm and the very foundation of a civilized society.

Pro argues that in order to protect this relic or this jewel of the past, we rather opt for something less drastic, say same-sex partnership. This would be far less intrusive on the social values of the traditional marriage and would not be in contradictions of the legally accepted definitions of marriage.

Another problem with such a drastic overhaul, would be the fact that this would impose acceptance on all faculties of society. Allowing specifically for homosexual marriages would in turn mean that churches who are anti-samesex marriages would be forced by law to conduct such marriages if requested to do so. This would be against the Church's and its members' right to religion. Pro sites the Declaration of Independence but it is important to note, that a right must not infringe on another's right. The right to religion is an important can be linked to one's right to human dignity.

On the other hand allowing for a same-sex partnership (which would not be regarded as a legal marriage) would all in all be a greater good as it would infringe far less rights. It is the duty of the Government and the Judiciary to always opt for the least intrusive remedy

In closing i may not be able to post my next round as i will be away for a few days and will probably not have any wifi. Please feel free to post your rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
RaveScratch

Pro

RaveScratch forfeited this round.
Emmo

Con

argument extended
Debate Round No. 3
RaveScratch

Pro

RaveScratch forfeited this round.
Emmo

Con

Emmo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RaveScratch

Pro

RaveScratch forfeited this round.
Emmo

Con

Emmo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.