The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Beginner
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

I can convince you to be against Same-Sex 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 5 votes the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,659 times Debate No: 25794
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

kenballer

Pro

In this debate, it won't actually be much of a debate. I am just here to try to see if I can convince somebody or people that my position on the redefining or gay marriage issue is valid and keeping marriage between a man and a woman is the right thing to do overall.

Since this will be more of a personal emotional reason as to why somebody may want to change their position on this issue or admit that their position is invalid, I doubt I will be able to convince the unreasonable. However, its worth a try and I am pretty confident because in this debate I will be going ALL OUT. This means anything and everything that may compell a gay so-called marriage supporter to take or view their position to be invalid is going to be in this debate. This also involves trying to convince my opponent to take my position. Let me give you an outline as to what I will demonstrate:

1. show why gay marriage is not a civil right or civil rights issue at all
2. explain the true purpose of civil marriage
3. explain the many public policy reasons why we should not redefine marriage
4. Destroy the reasons given out by proponents as to why we should redefine it
5. Destroy any other claim made by gay so-called marriage proponents

Like I said, this is going to be a very informal debate. The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable and invalid or agree with me that traditional marriage should not be redefined.

Lastly, the arguments displayed here will definitely be different and interesting, so ANYbody who supports redefining marriage or gay marriage is going to want to read this debate and vote. I encourage everyone else who is interested in this topic to take a look. This one will definitely be a MUST see. I will make sure I won't forfeit and stay on top as well.

Let it BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Beginner

Con

Accepted.
GO!
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past and said there is no fundamental right to gay marriage .

After the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 regarding the issue of Same sex marriage endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision. There are also plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling [1].

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006)

While Baker did not appear in the court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the court's opinion did note in its concluding passage:

Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint.

Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005)

"The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."

The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the same arguments gay activists make today :

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."

As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times and let me explain precisely why this is the case

WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE COUPLES?

The Fundamental right to marry:

Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny because it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. However, there is a second and most important reason why they would allow the infertile to marry along with any other scenario dealing with heterosexual couples.

Marriage:

As I explained before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action.

Therefore, infertile couples (or ANY other heterosexual scenario) do not change the definition and ,thus, don't challenge the intention of the marriage institution. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous.

In conclusion, Gay marriage is not a civil right because the purpose of civil marriage involves the procreation and rearing of children. Its something that only a man and woman can do. This is why civil marriage is a civil human right. In addition, since this is what civil marriage "is", it logically follows that gay marriage cannot be an equal right as well. Let me explain how and why:

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Since civil marriage has always been defined between one man and one woman for responsible procreation and rearing of children, this is not about whether a law banning same sex marriage is constitutional or unconstitutional. The legal issue that is before us is whether traditional marriage laws are based on invidious, arbitrary, discrimination.

Discrimination: " The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." [2]

1. Sex Equality

Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes ,which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination. When it comes to the Sexes, The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination. Thus, there is no discrimination between the sexes because men and woman can equally marry someone of the opposite sex.

2. Sexual Orientation Equality

Traditional marriage laws do not violate the equal protection clause because providing a separate institution like civil unions to same sex couples has been deemed constitutional on basis of sex (with some conditions of course). For example, We have separate but equal situations for men and women that permeate our country ranging from restrooms, the military, prisons, sport teams, and even separate but equal public schools. We have this even though women are a minority that historically have been discriminated against.

In a case called Vorcheimer v. Philadelphia school District, the Supreme Court ruled, that "Separate" is essentially "Equal". As long as each gender equally has a choice in going to both schools for both genders and that, interests in creating separateness based on the biological differences grounded in sex and GENDER are a legitimate state interests.[3]

In United States v. Virginia , the court agreed with this rationale as well:

"Had Virginia made a genuine effort to devote comparable public resources to a facility for women, and followed through on such a plan, it might well have avoided an equal protection violation.""it is not the 'exclusion of women' that violates the Equal Protection Clause, but the maintenance of an all-men school without providing any -- much less a comparable -- institution for women... It would be a sufficient remedy, I think, if the two institutions offered the same quality of education and were of the same overall caliber."

Obviously, this is deemed constitutional because there is a fundamental difference between race and sex. This is why we no longer have bans on interracial marriage or have Jim Crow laws but still have and always accepted apartheid for the sexes and define marriage between one man and one woman.
Beginner

Con

"The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable...."
Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage.

"I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage"
All con has to do to win is to remain unconvinced throughout the debate. Continual verbal rejection of pro's resolution down to round 5 will suffice in this area.

I, Beginner, hereby disagree with my opponent's resolution and will abide by this opposition until the end of this debate.

Pro, in a sudden bout of stupidity, has provided a set of parameters under which he cannot win unless
1.con deliberately surrenders or agrees to the resolution presented.
2. the majority of voters are of the same opinion as my opponent.
(:

Argument I might have made:
My opponent constantly refers back to anecdotal cases and the Supreme Court in an inane effort to justifying an anti-gay marriage sentiment.
The principal argument to my opponent's notions against gay marriage is the strict, limited parameters under which he has categorized marriage. Let us strip it of all traditional adornments. Marriage at its core is very simply a legal contract under which two people are bound. According to my opponent, people of different sexual orientations are not allowed to apply for such a legal contract. His main justification?: once upon a time, the Supreme Court (and few other courts in the United States) denied the consignation of this contract. After putting forth several outdated cases (all from several decades earlier), my opponent fails to give any substantial statements of his own. We are not debating about gender or civil rights. After wasting much character space dwelling on civil rights and gender issues my opponent fails to provide anything besides case denials of same-sex marriage.
I will now provide reason to the fallacy of using outdated cases to support a contemporary issue:
Outdated sources, in this context, can no longer be used as basis under which statements or resolutions can be justified.
FOR EXAMPLE:
I can state laws that legalized slavery and then use these laws to justify stripping black people of any and all rights. In response to denials of this particular resolution, I only simply have to say: 'the Supreme court said so.'
I can state laws that banned alcohol and then use these laws to justify the banning of alcohol. In response to denials of this particular resolution, I only simply have to repeat: 'the Court [once] said so"
I can take the dumbest cases/laws from last century and use them all to justify the dumbest things. Anyone can. No matter how wordy, people who provide dumb resolutions supported by dumb justifications are just. . . dumb.

"Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint."
Please explicate the 'good reason.'

"Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
Unless you can clarify how allowing gay marriage through judicial legislation 'restructures' the fourteenth amendment, this quote is null.

"As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential."
What does reproductive potential have to do with this? Guns are not "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity either, but people still fight ardently for the right to have it. I could make a laundry list of things that are not "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity because nearly everything we know of can be categorized under this section. This statement is null.

"As I explained before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action."
As you've explained? All you've done is make statements such as (rough paraphrase):'marriage exists to shape culture...marriage is for heterosexual people...marriage's sole purpose is to...' with no real justification other than a few anecdotal cases. I've already explained the fallacy of using 'traditional' or outdated info/definition. Too much sanctity is placed on marriage and baby-making. As I've stated before, marriage is simply just a contract. Whether or not a couple wants to have baby is up to them.

Conclusion:
Opponent's main contentions:
1. gay marriage is not a civil rights issue at all - irrelevant to convincing me to be against gay marriage
2. the true purpose of civil marriage - my opponent happens to be an authority on this subject :)
3. explain reasons why we should not redefine marriage - failed to do so
4. destroy reasons by proponents - Try me
5. Destroy claims made by gay marriage proponents - I'm neither a marriage proponent nor gay.
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

THE PURPOSE OF CIVIL MARRIAGE

Premise 1:
I briefly established in round 2 what marriage "is" and always has been to explain why its not a civil right. Now, I will go into detail on the true purpose of civil marriage and why its a compelling state interests.

The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes in order to make sure they don't raise children in a unstable environment.

The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issuance of marriage licenses reinforces this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Now, when I say the word "encourage", I mean it in a indirect sense. For example, The mere appearance or existence of a green/ red traffic signal helps us know when is the right time to drive. Our understanding that green light means "go" encourages us to drive and red light means "stop" to discourages us from driving. Our understanding of the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman would be the green light that encourages us to procreate inside a marriage while cohabitation would naturally be the red light to not procreate inside.

In both situations, this is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life. However, the difference between the two is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. In other words, You have the freedom to marry and procreate or not.

Thus, the law does not forcibly make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice.

REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE

Premise 2:

Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman.

Premise 3A: This means if the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way.

In summary, my argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage.

THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT

Premise 3B: Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well.

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and accepting this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED VIEW OF MARRIAGE

In terms of the selection process, studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation [1]. As I explained above, marriage between two people regardless of gender is considered non-traditional and traditional views of marriage would be considered a form of hate and discrimination.

Premise 4: Immediate Effects

Americans will either have no choice but to accept this view of marriage or have to reject their own beliefs about marriage which reflect objective reality (as shown above) in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children their corrosive view of marriage. Here are some examples of this new law impinging on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children:

Schools:

In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

In California, Gay history is a required curriculum, which will eventually teach the issue of civil rights/gay marriage and try to claim there's a connection.

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples and the newspaper advice column now deals with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.

CONCLUSION

The Long-Term Effects (i.e. Future marriages):

In connection with the immediate effects and the studies, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society along with the institution of marriage as a result.

I will respond to CON's false and distorted claims about my arguments later.

[1] eprints.qut.edu.au/6134/1/Hewitt_FIN.pdf .... p.2
Beginner

Con

My opponent fails to convince me.
As stated before:
"The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the gay marriage position is untenable...."
Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage.

"I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage"
All con has to do to win is to remain unconvinced throughout the debate. Continual verbal rejection of pro's resolution down to round 5 will suffice in this area.

I, Beginner, remain unconvinced.
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

WARNING TO CON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I did say that the only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally. However, I never said that voters decision will be based on whether my opponent (CON) is convinced or not. CON still has to try to make the voters decision easier or harder.

The Long-Term Effects ( Existing marriages):

"Legal recognition of same-sex marriage means that three different types of relationships will be regulated under the same legal umbrella. Advocates of same-sex marriage portray gay and lesbian couples as similar to one another and portray both as similar to heterosexual couples. The fundamental difference between these three types of unions is the biological relationship between parents and children. In a heterosexual marriage, biology is perfectly aligned with the definition of parent. Indeed, the legal notion of "natural parent" is the biological parent. In a properly functioning heterosexual marriage, there are two parents; they are married, and they are biologically linked to the children. Indeed, the institutional apparatus of marriage is designed to produce this effect.

In a same-sex marriage, if there are children, this biological link is necessarily severed. This difference, whether one believes it to be good or bad, produces a different set of incentive problems between heterosexual and same-sex marriages.

Historically, marriage was designed to create a bond between a biological mother, father, and their children. This was not always possible: some marriages fail, spouses die, and some couples are unable to procreate. The result has been allowance for remarriage, adoption, artificial insemination, and the like. These have been second-best solutions to unfortunate circumstances; there was never the threat that these ex post outcomes would influence the institution of marriage. The impossibility of same-sex procreation, however, presents a different set of circumstances. All children in a same-sex marriage necessarily have a broken biological link to at least one of their parents. What is the exception for heterosexual marriage is ubiquitous for same-sex marriages. It is not obvious that current structures"such as adoption and reproductive technology"that are adequate for heterosexual marriage will be sufficient for same-sex marriages.

There is another problem that arises in every same-sex marriage: children receive only one type of gender influence from their parents. In addition to the uncertain direct effects of samesex parenting on children, this situation may give rise to difficult contractual issues. No doubt many of these families will seek out role models for their child from among the other sex, perhaps from the biological parent. These third parties are likely to play more important roles in the context of same-sex marriage, and with this increased importance may come increased legal rights of the third party.Or, perhaps the solution will take another route, with the state playing a larger role in the inculcation of gender identity. One wonders if such an approach would lead to greater state involvement in the raising of children from heterosexual families as well.

The point is simply this: the ability to procreate is a fundamental difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. This difference is likely to manifest itself in hundreds of different issues that may require or warrant some type of legal intervention. Thus, any transfer of rights permitting same-sex marriage may harm heterosexual couples, for whom the present regime was created, and for whom it is efficient.

Biological problems with same-sex marriage also arise in same-sex divorce. Marriage is more than just a set of entry conditions; it includes a set of exit provisions that specify the grounds for divorce, rules for splitting property, support rules, and custody rules. If these rules are based on biological roles of mothers and fathers, then they will necessarily be inadequate for same-sex couples.

For example, start with child support guidelines. Currently, many U.S. states and Canada use tables to determine how much child support a non-custodial parent will pay after divorce. These tables appear quite simple, and often depend only on the non-custodial parents income and the number of children. These tables, however, are based on estimated cost functions of heterosexual homes. In such homes, there are often divisions of labor based on sex differences, and standards of living are estimated based on the incomes of married men and women. To the extent that same-sex marriages will have household costs and household distributions of income that are different from heterosexual households, these guidelines will under- or over-compensate for costs of living. Here, the differences between lesbian and gay households are no doubt quite dramatic; one set of guidelines cannot compensate for fundamentally different types of households. This is not a mere academic point; when child support guidelines over-compensate one spouse, they create an incentive to divorce.

Thus, the inability of one set of guidelines to deal adequately with the cost structure of three different types of households has real and significant impacts on the ability of these relationships to succeed. Same-sex divorce will raise novel legal problems. For instance, if third parties do become more involved in parenting in same-sex marriages, will they face child support responsibilities upon divorce? Will sperm or egg donors to same-sex marriages acquire legal rights and responsibilities as parents? Did the non-biologically connected, but legally married, spouse consent to be a parent or just consent to have sex? What are the rights of a child with more than two parents? Which legal parent has the right to decide where to live? Do biological ties deny rights to legal parents?" [1]

THE SOLUTION

Society and the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned or chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means.

Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences from this new law. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage young impressionable heterosexual couples to procreate within the context of marriage while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

ARGUMENTS FOR GAY MARRIAGE (Refuted):

Children

Majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine . According to studies, They are functioning normally across the standard range of measures of child or parent well-being ,which are the normal things experts measure in the field of social science. [2]

Economy

The problem here is we don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/ that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises. CBO report on the estimation of money boost was based on an highly speculative assumption that 0.6% of gay adults would actually enter into gay marriages during a certain period, given the opportunity. This means the estimation might be accurate but assumption for which the estimation is based on is entirely unknown and pure speculation. In fact, with the inception of social security benefits, the number could very well be lower than the assumption given and end up costing the feds money rather than boosting the economy. [3]

[1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...
[2] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Beginner

Con

"I can convince you to be against Same-Sex marriage"
I apologize and will drop my original contention under the context of this quote:
I didn't realize that the resolution really is not the resolution at all. . .

""The only criteria voters will have to base their decision on is whether they are convinced personally that the
gay marriage position is untenable...."
Basically, every (anti) gay marriage person will be allowed to rain subjective vote-bombs with no other reason than
that he or she is / isn't in accordance with gay marriage."
The above statement stands. If, in the listener's opinion, I should go to one of the many debates of the exact same
topic where pro has used the exact same contentions and ideas(VERBATIM!) and take arguments from there (I'd rather not), I may just do exactly that. In fact, I could just refer to one of the debates where the pro-gay marriage side is winning (or has won) and have the reader's read from there.
Reason: Subjective, opinionated votes.

Summary: Regardless of the means used: if the reader is convinced by con OR unconvinced by pro,
Then Con Wins.

Rather than go through the pains of refuting my opponent's attempts at convincing the reader, I will make my attempts by having the reader analyze my opponent's opponents arguments in one of these links and vote based on their opinions afterwards.

My opponent loses drastically:
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...
http://debate.org...

My opponent is completely and utterly destroyed in this one. The destruction leaks into the comments section:
http://debate.org...

I have read every one of the above after accepting this debate and am very well equipped to crush you outside of the semantic arena. *wink-wink*
Read these and decide for yourselves whether pro is still able to convince you.
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Pro

'Once the constraint of a definition of marriage based on biology is removed, these changes will occur with little notice, and minimal immediate effect. Issues will come up, courts will struggle with how to manage them, the common law willevolve, but the sun will still rise the next day. But the bottom line is that these new common laws will apply to heterosexual couples covered under the same family law, and over time the
loopholes and areas of poor fit will be exploited by husbands or wives seeking to better themselves at the expense of other members of the family. The value of marriage as an institution will fall, fewer people will marry, more will seek private methods to protect themselves from ex post marriage exploitation,
and the final result will be lower fertility rates and more children raised in single-parent homes. It is this feedback that presents the fundamental danger to heterosexual marriage. It is often argued that a small number of same-sex marriages cannot possibly have any impact on the general population. However, it is the feedback loop from same-sex marriages to heterosexual ones that causes the problem. Because legal regulations on marriage revolve around children, and because same-sex families are fundamentally different from heterosexual ones in this respect, this area poses the greatest risk of legal misfit. Ironically, evidence for these changes appeared immediately after the introduction of same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the second half of Bill C-38, the Canadian federal Civil Marriage Act changing the definition of marriage,
contains changes to other pieces of federal legislation removing the definition of natural parent and replacing it with "legal" parent.
A legal parent, like one of the partners within a samesex marriage, is not biologically linked to the child. Of course, there is no natural limit to the number of legal parents a child may have, and in a same-sex marriage with one child there are at least three adults involved in some role as parent, whether legal or not. The impact of creating "legal" parents will be felt in our culture for many years, and to the extent it is important for the biological connection between a child and parent to be recognized under the law, such a change can only harm heterosexual marriages.'

E. It Is Hard to Imagine . . .
The response to the economic-institution case against samesex marriage is that marriage is a flexible institution, and if it changes or becomes unrecognizable, so be it. Heterosexual marriages will continue as before, and all that will happen is that homosexual couples will receive the benefits of marriage. Any talk otherwise is simply social science scare mongering. For example, Andrew Koppleman states that "[i]t"s hard to imagine how legal recognition of same-sex marriage would affect even one man"s deliberations about whether to marry a woman or to stay with his children."

The phrase "it is hard to imagine . . ." is used often in the same-sex marriage debate. If marriage is fundamentally based on loving relationships, then it is hard to imagine how allowing a few hundred or thousand
different types of marriage into the fold could make any difference. In this regard, it is very relevant to consider another marriage revolution in which the phrase "it is hard to imagine . . ." also recurred frequently. Slightly over thirty years ago, family law went through a conceptual revolution called no-fault divorce, and thirty years later, we know something about the consequences of that paradigm shift. During that debate the
case was made that intact marriages would be unaffected by the legal change and the social impact would be minimal. It was hard to imagine how releasing couples from the bondage of a dead marriage could have any negative impact on other loving marriages. It is an interesting exercise to return to that
debate and briefly note that the consequences of that law were unanticipated and subtle. In the end, it turned out marriage was much more fragile than anyone publicly thought. This Article argues that social commentators at the time got their predictions wrong because they based their arguments on false
theories of marriage. In particular, the predictions of no impact stemmed from the view that marriage is an environment to assist adult relationships to be stable and loving. The same mistakes made by no-fault divorce reformers are now being made by proponents of same-sex marriage."

CONCLUSION

Now, the reason why I wanted to demonstrate how this is not a civil rights issue and refute some of the public policy reasons why we should redefine marriage is to show how there is no reason to redefine marriage. There is only reason why we should not redefine marriage and the burden of proof is on the person who says we should.

while you are at it, vote PRO
Beginner

Con

There are so many holes and assumptions made...there are so many facts that indirectly lead to statements that do not and should not be the conclusions drawn...erroneous leads (causal factor A Leads to conclusion B)
All these I could point out, but these have already been pointed out by a plethora of people...
If the voter really believes him/herself to be convinced by pro's arguments after absorbing these points (from the links in round 4) in detail, then it is the voter's freedom to vote pro. Otherwise, con is the victor. The viewing of these links are not imperative though, and the voter may vote on personal bias. Remember: This is subjective voting.
Do what you will, I'm done here.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
I've read too many pro gay-marriage arguments...I'm unable to come up with anything without stealing phrases verbatim from other debates. Many statements are too good to ignore... I'm so happy that you imposed such a con-supporting criteria! I don't have to constantly do a plagiarism check on my arguments. ^-^
Round 4 is irony. . .
Posted by Beginner 4 years ago
Beginner
This guy...
He's just copying and pasting the same arguments over and over again in many many debates.
I bet he hasn't even read my round. Annoying...under my contentions everything he says are annulled
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
There's one semantical loophole Con can argue to prevent people voting off their biases. Or at least, try to prevent them.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
kenballerBeginnerTied
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: Pro neither changed my mind, nor even addressed the reasons behind my own beliefs. I thus must award points to Con based on the rules of the debate.
Vote Placed by richarddong 4 years ago
richarddong
kenballerBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ?
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
kenballerBeginnerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wasn't convinced, and Pro plagiarized.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
kenballerBeginnerTied
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: Not convinced.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
kenballerBeginnerTied
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: Unfortunately, Pro failed to convince me to be against same-sex marriage as I am already against it, and not really for any of his reasons. Also, I hear he plagiarized.