The Instigator
Agnostic86
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SkepticsAskHere
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

If marriage is legal in the USA, SSM should also be legal in the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
SkepticsAskHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,451 times Debate No: 16810
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (60)
Votes (5)

 

Agnostic86

Pro

In this debate, I will attempt to show that SSM (Same Sex Marriage) should be and needs to be legal in the USA.

By accepting this debate, you (my opponent) are agreeing to the structure and rules.

Structure:

Pro's objective: To show why SSM needs to be legal in the USA.
Con's objective: To show why SSM should NOT be legal in the USA.
Both need to refute the other's arguments and make a compelling case of your own.

Round 1: Acceptance, no arguments.
Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Arguments, no new arguments allowed.

Rules:
No Religious Argument
Good conduct
Whoever accepts MUST be con SSM




This debate is NOT over civil unions or other variations.

Good luck.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Ok well since the first round is acceptence I will let my opponent go first. He has offered to let me go first, but I'll allow him to do so and I look forward to the debate. We must remember to stay topical and adhere to the resolution.

Also, I disagree with my opponent's comment in round one that religious arguements may not be offered. I will comply with his demand, however I do request that I be allowed to bring up religious arguments because marriage was set up by religious institutions. I wouldn't say things like the Bible says it's a sin so it's immoral. However, I believe the debate would be more fair if we were allowed to talk about what actually created the foundation of marriage.

It's up to my opponent, but I will debate the topic either way and good luck to my opponent in his first round.
Debate Round No. 1
Agnostic86

Pro

Thank you, Taylor, for this opportunity to debate. I have seen your previous debates and was impressed.

Opening syllogism

1. Marriage is a fundamental right
2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights
3. Therefore, same-sex couples should have that right.

Contention 1: I contend that SSM should be legal because marriage is a fundamental right.

What is a fundamental right?

Fundamental rights are the most basic of all rights. They cannot be with-held based on race, gender, sexual orientation or any other factor. They are rights that cannot be taken away.

Evidence 1: Loving v. Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.-Supreme court decision, Loving v. Virginia

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

The supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore, to take away SSM is to deny the same-sex couples the right to a fundamental right. I ask you, if there is a ban on SSM, what is marriage then?

I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage, but the US supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore it cannot be taken away.

Contention 2

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."-Section 1, Admendment 14

In other words, anyone who is a citizen of the US have entitlements to life, liberty and property. No state can make or enforce any law that takes away those rights. Therefore, any attempt at a SSM ban, is unconstitutional. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken away.

Conclusion

In this round, I have shown evidence that marriage is a fundamental right, I have shown that all people are entitled to that right, and I have shown contitutional proof that it cannot be taken away.

Final questions

1. Why should SSM be illegal?
2. What secular reasons do you have for the illegalisation of SSM?
3. Where in the constitution does it say SSM is illegal?
4. Why shouldn't it be legal?


I ask my opponent to forgive me for this seemingly lousy opening arguments, I am relativiley new to the site and am not the best writer.

Back to you, con!
SkepticsAskHere

Con

mar·riage/ˈmarij/Noun - the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I thank my opponent for offering such a unique resolution.

I will first attack my opponent’s case and then present my own.


Opening syllogism

1. Marriage is a fundamental right
2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights
3. Therefore, same-sex couples should have that right.

Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations.

1. Marriage is a fundamental right
2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights
3. Therefore, couples wishing to partake in polygamy should have that right.

1. Marriage is a fundamental right
2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights
3. Therefore, couples wishing to partake in pedophilia should have that right.

1. Marriage is a fundamental right
2. All citizens are entitled to the fundamental rights
3. Therefore, then couples who are related wishing to partake in incest should have that right.

I mean if all of the members in these relationships are willing it should be legal, right? My opponent makes the mistake of thinking that just because marriage is legal, then any type of marriage is legal and this just isn’t the case. To support my opponent’s logic, is to support marriage for several people in one marriage, for a minor and an adult to be married, and for family members to be married. They’re all natural born and willing so it should be legal, shouldn’t it?



Contention 1: I contend that SSM should be legal because marriage is a fundamental right.
http://en.wikipedia.org......
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com......

The supreme court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore, to take away SSM is to deny the same-sex couples the right to a fundamental right. I ask you, if there is a ban on SSM, what is marriage then?

Well my opponent goes on to cite certain cases where marriage has been defined as a fundamental right. Pro's argument begs the question. Marriage is a fundamental right, but what is marriage? Pro simply assumes that marriage is such that individuals of the same sex can participate in it. In other words, he begs the question by presupposing that same sex couples are under the definition of marriage -- but this is exactly what's being disputed by Con in this debate. After all, before we can say that someone has a right to X, we first must know what X is. So what did the courts actually mean when they were discussing marriage? Well the Judeo-Christian background of the U.S. has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. When you’re looking at anything written down you must examine the context before you make absolute statements about what the text in question really means, and my opponent has not done this.

I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage, but the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage IS a fundamental right, therefore it cannot be taken away.

If my opponent understands that this case is referring to interracial marriage then he shouldn’t cite it. He is taking the court ruling out of context, and he knows it.


Contention 2

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."-Section 1, Amendment 14

In other words, anyone who is a citizen of the US have entitlements to life, liberty and property. No state can make or enforce any law that takes away those rights. Therefore, any attempt at a SSM ban, is unconstitutional. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken away.

My opponent has once again taken the Amendment out of context because this is not even referring to marriage. My opponent has taken the first court case in his first contention, and this contention is based off his first so it is equally flawed.

Conclusion

In this round, I have shown evidence that marriage is a fundamental right, I have shown that all people are entitled to that right, and I have shown constitutional proof that it cannot be taken away.

I agree, however, same sex marriage is not included within the parameters of that right.

Final questions

1. Why should SSM be illegal?
2. What secular reasons do you have for the illegalization of SSM?
3. Where in the constitution does it say SSM is illegal?
4. Why shouldn't it be legal?


My opponent’s questions 1, 2, and 4 are all the same question so I’ll address them all in my constructive case.

And for my opponent’s third question I would like to say that the Constitution does not address marriage. It is left up to the states to decide how to define and deal with marriage which is why when former President George W. Bush tried to amend to Constitution by making SSM illegal, he was unable to do so.

Also I would like to note that my opponent has cited Wikipedia which is an unreliable source because of the fact that anyone can change it. I’m not saying that this is what my opponent has done; however, I would like to see some more legitimate sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now on to my own case:

My opponent asks me why should same sex marriage be illegal, and I’ll say for one simple reason.

Contention 1: It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other. No matter how many times you try, a man cannot get pregnant from a man and a woman cannot get pregnant from a woman. It’s basic biology. One reason that traditional marriage has been so valued is that it is the greatest contributor to the prolonging of the human species. There are several reasons why other marriages are not legal. For example, polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death. Incest is illegal because of birth defects. Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation. So as same sex marriage is illegal because there is no procreation. There is no secular reason why it should be legal, because Americans were never guaranteed this right.

http://www.traditioninaction.org...
(Evidence for homosexuals not being about to reproduce)


For these reasons I urge a ballot for Con, and I look forward to my opponent’s response.

Debate Round No. 2
Agnostic86

Pro

Thank you, Taylor, for your quick reply. I wish you the best of luck as we advance in the final round.

I am going to start off by refuting Taylor's one and only contention. I certainly hope you have more as it is ludacris.

It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other

In a nut shell, my opponent argues that the only reason SSM should still be illegal is for procreation reasons. This is absolutely ignoramous. Firstly, sterile couples can marry; and second, senior citizens, who cannot procreate, can marry.

Also, not once in the marriage liscence process is the question asked if you will procreate. How do I know? I was there when my step dad and mother got their marriage liscen e.

I will also say that my 1st father was sterile and could not procreate and yet my mom was allowed to marry my dad. I was obviously adopted.

I will also give another example from my own life. In my church, one senior citizen got married to another senior citizen. They were not able to procreate, but were allowed to get married. How is this possible if marriage is for procreation?

In this rebuttal...

I have given three examples from my own life how procreation is not the purpose of marrying and have shown how idiotic this argument is.

I also thank you for your source, I am in honours biology and really did not need the source.

Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations.

Hey there, thank you for answering your OWN QUESTION!

polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death.
Incest is illegal because of birth defects.
Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation

A word of advice, do not answer your own rebuttal in your contention. Thank you.

If my opponent understands that this case is referring to interracial marriage then he shouldn’t cite it. He is taking the court ruling out of context, and he knows it.


I am not taking it out of context. I needed a source to back up thet claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore, I used that Supreme Court case.

My opponent has once again taken the Amendment out of context because this is not even referring to marriage. My opponent has taken the first court case in his first contention, and this contention is based off his first so it is equally flawed.

The purpose of that source was to show that all citizens are entitled to equal rights.

Also I would like to note that my opponent has cited Wikipedia which is an unreliable source because of the fact that anyone can change it. I’m not saying that this is what my opponent has done; however, I would like to see some more legitimate sources.

I do not cite wikipedia unless wikipedia cites good sources.

Conclusion

I have successfully refuted my opponent's one and only contention and given reasons why his other syllogisms are ludacris.

Back to you, con, and next time DO NOT ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION!


SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for such a quick response, and now I will proceed with the debate.

My opponent doesn’t seem to understand the point I am trying to make with my arguments, so I will clarify to make sure I can effectively get the message across to everyone. My opponent has said since the beginning of the debate that religious aspects of marriage should not be included. Because of this, I’m arguing against marriage from a utilitarian standpoint (the greatest good for the greatest amount of people). Gay marriage is not benefitting the greatest number of people because they do not assist in prolonging the human species. Without the Judeo-Christian aspects of marriage, there is no reason to get married without the ability to procreate. My opponent asked me to provide a reason why same-sex couples shouldn’t get married, and now I ask him to provide some utilitarian and secular reason for them to be married, and from where I am standing there are none.

It is impossible for same sex couples to procreate with each other

In a nut shell, my opponent argues that the only reason SSM should still be illegal is for procreation reasons. This is absolutely ignoramous. Firstly, sterile couples can marry; and second, senior citizens, who cannot procreate, can marry.

Well the reason they can marry is because of the Judeo-Christian marriage system that was set up in America, but because this is a secular debate I do not see a reason why they should be allowed to marry, except for American law. (I don’t personally believe this but my opponent has made it clear he wishes to have secular arguments in this debate.)


I will also give another example from my own life. In my church, one senior citizen got married to another senior citizen. They were not able to procreate, but were allowed to get married. How is this possible if marriage is for procreation?

Well once again if you were to take the religious aspect of it out, then it shouldn’t be legal because there is no practical need for it. The only secular reason for them to have this right is that it has been guaranteed to them in the United States, however this right only pertains to traditional marriages (which my opponent admitted to).

In this rebuttal...

I have given three examples from my own life how procreation is not the purpose of marrying and have shown how idiotic this argument is.

My opponent calls my argument idiotic, while giving no secular reason why they should be married. He has shown through one court case that marriage is a fundamental right, takes it out of context by assuming it applies to same-sex couples, and then admits he has taken it out of context.

Let’s see how my opponent’s syllogism works when we apply it to different situations.

Hey there, thank you for answering your OWN QUESTION!

polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death.

Incest is illegal because of birth defects.
Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation


A word of advice, do not answer your own rebuttal in your contention. Thank you.

Well I gave you the answers to why each practice is illegal intentionally. Each type of marriage, other than traditional, is not beneficial to society.

Polygamy is illegal because of the legal issues of dividing the decease’s possessions after death.
Incest is illegal because of birth defects.
Pedophilia is illegal because one of the participants is a minor, who may not understand the entire situation.

Gay Marriage is illegal, because the people who partake in it cannot reproduce.

From a utilitarian perspective, none of these practices are beneficial to the overall societal welfare. I was also showing how my opponent’s syllogism did not work. If we can justify gay marriage through that syllogism then we can also justify polygamy, incest, and pedophilia. This is the actual resolution of the debate, so this will be the deciding factor of the debate. My opponent’s syllogism is flawed and therefore I should win.

His Contention 1

I am not taking it out of context. I needed a source to back up thet claim that marriage is a fundamental right. Therefore, I used that Supreme Court case. See quote from opponent’s constructive.

I am aware that this Loving v. Virginia case is referring to interracial marriage.

My opponent admits that the case in question is referring to inter racial marriage. This is the context of the court case, and we shouldn’t alter what the courts said just for our own convenience. My opponent has lost this debate from the beginning when he said for himself that it was applying to interracial marriage.

His Contention 2

The purpose of that source was to show that all citizens are entitled to equal rights.

Yes they are but marriage, other than traditional, is not included.

I do not cite wikipedia unless wikipedia cites good sources.

Well then use the sources that Wikipedia used, you are still using an unreliable source.

Conclusion

I have successfully refuted my opponent's one and only contention and given reasons why his other syllogisms are ludacris.

My syllogisms were intentionally ludicrous to show that his was not logical unless he wanted to allow all other forms of marriage.

Back to you, con, and next time
DO NOT ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION!

My opponent obviously didn’t understand the reasons for which I answered my own question, or any of my case for that matter. My opponent has given flawed syllogisms, taken court verdicts out of context, admitted to taking them out of context, cited from Wikipedia, called my arguments idiotic and ludicrous, had ten misspelled words in his last round alone, and does not give any practical reason why same-sex marriage would be beneficial to society. For these reasons and more I urge a vote for Con and I look forward to how my opponent responds.

Sources

http://www.utilitarianism.com...

Debate Round No. 3
Agnostic86

Pro

i appologize for even starting my DDO account. i have closed it because of the horrifying conduct from both sides. i will NEVER in a million years convert to xtianity.

Poof. i am gone from DDO.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Don't apologize! I hope that my opponent will realize that it's not a big deal and I am also greatly saddened that opponent's heart has been hardened toward Christianity. However, I accept my opponent's forfeit.

I extend all of my arguments, and I hope that any Christians out there will be praying with me for my opponent.


Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Ya I've figured that out by now
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
He gets upset when he's losing, then he does something that makes him look like a tool, so he closes his account and opens a new one to try to start fresh (this time he opened it with a false age and location...)
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Ya me too, he deleted me from his facebook and everything, he's just angry for some reason. Does anyone know why he deleted everything?
Posted by Kinesis 5 years ago
Kinesis
kohai was kinda disturbed. I hope he didn't off himself or something.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Oh ok, well I think Kohai's profile was shut down cause he was vote bombing so that would definitely make sense
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
I was browsing through my news feed when I noticed he commented on someone's profile with a link to his Facebook page. The name matched the one that kohai used to use.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
No way.... :O I didn't even think about piecing those together....

How did you know?
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
So it turns out that Agnostic86 was really kohai.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Hey he's allowed to comment
Posted by Agnostic86 5 years ago
Agnostic86
Contradiction, please stay out of my debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Agnostic86SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit. Not to mention that Pro was rather comical in his farewell post, only Lionheart was better.
Vote Placed by medic0506 5 years ago
medic0506
Agnostic86SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Agnostic86SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited, but even so Skeptics had stronger arguments all around.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Agnostic86SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obliteration from Con, well formed argument which caused Pro to concede and abandon debate, can not get a stronger win.
Vote Placed by Koopin 5 years ago
Koopin
Agnostic86SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct becuase the forfeit. Convincing arguments becuase of... convincing arguments! Same for reliable sources.