The Instigator
CarlaJMena
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Legalization of 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 11 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 24026
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (24)
Votes (11)

 

CarlaJMena

Pro

I would like to debate with 16kadams about same-sex marriage. Because fondly, i would like to get his opinion on it. It seems like a very popular topic worldwide.
Now let me visit the definition of same-sex marriage.

1. two people of the same sex who live together as a family;
2. 2 people entering a marriage contract by law
Rules:

No trolling
No swearing
No inappropriate content
Sources needed.
16kadams

Con

I assume it's one round for argunments

Aka I just accept, meaning it's unfair for con, I'm ok with that.
Debate Round No. 1
CarlaJMena

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, may the best of both win.

I strongly believe in equal rights under the law for all Americans. There are those among us who do not. My feelings are that if two people love each other, are in a committed relationship, with shared assets, those assets need to be protected in the event of one partners death. If there are two men who share their lives together, share a home, perhaps have children that they are raising, and one of those men gets hit by a green bus, that mans partner should be able to join him in the ICU and hold his hand while machines breathe for him. This should be by default, without having to lie about being "brothers", without the concern that the family of the injured man, or indeed the doctors involved would be able to block the visit.

If that man dies of his wounds, currently the other man could conceivably be put out on the street as his partners family seizes assets and freezes him out of his partners life.

Our President says:
"If our laws teach that marriage is the sacred commitment of a man and a woman, the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life, that strengthens the institution of marriage," ... "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened."

I disagree with this on many points. The religious institution called "marriage" is not at issue here. No one is pushing for a constitutional amendment demanding that the Baptist or Catholic churches marry homosexuals. In fact, no one on what I'll call the "human rights" side of the debate is seriously pushing a constitutional amendment at all, to the best of my knowledge. The fact that my neighbors might be two men who love and are committed to each other has zero impact on the fact that my wife and I love and are committed to each other. Their relationship has no bearing on our relationship. Their relationship is not going to cause my wife and I to love each other less, or cause us to get divorced. What we're talking about is, in fact, a legal definition. Mr. Bush misses the point by conflating Religious views and Legal views. I have no doubts that the Catholic church will strongly disagree with a legal definition of marriage allowing any two people who love each other to join in the social contract of marriage. It's good that they disagree and healthy that they should refuse to marry two men who they firmly believe are going to be ultimately subjected to large amounts of fire in a place reserved for bad people who disagree with them. NO one is asking them to do or believe otherwise.

I also believe that, while good in its own right, the state of Vermont's kludge Civil Union law is ultimately ineffective. This state law does not entitle couples to any federal death benefits, and it becomes void if a couple decides to move across state lines. Many states further ban actual same sex marriages performed in other states from being recognized. Therefore the only way to change things nationwide would be with a federal law overriding all state laws to level the playing field.

Mitt Romney actually tried to use an antiquated Massachusetts law to prevent out of state folks from getting married in Massachusetts. This law was written to prevent people from coming from a state where they were legally denied marriage and taking advantage of Massachusetts more liberal definition of "citizen". The law prevents people from coming to Massachusetts to engage in a marriage which would be illegall in their home states. The people this law was preventing were black. Now they would like to use it to prevent the new "less human" folks from getting married. That is telling. (yes, I acknowledge the straw man, and I don't care, email me if you want to get pedantic about it).

This is antiquated, puritanical thinking. It is dangerous to make legislation based on religious beliefs which are not shared by the less religious among us.

Screw it, this is going on too long. Equal rights, right now. Constitutional Amendments should be reserved for defining rights, not removing them (prohibition worked well). If I don't believe in Bush's partner in sobriety, Jesus, should I be blocked from the Institution of Marriage, since I am "diluting" it? Since I am "cutting marriage off from its cultural, religious and NATURAL roots"? The day I let George W. Bush lecture me on what constitutes Natural Healthy Goodness...

Now i would also like to point out that gay/lesbian couples are tending to be happier than heterosexuals. There where high characteristics in 79 percent of lesbian couples, 56 percent of gay male couples, but in only 8 percent of heterosexual married couples. Same-sex couples are also happier than heterosexuals. Which means when gay/lesbian couples have children in their lifetime, they are in a more calm and safe environment.

SOURCES:
1.http://www.thedailybeast.com...
2.http://www.religioustolerance.org...
3.http://news.softpedia.com...
16kadams

Con

My opponents case goes into three argunments, one irrelevant.

1. Discrimination
2. Religeon (irrleevant.)
3. Antisegmination
4. Additudes

Lets talk about relegion first. Her civil union argunment is even more irrelevant, as the resolution reads MARRIAGE not civil union.

1. Relegion

This is irrelevant, you refute the president but not me. None of my case pertains to relegion, and the law does not either, (it might indirectly though) therefore this is refuting an argunment that would not have otherwised surfaced. I am againse SSM and I am not [currently] christian. Irrelevant.

2. Discrimination

This first argunment is poor for many reasons.

a) It first assumes all discrimination is unjust discrimination. For something to be inherintly bad (my opponent argues banning SSM is bad) the discrimination my opponent cites must be "bad". Homosexuals are NOT barred from marriage, their intimate sexual relationships are. My opponent advocates discrimiantion on a sexual basis of sexual preferences. If this is correct, we must ask if the discrimination is unjust/just, in my opinion the discrimination is, in fact, just. I am lazy so I will quote my way out of this.

"One way the justification can be articulated, is in terms of the doctrine of “double effect”: The primary intent in restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is to maintain marriage as the institution that fulfils society’s need to protect the inherently procreative relationship and its functions for society, and is not to exclude homosexual relationships because they are homosexual. The discrimination involved in the exclusion is a secondary effect which is not desired but unavoidable, and it is justified or excused by the primary purpose which otherwise cannot be realized."[1]

b) I would like to poitn out in the definition we are arguing LAW. So even if the discrimination is unjust, my opponent has failed to point out why the law shoudl favor SSM based on this alone. And she also failed to point out if the discrimination broke any law. (constitution maybe?) As she left this out, this point fails on a legal basis. But one could assume, though, that discrimination against the constitution was implied. As it was implied I still feel obliged to refute it. Here I go:

And again the SSM debate is fundamentally over what marriage is. One cannot simply claim to have a right to X without knowing what X actually is, and vice versa. As noted in the harvard paper:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [2]

In arguing the equal protection he is assuming the right does in fact exist. And only if this right exists will there be discrimination. By doing this he begs an important question, though. Doing this he argues the conception of marriage covers homosexual couples. As the right of marriage does not apply to homosexuals, no illegal practice of discrimination is occurring.
______________

As she failed to point this out it is irrelevant to law, but as it is implied (and now refuted) it is also debunked.

3. Antisegmination


Now this too is highly flawed, she is comparing race to sexuality. An interacial marriage is capable of procreation (see my case for how this applies). Interacial marriage has no effect on the procreative type relationship of marriage. "Because an interracial marriage between a man and a woman does symbolize the procreative relationship, its prohibition is based on racial discrimination which is wrong. In contrast, not extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, is not based on the sexual orientation of the partners, but the absence of a feature of their relationship which is an essential feature of marriage."[1]

4. Additudes

This is irrelevant. Just because homosexuals are happier does not mean they deserve marriage. My dog is happier then me, but my dog cannot get a marriage liscense. This point is irrelevant and holds no weight on a legal basis, which is what we are arguing.

--> Case <--
Intro:

Marriage as a fundamental right and discrimination was dealt with in the rebuttals. So my case will be based on what marriage is,, and how it holds up on a legal basis.

What is marriage?

Marriage is actually a fairly simple institution and it is clear why it should not be dealt with. Marriage is a higher social status to a mere relationship, and involves procreation and child rearing. [1, 2] Again, I am lazy and will quote my way out of this:

"Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation."[1]

"the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."[2]

Now the real question is how this holds up on a legal basis (contrary to ALL of my opponents argunments). Procreation is a function that is fully needed to fufill societies interests and is vital for continuation of society. No babies no society. The government ought to, now, subsidize this act through marriage to encorage healthy procreation for the good of society. It is a states interest, something homosexuals cannot fufill.

Now there is a real case to this, not just 16k on a rant about SSM... again... The courts have actually ruled in favor of this. Here are a few.

Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” – Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

“[Marriage] is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” – Maynard v. Hill (1888)


“Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” – Loving v. Virginia (1967)


“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species... Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution's inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.” – Conaway v. Deane (2007)

"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to the fundamental rights of procreation, chidlbirth, abortion, and childrearing.” – Anderson v. King County (Wash. 2006)


Source: Facebook (the DDO user does not like it when I cite him by name)

Conclusion:


Al of my opponents argunments are poor and are refuted, and fail on a legal basis. If readers read R1 we are arguing marriage as a legal institution. A failure to argue well on this legal basis means my opponent loses this debate. All of my argunments apply legally and therefore are not red herrings to the resolution like my opponents. Vote CON.


Sources:
[1] Margaret A. Somerville “THE CASE AGAINST "SAME-SEX MARRIAGE"” McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, April 29, 2003
[2] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010)
Debate Round No. 2
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
" and not paying fit it through procreative type marriages"

duuu wah?
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Libertarian voted for me

One deviating scum

HANG HIM!!
Posted by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Not surprising, all votes so far have been along party lines.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I'm not arguing it harms procreation, rather they are getting a service and not paying fit it through procreative type marriages.
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
Well, the idea that homosexual marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage and procreation seems pretty paranoid to me.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
"Pro's reasons seem good. Con's seem more a paranoid fantasy."-wiploc

Dafuq?
Posted by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
All of the rational thinkers are voting for Con.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
I don't have time
Posted by HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
As for the rest, challenge me in the debate and we'll handle that then.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
It's fine :p
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 2 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted Pro's religion point by claiming she was not refuting him. She could not refute him, as he posed no case. Conduct to Pro. S/G to Pro because of Con's lovely Conclusion. For a one-rounder, Con posed his case anyway, irrefutable by Pro. That wins her Args. Sources to Pro because I didn't have to look them up to make sure they were valid.
Vote Placed by Crevaux 2 years ago
Crevaux
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate, lacks rounds.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 2 years ago
socialpinko
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: I choose not to vote on arguments as a mere one round debate doesn't really seem capable of a real discussion into the matter. However, reading the debate, the thing that popped out most was the Con's horrible use of spelling. It was hard for me to read through without stopping several times. S/G doesn't usually retain much relevance but it certainly did in this debate as with Con's extreme lack of spell-checking abilities.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doomed herself by not giving herself an opportunity to respond (i.e. need more rounds). If she had, she might have had a chance since there were holes in Con's arguments, though her original arguments did not seem close to strong enough to beat Pro's.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gave more reliable sources (religiousintolerance? Well that doesn't sound biased at all). Arguments because Con refuted all of Pro's arguments. Pro should have made this debate longer. Most of Pro's argument was primarily emotional. However, Con, man, bro, seriously, spell check. Find it. Use it. Love it.
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con DEFINITELY had worse spelling, with almost 30 errors according to spell check (not counting words not found in dictionary). Pro only had two errors, one spelling one grammar. Pro argued that if two people are in a committed relationship, they should be allowed to see each other and take care of the kids they raised together. Con did not address this, so Con did not give a good reason to justify discrimination on this count. Btw, one round for arguments is not really "a debate" imo.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 2 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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: Con devastated. "I am lazy so I will quote my way out of this.". All Pro's arguments were fully rebutted, and did not stand.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 2 years ago
1Historygenius
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious choice. All that really happened here was that Pro posted something and Con refuted it. Con was able to refute all of pro's arguments. I also think Con had better sources than pro. What con actually argued was how heterosexuals have a special status and its not that homosexuals will prevent reproduction, it is just that there is no benefit for them them in society. Anyway, Wiploc was probably high when he voted.
Vote Placed by wiploc 2 years ago
wiploc
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con argues legal recognition of homosexual marriage will somehow prevent reproduction by heterosexuals. That would be important if true, but Con gives us no reason to think it true. Pro points out that good things would actually happen if homosexual marriages were recognized: spouses could inherit, children could automatically remain with their surviving parent, etcetera. Pro's reasons seem good. Con's seem more a paranoid fantasy. Con's spelling was distracting and confusing.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 2 years ago
TheOrator
CarlaJMena16kadamsTied
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: This is an obvious choice