The Instigator
Eris
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
1stLordofTheVenerability
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,192 times Debate No: 9744
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

Eris

Pro

We'll start off with some definitions:

1) Mar�riage: 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

Miriam-Webster @2009

2) abol�ish: to end the observance or effect of

Miriam-Webster @2009

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

It is my contention that marriage should cease to be recognized as a legal institution as it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of any number of Constitutional amendments (The 14th in particular). In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transfered to the legal contracts defining civil unions, thereby reaffirming marriage as a solely religious exercise. My reasoning for this course of action is two fold:

1) Constitutional Requirement for Equality.

The 14th Amendment states: " No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1).

I will now demonstrate that "marriage" licenses as they are now understood are unconstitutional.

Example A: Immigration rights

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration. Those with Civil Unions do not have the opportunity to do so, effectively denying them equal rights and protections under the law guaranteed by 14th Amendment. (2) Therefore, the ability of a marriage license to "abridge" the rights of one group of people when compared to another is illegal and must be abolished.

Example B: Taxes.

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so they cannot file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. (2) This viewed in any legal context would be defined as systemic discrimination and economic persecution of a distinct minority group - something forbidden by the 14th Amendment as a lack of "equal protection under the law". Therefore, marriage licenses on the basis of their discriminatory application of federal benefits are unconstitutional.

Example C: Socio-economic Benefits:

The N.O.W. lists 1,400 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples, not also universally available to homosexual couples (3). The benefits exclusive to heterosexual couples, and denied to civil unions on the basis of legality, range from:

1) Federal Survivor Benefits through Social Security
2) Federally guaranteed "Sick Leave" for an ailing partner / child.
3) Access to COBRA unemployment insurance benefits.
4) Numerous tax breaks provided by the IRS to "married" couples.
5) Veteran's benefits ranging from health insurance to disabilities.
6) Legal visitation right of a spouse in the hospital / prison system.
7) Making medical / legal decisions if your partner is unable to.

Any one of these benefits conferred to only heterosexual couples violates the 14th Amendment, again requiring that "marriage" be abolished as a legal contract based upon its discriminatory and selective application of benefits to a majority.

It should now be resolved that we must remove these arbitrary benefits inherent to possessing a "marriage" license as is Constitutionally mandated. In turn, society must legally transfer those same benefits onto a non-discriminatory civil union contract, effectively curtailing the socio-economic discrimination and conforming to the legal necessities of equality as delegated by the constitution.

2) Rights of Religion

Despite by personal beliefs about Religion, it has become a foundational belief of our society that people of faith should be allowed to believe whatever they want. In turn, their "rights to belief" as provided by the First Amendment must be protected. Therefore, I cannot morally justify forcing them to allow the "marriage" of people they see unfit to do so - they cannot legally be required to change their religious ceremonies as it would violate their "freedom". Instead, what society can do - and in my opinion morally must do - is remove any economic and social benefits granted to a discriminatory contract or belief system. Therefore those people that still wished to be "married" after receiving a civil union for the socio-economical benefits, and who are allowed to under the tenants of that particular religion, can do so knowing that the "sanctity" of their marriage is intact while society at large avoids supporting such "protected" discrimination.

It should be readily apparent that this contention is the only logical course of action as it would both promote both a necessary and required equality under the law - a Constitutional obligation we have to uphold - and simultaneously would also reaffirm the rights of religions and their followers to be intolerant

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

1: http://www.law.cornell.edu...
2: Kathy Belge; About.com
3: http://www.now.org...
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transferred to the legal contracts defining civil unions."

So you encourage Civil Unions over legitimate and (ultimately) moral marriage? You state that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution, but yet that civil union are a perfect example of a legal institution? In essence, the two are the same. Marriage is a commitment to another, no matter what the sex. By dividing it up, you are being as discriminatory as you accuse the Government of being. In fact, a civil Unions is often defined as heterosexuals whom just haven't legally married, yet.

Furthermore, you advocate the rights of parties of civil unions (gay marriage, for example), but you state that peaceful religious beliefs are intolerable? Please. Morality in marriage is intolerable just because a pastor typically is the one to conduct ceremonies? What about Justices of the Peace? They also have the authority to conduct marriage. That would exclude any 'religious' sense.

By abolishing marital status, you would be breaking that 14th Amendment just as much as you claim the Government is by not ceding the same rights to Civil Unions. Legally Married couples have rights. The majority of people are legally married - who are you to say that the rights that these people have gained with their moral status should be abolished?

Marriage is a practice as old as humanity itself. Abolishing its legal status would be an outrage among legally married people. In order to advocate the rights of one group, one Cannot impede upon the rights of another, which is what you are suggesting. Rather, any form of marriage or union should be recognized as so before the law.

Lastly, what about moral and societal implications? A homosexual couple cannot naturally nurture or reproduce children. Homosexual marriage is of immorality and breaks all the laws of nature. I agree that people should be allowed to make their choice, but they can also make that choice knowing the consequences of Civil Marriage rather than Legal marriage. To discourage morality would be to encourage the downfall of humanity, step by step.
Debate Round No. 1
Eris

Pro

I will be addressing my opponent's argument on a line-by-line basis for the sake of clarity

"So you encourage Civil Unions over legitimate and (ultimately) moral marriage?"

How is something that does not discriminate less moral than something that does? Logically, that is the least sound argument I have read on this site.

"You state that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution, but yet that civil union are a perfect example of a legal institution? In essence, the two are the same."

The two are entirely different. One is a religious ceremony endorsed by a Priest of some sort. One is private contract between two citizens endorsed by the Government.

"Marriage is a commitment to another, no matter what the sex."

False. Marriage is legally defined as the union of a male and a female. As such, and with respect to it economic benefits, it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of the 14th Amendment.

"In fact, a civil Unions is often defined as heterosexuals whom just haven't legally married, yet."

Also false. That period of time is commonly called an 'engagement period'. A civil union and a marriage are entirely different forms of contractual obligation.

"Furthermore, you advocate the rights of parties of civil unions (gay marriage, for example), but you state that peaceful religious beliefs are intolerable?"

No, I said people who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are intolerant, such as people of faith - though you are correct in assuming one could make the argument that intolerance is intolerable.

"Legally Married couples have rights. The majority of people are legally married - who are you to say that the rights that these people have gained with their moral status should be abolished?"

Yes legally married couples have rights - rights that are exclusive to the heterosexual segment of our population. Furthermore, the rights of this heterosexual group of people would in no way be legally abridged, because they can still get married if they choose to participate in that religious ceremony. However, if "married" couples want the socioeconomic benefits they previously enjoyed, they would have to get a civil union - though I doubt very much that would be a hardship considering Civil Unions are non-discriminatory and non-denominational.

"Marriage is a practice as old as humanity itself."

The length of time a practice has endured does not denote is validity or practicality.

"Abolishing its legal status would be an outrage among legally married people."

So was abolishing slavery among slave-owners, and yet it was morally and legally the necessary thing to do.

"In order to advocate the rights of one group, one Cannot impede upon the rights of another, which is what you are suggesting."

I made this very clear in my first post, knowing my opponent would most likely bring it up again. My resolution in no way abridges the rights of religious people to get "married" if they choose to. Instead, my resolution extends those rights previously exclusive to heterosexual couples to all couples. This is a distinction you cannot refute.

"Lastly, what about moral and societal implications? A homosexual couple cannot naturally nurture or reproduce children."

I would prefer that you provide proof from a reputable source that homosexual couples cannot "nurture" children. This is an outlandish argument to make.

"Homosexual marriage is of immorality and breaks all the laws of nature."

How exactly is the union of two consenting adults immoral?

Furthermore, homosexuality does not break the laws of nature: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I'd like you to note that homosexual behavior is especially prevalent in primates and social bird species.

One last point for you - I believe the Bible states that only humans can sin, because only humans have eternal souls. So when God made all the animals on the (4th day?), why did he also choose to make a portion of them homosexual, knowing they don't have souls and cannot in fact "sin"?

"To discourage morality would be to encourage the downfall of humanity, step by step."

My resolution would not "discourage" morality as it would in fact lessen discrimination. Therefore, the continued survival of marriage as a discriminatory legal system is in fact the "immoral" course of action.

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

Conclusion: I directly refuted my opponents claims, including those for which he has no logical foundation or proof through evidence. In addition, several of my original contentions have gone unanswered in their entirety - including the Constitutionality of marriages themselves and the unequal benefits they provide.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples." ~ It is true that this union could be known as the engagement period, but it is also obvious that a heterosexual union can be a civil union.

Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it? That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others. One couldn't be more wrong. It is not the married couples' fault that civil unions and homosexual marriage aren't recognized with the same degree of rights. Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people.

The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral. Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married. I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people.

"The two are entirely different. One is a religious ceremony endorsed by a Priest of some sort. One is private contract between two citizens endorsed by the Government"

A marriage ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. I think also that a ship's captain still maintains the authority to perform marriage in some areas of the world. These people aren't priests - marriage doesn't have to be religious - it just has to be recognized as such on moral guidelines by an authority.

"False. Marriage is legally defined as the union of a male and a female. As such, and with respect to it economic benefits, it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of the 14th Amendment."

I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world. Marriage is often defined as so if the couple is legally united. This does include common law marriage. As I have before stated, by completely abolishing marital status, you would be breaking the 14th. Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed.

No, marriage is the most intimate result of true love that can be found. It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union. Rather, the civil unions should need to apply for marriage.
In some churches, Homosexuals and civil Unions can be officially married.

Abolishing slavery and abolishing the status of marriage are two entirely different and irrelevant comparisons. Slavery was cruelty in keeping one in a state of servitude. Marriage is not a cruelty. Rather, marriage is the purest form a couple can apply for. It is the peak of morality. Abolishing the status would be as unjust as personally forcing each person into servitude.

"My resolution in no way abridges the rights of religious people to get "married" if they choose to. Instead, my resolution extends those rights previously exclusive to heterosexual couples to all couples. This is a distinction you cannot refute."

Exactly what I have been saying. If all couples were officially married and granted marital status, then there would be no purpose for abolishing that status. Thank you for clarifying my point.

The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper. It is incentive for couples to do what is right and become officially and legally married.

I do believe that certain species roam in packs, such as lions. One male to a bride of lionesses, correct? does that mean that polygamy is morally proper? Of course not.

If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society.
Debate Round No. 2
Eris

Pro

Continuing the previous format:

"In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples." ~ It is true that this union could be known as the engagement period, but it is also obvious that a heterosexual union can be a civil union."

This was clearly not my contention. You stated that unmarried heterosexual couples can be considered as having a "civil union" before they are married, which is quite simply wrong. A civil union must be endorsed in some manner by a third party, it's not simply an agreement between two people to get married at some later point. As such, your point is irrelevant and my contention still stands: Marriage and Civil Unions are in no way equal.

"Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it?"

No you're being intentionally thick. Marriage obviously discriminates, because not everyone can get a marriage. This is not a point you can refute.

"That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others."

They do "lord" their status over others when they say only heterosexual couples can get married in order to "preserve" the sanctity of what they have. I'm unsure of what you might call that, other than "lording" or some other euphemistic synonym. Hence, it is not in the slightest fallacious to say that married people against homosexual unions are elitist, but this is beside the point: marriage licenses in the first place are unconstitutional - a point you have yet to refute with any evidence to the contrary.

"Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people."

Personal opinions aside, if this is true how can you deny participation in such a union? Doing so would be unforgivably immoral, a fact I have pointed out all ready and one which you continue to ignore.

"The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral."

Explain to me what is "officially moral". Then explain to me the reason why you get to decide the morality of another person's decision which in way directly effects your life, other then offending your sensibilities - which is not illegal.

"Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married."

Prostitution and Homosexual marriage are incomparable in terms of morality. To make such an argument is fallacious and ignorant. Furthermore, living with the opposite sex is generally not considered immoral unless you live in the 15th Century and burn witches.

"I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people."

Provide proof that the "majority of humanity" believes living with the opposite sex is immoral. Again, my opponent continues to make unfounded claims and refuses to address arguments for which I have provided evidence and he cannot seemingly refute.

"A marriage ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. I think also that a ship's captain still maintains the authority to perform marriage in some areas of the world."

This is beside the point. When they preform a "marriage", they are acting as an agent of religion - as they are preforming an explicitly religious ceremony.

"These people aren't priests - marriage doesn't have to be religious - it just has to be recognized as such on moral guidelines by an authority."

You seem to be under the assumption here the marriage and civil unions are equivalent, so I'll try this again. Marriages are inherently religious - this is a fact you cannot dispute. Conversely, civil unions need not be religious and therefore can be preformed by an agent of the Government.

"I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world."

Give me one example of anywhere in the world where the conventional notion of a "marriage" has been between anything but a male and a female. Furthermore, my contention obviously does not apply to the entire world, and I never asserted it did. I simply said marriage licenses are unconstitutional (read: with respect to the U.S. Constitution), a point you have yet to refute and have consistently avoided throughout this response.

"As I have before stated, by completely abolishing marital status, you would be breaking the 14th. Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed."

You clearly are not even aware what we are arguing. I am not advocating for the abolishment of "marriage". I am arguing that we should remove the legal and socio-economic benefits from it because it is discriminatory. This is a point you should try and understand before responding again.

"Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed."

All statuses cannot be declared marital because not all ceremonies are denominational, nor do all relationships abide within the confines of a religion. However a private contract between two people, and endorsed by the government, need not adhere to any of these tenets and is more universal in nature.

"It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union."

Your using an ineffective appeal to emotion, specifically outrage here, because you are too unwilling to accept that religions are discriminatory - and as agents of religion, so are marriages. Furthermore, no one is being "forced" to apply for a civil union. If you would prefer to have a solely religious ceremony recognized by your church / temple, no one is going to stop you. However, if you would like the socio-economic benefits provided by the federal government, you should have to get a civil union in addition to your "marriage".

"Abolishing slavery and abolishing the status of marriage are two entirely different and irrelevant comparisons. Slavery was cruelty in keeping one in a state of servitude. Marriage is not a cruelty. Rather, marriage is the purest form a couple can apply for. It is the peak of morality. Abolishing the status would be as unjust as personally forcing each person into servitude."

You cannot change my analogy to suit your purposes. You argued abolishing marriage would be an outrage, and therefore immoral. I argued that outraging a segment of the population is not necessarily an outrage, as declaring slavery illegal was an outrage to "slave owners", but was clearly the moral path necessary. Taken in context, my analogy still stands and regardless of your "moral" outrage, society has the obligation to insure equality among all segments of its population.

"Exactly what I have been saying. If all couples were officially married and granted marital status, then there would be no purpose for abolishing that status. Thank you for clarifying my point."

I addressed this point earlier. Furthermore, I would like to know your exact points of opposition to reaffirming marriage as a religious ceremony - specifically what are the downsides of doing so, other than losing your "power" to endorse the morality of a population's actions.

"The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper."

A "reward" for being morally proper? This is the most outrageous claim I have ever heard. For you to even make this argument makes me think you aren't taking this debate seriously.

"If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society."

I've already stated extending equalities would in no way "deteriorate" society. You have yet to provide evidence that doing so would indeed lessen the quality of society

Conclusion:

My opponent continues to ignore the constitutionality argument I offered because he cannot refute it, therefore I await his response.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do.

One thing I wish to reiterate is that, opposite to the beliefs of the pro, Marriage should not be abolished as a legal institution. [i] Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses.

To lead off with my arguments, let me just appoint the readers to a recent decision by the Church of Sweden to conduct homosexual marriages. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Amendment 14: 1. 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."

~ http://www.usconstitution.net...

It's all very fine for you to quote a single phrase or section of the entire section of the Amendment, but the interpretation you are looking for is, indeed, incorrect. It continues to state, '...without due process of the law.' I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions. In fact, the majority of the States completely reject homosexual marriage. They are supported by the courts, to a large extent. As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution. And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th. And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties. To the contrary, most important recent laws have to do with the legalization of Civil Unions and the repealing of certain laws that prevented homosexual marriage to occur.

Steps have been made in such states that support homosexual marriages and civil unions to match their rights with those of heterosexual couples. Now, homosexual couples are allowed to file income jointly in certain states (such as California). Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way.

Also very important is the fact that a Civil Union or homosexual couple realizes exactly what they are getting into when they perform the deed. The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise. Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals). Yet, even though a full realization is made (also a realization of breaking a very moral decision), and the Civil Union/Homosexual marriage conducted, anyway. With Full recognition by Both parties.

I think it is you who are being stubborn. Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples. How does such an intimate relationship discriminate? In the United States, it is true that not everyone can be married, but that is only because they choose to defy natural law, order and societal standards. Any man can marry any woman if the consent of both is given.

I think this is another place you err. The married couples themselves don't 'lord' anything. Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another.

Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money. A couple living together often results in problems - heartbreak, seperation before marriage and perhaps even a legitimate child and then single mother. Any parents who wish to see their children grow up with family values do not encourage their children to live with another until they are married. Thus, even if it is not distinctly considered 'immoral' among society, living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values. And your following statement is quite discriminatory in itself. Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that.
Debate Round No. 3
Eris

Pro

Continuing the previous format:

"I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do."

We are going in circles because you are avoiding the points I have made in the previous rounds, and now only in the last round have decided to address them.

"Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses."

Giving Civil Unions the same status as "traditional marriage" requires convincing everyone, including religious extremists, that homosexuals should be accepted within society, something that is rather impossible at this this point. It is much easier to simply take away the legal benefits of a discriminatory system instead of providing an alternative, non-discriminatory system.

"I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions."

They have not been given "due process" because many of them have no legal standing to sue for their rights. As it currently works, the only way for you to sue in our legal system is for you to have had a "right" taken away from you. If you never had that right in the first place, then you can't legally sue for it, unless it is on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Even then the Supreme Court has so far refused to hear any of the cases presented to it, instead relying on the prior precedence. So your point here is rather misguided - they have not been given "due process", and even if they had, that does not exempt laws from being declared unconstitutional or illegal.

"As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution."

This is ridiculously incorrect. Anyone who has ever taken a US history or Political Science course will agree with me. One state cannot debate the Constitutionality of the First Amendment, and then decide not to enforce it. You are clearly misinformed about the nature of our legal system, and I would suggest you avoid making these statements for the sake of your own argument.

"And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th."

As long as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they are violating the 14th Amendment, regardless of "due process" or not. "Due process" simply guarantees them the right to a trial by jury within a reasonable time frame - it says nothing about the Constitutionality of the law.

"And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties."

Just because this is the worst contrived argument you have written, I'm going to simply list states that directly refute your claim by defining "marriage as between a man and a woman", whether through DOMA or State Constitutional amendments,; or both:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

As you can see, your just wrong on this point. Furthermore, "recently" passed has no bearing on my argument. An unconstitutional law passed 500 years ago is still unconstitutional.

"Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way."

If full rights are not given equally and immediately, the 14th is being violated. It is not a "halfsies" sort of thing. Again, your ignorance of the law is destroying your own argument.

"The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise."

I'm glad you now agree with my argument. As their "rights" are being limited - something expressly and explicitly prohibited by the 14th Amendment - marriage laws are unconstitutional. You just effectively conceded this debate, and I again urge the audience to vote Pro if not just for this statement.

"Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals)."

Their realizing of a lack of rights does not make those lack of rights either morally or legally acceptable. The 14th Amendment does not allow us to ignore inequalities because people know they exist. This is a ridiculous argument that I'm surprised even you decided to pursue."

"Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples"

Exactly. It should have no legal or economic aspect to it. Even suggesting that degrades the 'sanctity' of marriage more so than arguing that homosexuals should be allowed to be "married" in the same manner as religious people. It seems you've simply given up in this debate.

"Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another."

I'm quoting this just so the audience can read it again. Furthermore, I'm so disappointed in this argument I'm not going to acknowledge it's lack of validity.

"Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money."

In other words, they're nothing alike. Nice argument.

"living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values"

No, it opposes your values. Do not be so arrogant to claim that it opposes my traditional values.

"Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that."

Again, you using hyperbole out of context is a rather shallow tactic. I never stated anywhere in my argument I was against parents teaching their children values. I said people that lived in the 14th and 15th Centuries held the view that living with the opposite sex was a sin, which is quite coincidently the same values you seem to hold.

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

Conclusion: I had hoped this debate would be about the constitutionality of marriage laws, but instead my opponent chose to ignore this aspect of my debate and in its place he offered some of the worst refutations I have ever seen. Furthermore, he refuted not a single one of my points, and in this last round, he even decided to admit that my contention and resolution were valid - while simultaneously still trying to argue I was wrong. For these reasons, I urge a vote for the Pro.
1stLordofTheVenerability

Con

We are going in circles because you are avoiding the points I have made in the previous rounds, and now only in the last round have decided to address them"

And in likewise manner you are ignoring many of my greatest points.

Of course it is impossible! That is because the majority of society are largely against homosexual marriage due to its moral implications. Thanks for clarifying why marriage shouldn't be abolished.
It shouldn't be abolished because it is the status of a properly united couple.

No legal standings? Then I guess the legal decisions we are perpetually hearing about worldwide don't have any validity. In which case, the Government has already enacted a decision in the courts. In fact, just the fact that homosexual marriage is allowed in some States is enough to demonstrate the pliability of the Government due to prior processes, as you have indicated.

Jeepers criminy, your grasp of English definitions has led to complete err in comprehending what I meant. I stated that each State is completely within its Judicial rights to follow the Constitution, which states, 'Within due processes of the law.' Since the Supreme courts and the Federal Government have not ruled homosexual marriage and the rights that result from it unconstitutional, the State receives the jurisdiction to make its own decision on the matter (Within the Constitution). This is why some states prohibit gay marriage and some don't.

In the Country of Canada, homosexual marriage has been legalized. However, they don't receive the same rights as legitimately married couples. But why should Canada then take away the rights of a morally married couple? These people already have rights. To do so would blatantly defy the Charter. Likewise to the USA.

Again I will state that inaction against Civil Unions and Homosexual marriage are not in defiance of the Constitution. However, diminishing marital status would be violating the rights of the people. You are correct, legislation cannot defy the Constitution. Thus none can be passed to prohibit marriage.

Marriage Laws are not unconstitutional. In fact, Marriage laws are completely constitutional. Nice try to twist it and scream 'prejudism', but no matter what happens regarding Civil Unions, one cannot refute that Marriage is Constitutional. Perhaps it is incorrect that Civil unions aren't granted the same rights, but that does not mean that marriage should lose its Constitutional status. Rather, as I have stated before, Civil Unions may just have their rights adjusted to equal that of marriage, even if they aren't married by 'religious' definition.

I can state at least a dozen areas where you use hyperboles out of context. Quaint accusation - maybe I should allot you brownie points?

I don't see why I should bash my opponent's arguments. They were well thought out, but the sheer bias of what he is arguing instigates that he could never win. To diminish one's status in support of another is discrimination, is it not? Especially when a tactic of allotting the same amount of rights to both is a plausible venture. For this reason, I don't think it is necessary to urge you to vote for 'con', as my opponent has done for himself. Ladies and gents, the case before you is obvious.

Thanks for the interesting debate. Cheers
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Crust89 4 years ago
Crust89
I'm voting on the Constitutionality Argument for Pro. Specifically, I'm going to vote right where Pro tells me to, ""The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise."

I'm glad you now agree with my argument. As their "rights" are being limited - something expressly and explicitly prohibited by the 14th Amendment - marriage laws are unconstitutional. You just effectively conceded this debate, and I again urge the audience to vote Pro if not just for this statement."

I don't even need to get to the advantages of a Civil Union over Marriage to make this decision.

Con does nowhere near enough analysis as to why marriage is constitutional aside from unwarranted claims.

It would have been nice, though, if Pro had specifically pointed to all of his original three examples rather than just saying that his points are going dropped.

RoyLatham:
The resolution is as it states. "Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution". Pro just offers the idea that this can be accomplished by "replacing" the legal portions of marriage with a civil union. Also, Proposition 8 isn't about renaming Civil Unions. It's about defining marriage as between only a man and woman. Check out the wikipedia article.

Eros:
If I understand it correctly, "Eros
Pro's premise of 'equal rights under the law' fails,
as that it only requires that all people who qualify under the law, for intance the marriage laws, are treated equally.", is correct. However, LordoftheVenerability never makes this argument. Or rather, never provides the analysis that this would be true. Also, the "efficiency of terms" argument is never made, as well. We shouldn't be voting on arguments that never surface. That's called letting your personal bias interfere. We're supposed to be voting on who did the better debating and, in this instance, Eris has won.
Posted by Eros 4 years ago
Eros
Pro's premise of 'equal rights under the law' fails,
as that it only requires that all people who qualify under the law, for intance the marriage laws, are treated equally.
Under the founding documents of our nation, the blessings of God is invoked, and prohibits only the particulars of particular religions from entering law, thus Con wins the morality argument.
Conveying the rights of marriage to civil union means that a human and dog in a civil union have...
The relief being sought is not to be found in the reduction of marriage, but rather by the broading of the qualifing class.
But this I do also vote against because when an individual says to me "I am married." I now know much of what is signified.
The employment of precision in terms add efficiency to society.
Rather if a certain sub-group wants their particular social organization recognized as a distinct form they should coin a new name for it, and if they want particular rights to be accorded to that organization then they to evolve to those rights, and not attempt to upsurp the rights of another particular social organization.

Eros for your correction.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Reading the debate, i see that I misunderstood the resolution. I thought the idea was to get the government out of the business of certifying couples and providing benefits to them. Not so, the idea is to rename "marriage" as "civil union" and thereby extend the benefits given to couples even further. In California, the law is that civil unions must convey all the benefits of marriage that are within the purview of the state to convey. There is a battle (the recent Proposition 8, which failed) to rename civil unions as marriage. Advocates claim that the Constitution requires they have the same name. Going the other way, and renaming everything the government does "civil union" would be a minor step in the right direction, because it would free up the word "marriage" to mean what it always meant, but in my view it's not a big deal.
Posted by Freeman 4 years ago
Freeman
"Marriage benefits also discriminate against single people."

Married people have more resopsibilities than non married married people.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
A good, provocative topic. I like it. Marriage benefits also discriminate against single people. Once polygamy is approved as a right, it will then be possible for one citizen to convey legal benefits to the entire population of Guatemala though one very large wedding. Better to just get government out of the whole thing and replace it with non-government civil contracts.
Posted by alto2osu 4 years ago
alto2osu
The problem with this being that, in the beginning of your case, you state that "In turn, all the social and economic benefits inherent to a "marriage" should be transferred to the legal contracts defining civil unions."

Because you said this, you bite all of your harms.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 3 years ago
shadow835
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 4 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Crust89 4 years ago
Crust89
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by Eris 4 years ago
Eris
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Eros 4 years ago
Eros
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 4 years ago
dogparktom
Eris1stLordofTheVenerabilityTied
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