The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
ScarletGhost4396
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Only Natural marriage should be recognized in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
kenballer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 917 times Debate No: 22612
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

kenballer

Pro

FIRST ROUND WILL JUST BE FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY

In this debate, make sure you include in your argument the following:

1. Explain what CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it is and how this view of marriage is true (if you can of course)
2. Explain how the due process and equal protection clause are being violated.
3. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it.

Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Never shall I decline a debate about gay rights. I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

Civil marriage and the purpose of it:

Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state plays a role. Just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support,
The state uses the institution of marriage ,which is the name and meaning, as an insurance policy. There are two approaches that are intertwined with each other in which the state attempts to maximize this state interests in children involving the structure and stability of families:

The Responsible Procreation Theory

One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children (i.e. Civil marriage licence).

There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

This means whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home.

Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com.........

Or google "Hewitt trial marriage": www.melbourneinstitute.com/.../cp/Hewitt_Trial_Marriage.pdf

The Optimal partnership theory

Another approach is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process.
The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents.

There is also empirical evidence supporting the optimal partnership theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement. Here is an institute that mention the studies:
http://www.urban.org......

Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations.
With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood.

THE AFFIRMATION OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND

Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory has been deemed to be not only an actual state interest but the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several times:

In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:

"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of
the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."

SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS PURPOSE

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated.

This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general.

Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process.

PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES

"Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage"

Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible.

So if my opponent agrees that the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest, then CON would have to accept that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road as a logical consequence.

Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws".

Just go to this website and read p. 959-964 : http://www.law.harvard.edu...
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:


Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.


Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.


Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality. This idea is supported by the following points:


Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.

Sub 2b:
Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.


References:
Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">http://www.businesspundit.com.....................;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://userwww.service.emory.edu.....................;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">http://www.policyarchive.org.....................;.
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

Since CON has offered me very bad sources that I cannot even access the information to, very few arguments that are obscure, and has not responded to any of my arguments for me to fully respond to, I have decided to take the time to modify the delivery of my argument regarding the purpose of marriage in order for readers to fully understand the argument.

The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage:

The traditional view of marriage is based on the anatomical possibility or "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Since this is the case, The law has a presumption of reproductive and child-rearing of potential on the part of heterosexual couples.

Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens in nature. As an insurance policy,The state issues Marriage licenses just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice WITHOUT legal and social support in order to regulate procreation/ rearing of children. There are two approaches that are intertwined with each other involving the structure and stability of families where the state attempts to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license:

The Responsible Procreation and Optimal partnership theory

One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process. The state uses the term or idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children.

There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

This means whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage, it does not matter. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home.

Just go to this website for the studies p.2: http://eprints.qut.edu.au......
Or http://www.smartmarriages.com..........

The Optimal partnership theory

Another approach is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process.
The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents.

There is also empirical evidence supporting the optimal partnership theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement. Here is an institute that mention the studies:
http://www.urban.org...

My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other.

1."Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community. "

I could not see how this was a argument for gay marriage until CON got to the part where he provided a study to show that traditional marriage laws in place creates in intolerance. I could not access this study so I cannot adequately respond this.

2."Sub-point 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce."

Gay marriage advocates have repeatedly claimed that gay marriage will lead to an economic boom (or
conversely that traditional understandings of marriage will cost jobs). Four of the top five states in GDP
growth all have constitutional amendments defining marriage, according to the Census Bureau.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis publishes yearly and trend data on economic growth, including the year's increase in personal income per capital.

Take a look at this chart: eight of the top ten states with the fasted growth in per capital personal income from 1999-2009 have state marriage amendments. None have gay marriage.While the only 8 states have same-sex marriage, of the fifteen states with the worst business environment for
small business, fully five have gay marriage.

1999-2009 average annual growth rate of PCPI (Per capita personal income) http://www.bea.gov...

3.Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.

Bans on interracial marriage were about the segregation of protected classes (which has been deemed in the Brown decision to be another form of discrimination) without a reason that can be supported objectively. The Supreme Court has never ruled integration to be a form of discrimination, and the sexes' being able to procreate and rear children is an objective reality. Thus, since I showed that the purpose of marriage involves procreation, it does not discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation because men and woman or gays and straights can equally marry someone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children and both cannot with the same sex because they cannot procreate.

4. Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.

I beg to differ. This is the California on DP and there have been no reports of them failing to enforce this law:

297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, .......... imposed upon spouses.

(In fact, I have yet to hear of a state that has failed to enforce a law that allows DP or civil unions to afford the same STATE rights in a marriage.)
ScarletGhost4396

Con

Sources: First and foremost, let's address this issue. If you look back at my sources, you will see that I not only provided links, but in the case that the links may not work, I also included a full MLA format in order to find the information at hand, including the titles of the references and their authors, and I was able to find my pieces of evidence without a problem. My only burden is to provide the references for my opponent to look at, but I can't make him open Google and look up my references if the links are not functional. My opponent dropped the ball in this part and not I. Therefore, any point that my opponent didn't argue against because of "lack of evidence" can be extended across the flow.
Redefinition of Marriage: My opponent has provided a lot of evidence explicating that those who do not hold traditional views for marriage are more likely to have less productive marriages and that an idea of making traditional marriage bigoted will make fewer people take marriages, destroying the institution of marriage. The missing link here is the evidence that the slippery slope will occur. My opponent makes no references empirical nor credibly theoretical proving the idea that a legalization in gay marriage, a less traditional idea of marriage, will lead to these outcomes. Furthermore, when you look at the context of a traditional marriage that my opponent is evaluating this by in the idea of the effects of the slippery slope, you realize that the traditional ideas that he's talking about are about how to maintain a stable marriage and relationship, not who can and cannot marry. Therein lies a problem in my opponent's comparison: he's connecting a change in the traditional norm of marriage, but the type of changes that he's connecting are completely different, as if a change in the idea of who can marry (which is the case of same-sex marriage) is the same as the change in the idea of how a marriage should be done. When you look at some of my opponent's sources like the smartmarriage link, you realize that this site is giving information about how to make a relationship and marriage work, which could mean that this is a lurking variable in the correlation my opponent has cited in the case of traditional values and functional marriages; my opponent implies a causation in the idea that people who don't hold traditional values to marriage will lead to problems in relationships, but when you look at his site, the real question lies in how the relationship works out between spouses. Is my opponent saying that those who hold traditional values to marriage have relationships that don't work out? Is my opponent saying that those who don't hold traditional values to marriages don't have relationships that do work out? That doesn't make any sense! From what I see, the real question lies in whether or not a couple can make a relationship work, not if they hold traditional values, and based on his own evidence, this is a question my opponent disregards. The missing link also applies for his slippery slope about how the idea that marriage is bigoted will lead to fewer people marrying. Again, no evidence whatsoever.
Purpose of marriage: The infertile couples argument of course comes to play here. By accepting the idea that only those who can engage in procreation should have marriages, he also implies that infertile couples and elderly couples cannot marry because of their incapacity to reproduce and uphold the standard of marriage that he wants. Furthermore, it also implies that those couples that can reproduce but don't have any desire to have children also cannot marry because they don't want to achieve the purpose of marriage he has established in his case. Furthermore, based on everything I have just explained in the previous point about the redefinition of marriage that the idea that marriages will crumble if same-sex marriage goes into effect is mostly unfounded, even though that he states that marriages are good for children and whatnot, he has no evidence to say that same-sex marriage will endanger such marriages and end up endangering children. As for his theories talking about the many studies that prove these theories, he only mentions them as "studies," and his sources don't provide any sort of methodology of any sort in order to evaluate them. It needs to be an experiment in order to prove a causation, so the only thing that my opponent's argument here amounts to is another correlation without causation fallacy.
Court arguments: What I can imply that my opponent is doing by bringing these court cases into the picture is that he's trying to make the idea that because courts have said it's okay, then it must mean it's okay. That's nothing but an ad authoritatum fallacy argument.
Sub-point 1a: This is extended because my opponent didn't check my sources further.
Sub-point 1b: My opponent is trying to connect the idea of constitutional bans on gay marriage to a precedent for economic growth. The only thing that I'm trying to prove here is that gay marriage will better an economy. Different states have different economic policies that have made them stronger than other states, and while economies can be good, they can always get better. This is what I have proved in my case. Gay marriage can provide more jobs and more commerce for states, and while this can be good for states that are doing well, this is exceptional for states that aren't doing so well (such as my state of Georgia, which I heard has a 9-10% unemployment rate). What's better? A good economy, or a great economy?
Sub-point 2a: I'll wait until the procreation arguments are done in order to move to this point.
Sub-point 2b: My opponent makes the example of California in their civil unions, but he fails to explain why California is representative of all states. Civil unions are inherently made to be some sort of lower alternative to marriages, and there is no guarantee with civil unions that they will be considered equal to a traditional marriage in the eyes of the government nor that they will be guaranteed equal benefits from the union. Many civil union laws don't grant equal benefits.
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

kenballer forfeited this round.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

All arguments are extended until my opponent posts a rebuttal
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Pro

REDEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

I have already explained the long term effects of gay marriage in round 2. Now, I will explain the immediate effects of redefining marriage that will provide more reasons to believe the long term effects are inevitable:

Schools:

In California, some kids were forced to be left out of a field trip to see a lesbian wedding.

California law's Education code:

51890. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to ensure that:

(D) Family health and child development, including the LEGAL and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

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

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

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

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

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

THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE (infertile couples)

The Fundamental right to marry:

Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny since it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. When it comes to gay marriage, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage (anymore than there is for plural marriage) so the state has a 10th amendment right, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court, to deny those relationships. However, for the sake of argument, even if there was a fundamental right to gay marriage, I will show how the state would be able to pass the strict scrutiny test and deny this right in two distinct ways. Whether it be through the means or the ends.

Procreation:

Well first off, As I explained before, its about potentially NOT actuality of procreation and rearing of children of couples. Its still possible for heterosexual couples to procreate and rear children naturally with their own mother and father even if they end up not doing so or doing so correctly.

Now, In order to actually know that couples are in fact infertile, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children. However, therapy and the availability of long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women) and make it medically impossible to fully establish this. Not to mention, the state would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive and child rearing potential on the part of heterosexual couples.

By contrast, with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default . Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other and there are inherent differences between the genders.

Marriage:

As stated before, the state uses the name/meaning of the institution as a means to an end, which is to encourage couples to obtain a license in the first place. Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate.

Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous.

Now, CON claims, "It needs to be an experiment in order to prove a causation"

The Funny thing about this quote is that advocates for no- fault divorce implied and made similar claims that the current law hurts a group of people (those in "dead" marriages) and that its social impact was minimal or non-existent etc.; But, we now know otherwise: divorce rates have skyrocketed since and children have been the most adversely affected. PRO is exhibiting similar hubris. So why don't you cut the pretense, because PRO does not actually know when the unintended consequences of changing the structure of marriage will be.

The fact is this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage. If CON is arguing otherwise, then he needs to demonstrate

Sub-point 1b:

If CON's economic argument is based on what happens in the future rather than the present, then although the estimation CON speaks of on the economy is valid, the assumption in which the estimation is based on is pure speculation. We don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/ that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises, Its entirely unknown. Besides, this is not gay marriage argument because civil unions can essentially produce the same effect.

Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.

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

Sub-point 2b:

The benefits that CON is referring to are based on federal law only. Even if gay marriage was legal in all 50 states, same sex couples would not get the federally based benefits because of the federal DOMA. Thus, his practical argument for gay marriage falls apart.
Now, in the second part of the argument, I failed to see PRO's point. Is PRO arguing that this would harm them somehow? if so, he needs to explain and provide evidence as to why this is the case. Also, It does not follow that being viewed as different will also make them be viewed as inferior because "Civil union" is simply a neutral term not a negative one.
ScarletGhost4396

Con

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ken, accept my friend request, I have ways to make you case on gay marriage better.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Parts of debate

1. Explain what CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it is and how this view of marriage is true (if you can of course)

PRO did this, CON did not.

2. Explain how the due process and equal protection clause are being violated.

PRO did this, CON did not

3. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it.

PRO and CON did this.

Based on the basic terms in the debate, PRO wins. But let me dig a little deeper, but not too much.

CON CASE:

1. Neither argue well here.
2. PRO wins here, as CONS case was lacking as well as essentially dodged the case. His analogies failed to prove anything, and CON showed civil unions are A ok.

PROS CASE:

1. CON wins here, PRO does not fully prove a slippery slope occurrence.
2. Different arguments then I would have used, BUT though PRO uses good arguments to refute CONS weak point, I think he negated her response.
3. CON claims PRO makes a fallacy, this may be true, but you could have easily countered this, and he defended the argument for some degree, hence he ties this.
***
PRO had some of his case standing, more so then CONS, hence I give my vote to PRO.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
rfd coming
Posted by WriterDave 4 years ago
WriterDave
In 2007, Washington Initiative 957 attempted to enact a law that would legalize marriages in Washington state only between fertile couples, and annull any marriage that did not produce offspring within three years. This is conducive to the theory that marriage is only for procreation purposes.

Today, the 2012 California Marriage Protection Act initiative is attempting to enact a law that would make divorce illegal in kenballer's home state of California. This is conducive to the statement in Murphy v. Ramsey that marriage is "a union FOR LIFE between one man and one woman."

It would be interesting to know whether kenballer, or any of his compatriots who use the same arguments, have supported either of these initiatives -- and if not, why not.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
when I was interested in an SSM rematch you said no
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
I did? What debate was that?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
you declined when I asked to debate you when I liked the topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kenballerScarletGhost4396Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments (expect RFD to be delayed until 4:30 MT)