The Instigator
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
rougeagent21
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

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  
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: 1/5/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,640 times Debate No: 10706
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Pro

I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized because the right to marry whom you choose is a human right, and gays are not any less human than heterosexual Americans.
Also, unless someone can prove there is a political reason for not wanting Gays to get married, i will continue believing that the only reason this right is in question is because of religious reasons, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country.
Also, banning gay marriage is just as bad as a jim crow law.
rougeagent21

Con

I will first address my opponent's statements, and then move on to my own case.

"I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized because the right to marry whom you choose is a human right, and gays are not any less human than heterosexual Americans."

I have never heard of "the right to marry whom you choose" being a human right. Jefferson did not write about life, liberty, and the right to marry whom you choose. Nor did John Locke write about life, liberty, health, and the right to marry whom you choose. Opponent, please give me an example of where this this "right" is ever deemed a human right.

Secondly, I do not see America mentioned anywhere in the resolution. However, I am on your court, so I can play by your rules. The resolution has been effectively changed to "Gay marriage should be legalized in America."

"Also, unless someone can prove there is a political reason for not wanting Gays to get married, i will continue believing that the only reason this right is in question is because of religious reasons, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country."

Actually, religious folk are not the only ones opposed to gay marriage. While I am a Christian, I am not against gay marriage for strictly religious purposes. (As you will see in my case)

Who ever said there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the Unites States? If you are thinking of the first amendment, you will realize that that amendment only says that the state will not interfere with religious matters. (Unless of course others' rights are being infringed upon) If you are thinking of a few letters exchanged between Jefferson and Madison, you will also realize that a letter does not define what the US will adhere too.

"Also, banning gay marriage is just as bad as a jim crow law."

That is quite a rash claim. Unless you give a warrant for it, it ought not be considered in the debate.

==========================================================================
Contention 1- The Federal Government of the United States of America does not have the authority to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.
==========================================================================

My opponent asserts that same-sex marriage should be legalized in the all American states. The only entity that would have power to create such a massive legalization would be the federal government. However, even it does not hold this power as per the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Therefore, there is no authority that could effectively legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country, because that right is reserved for the states, or the people.

=======================================================
Contention 2- Same-sex marriage does not exist, and can therefore not be legalized.
=======================================================

Marriage
–noun
1.the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

In every dictionary that I have cared to look in thus far, the first entry ALWAYS states that marriage occurs between a man and a women. Same-sex marriage therefore is an oxymoron. Perhaps legal unions could be legalized. Perhaps a legal relationship could be established. (Assuming the government had the power to do so, which it doesn't) However, something that does not exist cannot be legalized.

As of now, the resolution has been effectively negated.

http://www.usconstitution.net...
http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Pro

Thank you my opponent for your very intelligent arguments. I respect the challenge you have given me.

I will follow the order you have set up and begin with responding to your statements.

"I have never heard of "the right to marry whom you choose" being a human right. Jefferson did not write about life, liberty, and the right to marry whom you choose. Nor did John Locke write about life, liberty, health, and the right to marry whom you choose. Opponent, please give me an example of where this this "right" is ever deemed a human right."

According to Amnesty International USA, "The right of adults to enter into consensual marriage is enshrined in international human rights standards."
Notice that this quote says "the right of adults", not heterosexual adults, just adults.
http://www.amnestyusa.org...

"Who ever said there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the Unites States?"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This is stated in the Constitution. http://www.allabouthistory.org...

"If you are thinking of the first amendment, you will realize that that amendment only says that the state will not interfere with religious matters. (Unless of course others' rights are being infringed upon)"

As my statement with research from Amnesty International, there is a human right to marriage. Therefore, even if the judge does not think my claim of separation of church and state is valid, the negative's own statement has proved me right.

"That is quite a rash claim. Unless you give a warrant for it, it ought not be considered in the debate."

"The most common types of laws forbade intermarriage and ordered business owners and public institutions to keep their black and white clientele separated."
There were Jim Crow laws that banned marriage between whites and blacks. Similarly, the non-legalization of gay marriage banns marriage between men and men and women and women. The laws are so closely linked, which makes them closely related in severity.

Now on to the contentions.

==========================================================================
Contention 1- The Federal Government of the United States of America does not have the authority to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states.
==========================================================================
The Federal Government may not be able to directly legalize Gay Marriage on their own, but they can create a mandate for it to be voted on in each individual state.
Example: There is a Federal Mandate that Abortion is "ok", but each state voted on it and therefore the laws are somewhat different in each state.

=======================================================
Contention 2- Same-sex marriage does not exist, and can therefore not be legalized.
=======================================================
The claim that words can never be changed is ignorant and unwarranted. The definitions of words change over time as society changes. The definition of marriage can and will change if gay marriage is legalized.
rougeagent21

Con

rougeagent21 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Pro

I would like to add another contention to the round.

As a nation we have a history of discrimination. If we want to move away from our tarnished history, we need to eliminate as many instances of inequality from the government as possible. It would be impossible to eradicate every single one, but we can start with the large issues. Namely, the issue of gay marriage. The lack of legalization sets lgbtq americans away from the masses which creates an environment similar to instances of inequality in the past such as the civil rights movement, and if we continue on this track, who knows how long it will take for segregation to appear again? After that, how long before the lynchings? We have to stop this spiral before it goes out of control.
rougeagent21

Con

Well met, opponent.

Of course an activist group is going to define their agenda as a human right. Would I go to a Nazi website to find out if the Holocaust was a good thing? In order to define human rights, we ought to look to generally accepted guidelines, such as the rights listed in John Locke's Social Contract. (i.e. life, liberty, property, health, etc.)

"'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' This is stated in the Constitution."

You are correct. However, my problems with gay marriage are not religious matters. This is irrelevant.

Jim Crowe laws were extremely discriminatory towards blacks based only on their ethnicity. This is not the case with the gay marriage laws.

=============
Contention 1
=============
"The Federal Government may not be able to directly legalize Gay Marriage on their own, but they can create a mandate for it to be voted on in each individual state.
Example: There is a Federal Mandate that Abortion is "ok", but each state voted on it and therefore the laws are somewhat different in each state."

Last time I checked, a voting on a matter did not guarantee a right establishment. You really didn't attack my contention.

============
Contention 2
============
"The claim that words can never be changed is ignorant and unwarranted. The definitions of words change over time as society changes. The definition of marriage can and will change if gay marriage is legalized."

I never claimed this. However, we do not make laws based on what words might become. We would not make murder illegal since someday it will have a different meaning.

===========
Her contention
===========
"As a nation we have a history of discrimination. If we want to move away from our tarnished history, we need to eliminate as many instances of inequality from the government as possible. It would be impossible to eradicate every single one, but we can start with the large issues. Namely, the issue of gay marriage. The lack of legalization sets lgbtq americans away from the masses which creates an environment similar to instances of inequality in the past such as the civil rights movement, and if we continue on this track, who knows how long it will take for segregation to appear again? After that, how long before the lynchings? We have to stop this spiral before it goes out of control."

There is no spiral happening. We have not banned gay marriage recently. It has never been legal throughout the country. My opponent is saying that we need to rid ourselves of this crutch before be go back to lynching. This is absurd! We are not spiraling down, but rather unwinding. There has not been any kind of ban like my opponent speaks about in the last hundred years or so of the United States. I realize this is not the strongest attack, and I will attack this contention again next round. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Pro

MaddieJBudnyRKHS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MaddieJBudnyRKHS

Pro

MaddieJBudnyRKHS forfeited this round.
rougeagent21

Con

This is gay. If you liked this debate, vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
No worries, the same has happened to me.
Posted by MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
I'm sorry for my forfitting... My schedule has been extremely busy and i haven't had time to spend the time making arguments for the debates on this site. I sincerely apologize.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
Freeman
"I have never heard of "the right to marry whom you choose" being a human right. Jefferson did not write about life, liberty, and the right to marry whom you choose. Nor did John Locke write about life, liberty, health, and the right to marry whom you choose. Opponent, please give me an example of where this this "right" is ever deemed a human right."

Loving V. Virginia

Marriage was ruled by the supreme court to be a fundamental right of liberty.
Posted by MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Ok, will do.
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
it's just a debate lol. i'll tell you my opinion after the thing is over.
Posted by cjl 7 years ago
cjl
for the con....you are not doing it why does it matter to you?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
I would traditionally lose a few conduct points. You can either extend your arguments, or elaborate on the ones you have. It's up to you. Sorry about my malfunctions.
Posted by MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
Ok I'm new to the site so I'm not really sure what to do... What does one do when a round is forfeited?
Posted by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
http://i47.tinypic.com...

It's odd because I never go to microsoft.com. Usually when it does that, it says the name of the website that I am trying to visit...
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by elizabethPC 7 years ago
elizabethPC
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
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 Demauscian 7 years ago
Demauscian
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
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 Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
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 MaddieJBudnyRKHS 7 years ago
MaddieJBudnyRKHS
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by TFranklin62 7 years ago
TFranklin62
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
MaddieJBudnyRKHSrougeagent21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05