The Instigator
MilitaryAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Resolved: The United States federal government should require all states to legalize gay marriage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,867 times Debate No: 26367
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

MilitaryAtheist

Pro

This for the Official DDO Tournament 2

4 rounds

No semantics.

A FF = 7 point loss.

CiRrk may post opening shots R1 but must agree to my terms.

The BOP is shared in this debate
CiRrK

Con

I accept the terms of the debate. I will also skip this round and let my opponent go first. :)



Good luck!

Debate Round No. 1
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

Thank you and good luck.

Gay Marriage = GM

Point one.

P1a

Homosexuals has rights too!


The right to marry isn't in any documents like the Bill of Rights, but it is somewhat implied in the United States Declaration of Independence.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss"

I will not/am not claiming the right to marry is a right, but it is against the overlying culture of America to deny such a event. To deny homosexuals the right to marry is a offensive attack on homosexuals, rights and, in a sense, marriage itself. To wrap up I ask CiRrk this: Why is denying a Black-White , or Black-Asian seen as bad policy in America? What is the difference?

P1b1


No intelligent reason to.


Seriously? Why ban GM?

P1b2

Are you sure it isn't a Christian thing?

It is mostly common knowledge that most religions ( like Christians) take a dim view on GM. Banning GM because of your religion takes a bad view on it is a laughably Taliban-ish excuse. Here is a graph of all the states banning gay marriage.


http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com......



And now the Baptist population

http://www.valpo.edu......


And this

http://www.valpo.edu......




While states that banned GM might not exactly correlate with religion, it does on some levels.


I am running out of time, but I wish CiRrk good luck.
CiRrK

Con

Pro Case

Point one.

P1a

Homosexuals has rights too!

My opponent argues that even though the marriage is not a right per se, it is implied in the Declaration of Independence.

There are a few problems with this:

First, the Declaration is not a legally binding document but rather a list of philosophical justifications for the existence of an American regime separate from the British Crown. The US government is legitimately bound by the Constitution because it was ratified by the founding powers of the American order.

Second, my opponent does not correctly interpret the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights derive from negative rights which exist via human nature. Marriage is an accidental privilege, not an essential right. If the conception that opponent holds is true then the government is philosophically and legally bound to provide access to all material possessions and all access to mental cultivation. For example, riding bikes make me happy (pursuit of happiness) however I am unable to afford a bike right now. This existential barrier to the exercise of my rights must be demolished according to the conception of my opponent. However logically this leads to certain problems because that compels coercive action against free individuals in an effort to mitigate the existential barrier. In other words, in order for me to get a bike the government must take 1 bike from someone who has 2 bikes. In terms of marriage, if it is a right then society must be coerced against (i.e. their taxes must be used in order to equalize the benefits of marriage).

Third, my opponent’s argument is incoherent. The tagline of his argument is that homosexuals have rights too, then he says that he isn’t actually referring to rights, and then goes on to say that denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of their rights. It is either that it is not a right, or it is a right – it can’t be both. If it is a right then my opponent has the burden to prove exactly where in the Constitution this right exists.


P1b1


No intelligent reason to.

My advocacy isn’t to ban it, but rather that the federal government cannot force states to recognize it. Refer to my case below for reasoning.

P1b2

Are you sure it isn't a Christian thing?

My opponent argues that it’s fundamentally a Christian thing and that’s why people object. This argument proves nothing and is irrelevant. All ideologies are based on preexisting biases, and gay marriage is based on a progressive ideology which seeks a revisionist interpretation of the founding, i.e. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Being a “Christian thing” does not make it subject to immediate dismissal from public policy discourse, unless it can be proven as to why Christian mentality directly contradicts founding principle or the order which is inherent in the American regime.



Con Case


C1: Constitutionality – the 10th Amendment


“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.”

This is a straightforward argument: (1) there is no explicit right for people to marry nor a specific power delegated to the federal government determining criterion or marriage, (2) since it is not a delegated power, that power is de facto given to the states for determination, (3) lastly the resolution mandates federal enforcement over state power. (4) as such the resolution is unconstitutional and as a result inconsistent with the American order. [1]

Debate Round No. 2
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

My opponent argues that even though the marriage is not a right per se, it is implied in the Declaration of Independence.

There are a few problems with this:

First, the Declaration is not a legally binding document but rather a list of philosophical justifications for the existence of an American regime separate from the British Crown. The US government is legitimately bound by the Constitution because it was ratified by the founding powers of the American order.

Okay, never said any like that.

Second, my opponent does not correctly interpret the meaning of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights derive from negative rights which exist via human nature. Marriage is an accidental privilege,

There is a lot of things that are 'accidental privileges'. Do we not have the right to read or to watch a good movie? We don't have that right.

not an essential right. If the conception that opponent holds is true then the government is philosophically and legally bound to provide access to all material possessions and all access to mental cultivation. For example, riding bikes make me happy (pursuit of happiness) however I am unable to afford a bike right now.

Strawman? No one is denying you anything.

This existential barrier to the exercise of my rights must be demolished according to the conception of my opponent. However logically this leads to certain problems because that compels coercive action against free individuals in an effort to mitigate the existential barrier. In other words, in order for me to get a bike the government must take 1 bike from someone who has 2 bikes.

Another strawman?

In terms of marriage, if it is a right then society must be coerced against (i.e. their taxes must be used in order to equalize the benefits of marriage).

Please. We have issues if we are against some marriage because it costs too much.

Third, my opponent’s argument is incoherent. The tagline of his argument is that homosexuals have rights too, then he says that he isn’t actually referring to rights,

I was really. I just said that the DOI has no effect on the subject.

and then goes on to say that denying homosexuals marriage is a violation of their rights. It is either that it is not a right, or it is a right – it can’t be both. If it is a right then my opponent has the burden to prove exactly where in the Constitution this right exists.


I played video games yesterday. Is that a right? Can Uncle Sam they take that away? How about beer? Can someone drink beer, assuming they are of age?

Some things are de facto rights and are also not listed in the valid places.



My advocacy isn’t to ban it, but rather that the federal government cannot force states to recognize it. Refer to my case below for reasoning.

It is a pretty sucky law if you just ban it for the lulz.


My opponent argues that it’s fundamentally a Christian thing and that’s why people object. This argument proves nothing and is irrelevant. All ideologies are based on preexisting biases,

In agreement. However some of the Christians try not to be biased. Not important.

and gay marriage is based on a progressive ideology which seeks a revisionist interpretation of the founding, i.e. Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Being a “Christian thing” does not make it subject to immediate dismissal from public policy discourse, unless it can be proven as to why Christian mentality directly contradicts founding principle or the order which is inherent in the American regime.

I will concede this as it is not important to the debate.



Con Case

C1: Constitutionality – the 10th Amendment


“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.”

This is a straightforward argument: (1) there is no explicit right for people to marry nor a specific power delegated to the federal government determining criterion or marriage, (2) since it is not a delegated power, that power is de facto given to the states for determination, (3) lastly the resolution mandates federal enforcement over state power. (4) as such the resolution is unconstitutional and as a result inconsistent with the American order. [1]


I am running out of time so I have to leave this for next time.

CiRrK

Con

Pro Case

First, you said: “The right to marry isn't in any documents like the Bill of Rights, but it is somewhat implied in the United States Declaration of Independence.”

The point here is that unless you can prove that the Declaration of Independence determines which laws are enacted then this point is legally meaningless.

Second, yes we do. It is protected under the 1st Amendment right to speech. Anything which expresses our thoughts, desires or viewpoints as long as it is not dangerous or can incite violence or disruption is protected. But moreover, you misunderstand my point because the substance of your argument derives from negative rights, which as I pointed out does not apply in the case of marriage.

My argument wasn’t a strawman but rather a logical extension of your argument. If it is true that negative rights necessarily entail positive rights or privileges then they only way to actualize this concept is to have a statist welfare society. The problem with this however is that in order to pay for all these positive rights, the negative right to property must be violated. It thus becomes a contradiction. Expanding the benefits of marriage means that the use of taxpayer money, i.e. property is being diverted to other causes outside the primary function of governance.


No warrant to his claim that society has a problem if marriage costs too much.


He concedes the Christian argument.


Con case

C1: Constitutionality – the 10th Amendment

He ran out of time to respond to this.

Debate Round No. 3
MilitaryAtheist

Pro

Note: I am far too busy to finish this. I am sorry. CirRk wins
CiRrK

Con

Ok. Good debate.

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
"Homosexuals has rights too!"

Lololololololololololololololol
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Utterly demolished. Pro conceded, so arguments to Con. Pro also had several spelling/grammar errors. However, for having the decency to concede the debate, I give him one point for conduct.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was destroying Pro, even before the concession.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good god...that was poor.
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
MilitaryAtheistCiRrKTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits at the end.