The Instigator
BErickson
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Same-Sex Couples Ought to Receive the Same Legal Rights Available to Married Heterosexual Couples

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 3 votes the winner is...
BErickson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,724 times Debate No: 8379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

BErickson

Pro

Hey everyone, this is my first debate on this site. Looking forward to many more!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolved: Same-Sex Couples Ought to Receive the Same Legal Rights Available to Married Heterosexual Couples

Affirmed.

Before we begin, I would like to present the following observations:

1. These same-sex couples would have to engage in something like a civil union or domestic partnership in order to receive these rights.

2. The resolution asks solely about the legal rights entailed by marriage; not about same-sex marriage itself. While I support gay marriage, this debate is about rights, not about the definition of marriage.

3. The rights that the resolution speaks of include:
-Joint adoption
-Joint property ownership
-Hospital visitation rights
-Inheritance of property and fortune after one partner's death
-All of the other rights enjoyed by heterosexual couples in a marriage

Contention One: Same-Sex Unions Have No Affect On Anyone Other Than the Two People Involved and their Families

The only parties effected by same-sex unions are the two adults who have explicitly agreed to partake in the union and their children (if applicable). The only rights being effected are those of these adults. The rights of heterosexual couples are in no way being compromised or taken away.

Contention Two: Same-Sex Unions Make it Easier for Same-Sex Couples to Adopt Children

In nearly, if not every state in the U.S., in order for a person to receive joint custody of a child, they must go through a long series of petitions and court hearings that often do not work out, unless that person is involved in a marriage or marriage equivalent with the person that has custody of the child. Therefore, if a same-sex couple is raising a child and the party with custody of the child were to die or become unable to raise him/her, that person's partner, not being recognized as a legal guardian, would have no legal right to raise their child, who would have to be taken away, thus taking a child away from their parents and put into the foster care system or into another family. Moreover, same-sex couples are inherently less inclined to adopt if they cannot have joint custody of the children for reasons such as the one aforementioned. Even if it is best for a child to grow up in a household with a mother and a father (which it may or may not be, as the current available research is contradictory), it is inarguable that a lack of parents (or a presence of abusive parents) is the worst possible situation for a child. Same-sex unions promote the well-being of children by increasing the number of stable, loving, responsible parents in the world.

Contention Three: Granting Rights to Heterosexual Couples but not to Same-Sex Couples is Blatant Discrimination

Same-sex couples are equally as loving and committed as heterosexual couples. Because these relationships are composed of the same essential ingredients, to deny same-sex couples the same essential rights is discrimination on the basis of a non-arbitrary factor: sexual orientation. Treating a person, or an aspect of a person's life, unfairly based on a factor outside of their control is essentially the definition of discrimination, and this is precisely what disallowing same-sex unions to occur is promoting.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote in the favor of the Pro side. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response.
InfraRedEd

Con

Here this

http://www.debate.org...

will save a lot of preliminary work on the subject. Perhaps my opponent can pick up from my first round or any round argument there.

Except of course the final round where I concede.

What business indeed does the government have? Next they will think the Constitution gives them the right to decide what is and what is not a religion. Oh never mind they already do. If you die for your country and receive the honor of burial in Arlington you are allowed to display a government-approved religious symbol but I believe not including Bahai upon your final resting place.

If you want it screwed up badly just let the government to do it.
Debate Round No. 1
BErickson

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and I attack the arguments he posed in Round 1 of his link.

"Gay marriage is legal as long as one is a man and one is a woman.
What about one straight and one gay of the same sex? Or the other way around? What if three or more people want to all be married to each other?

What about mixed marriages, or forced marriages? What about other species?

Can other species marry as long as it is to the same species?"

The entirety of these arguments are related to gay marriage, not partnerships between same-sex couples. Therefore, each and every one of them is non-resolutional. These do not relate to granting same-sex couples the rights and privileges of marriage, simply about what it means to re-define marriage. Because my opponent does not prove that same-sex couples ought not receive these rights, he has not fulfilled his duty as the Con in this debate, so you already have no way to vote but Pro.

Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response.
InfraRedEd

Con

InfraRedEd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BErickson

Pro

It looks like my opponent didn't respond. I completely understand.
InfraRedEd

Con

InfraRedEd forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Oh, and welcome to the website!
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Obviously all points go to Pro as Con forfeited.

The only argument that Con posted at all wasn't even an argument but a reference to another debate. I don't view that as good debating practice. If you want to debate, you address your opponent's points specifically rather than to just refer him to another similar debate. On top of that, Con's referred debate wasn't relevant to the Resolution.

Score: All points to Pro except for Grandma and Spellink
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I would consider same sex marriage rights if the gov't randomly picked 1 out of every 3 same sex marriages and saddled them with a similar expense of having children in the way of child support for a child that is neglected by a dead beat parent and also without warning have to perform community service at anytime day or night at the govt's whim, kinda like a child when he or she wants something. I say these things because they want all the same rights but will never have to carry the burden of having children. I say one out of three because not all heterosexual couples have children.
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
justinthecrazy, you don't have to comment.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
than perhaps refer_madness you should gain some knowledge. That way you may actually win a debate?
Posted by BErickson 8 years ago
BErickson
Wjmelements - I wanted to add that, but it was too many characters. That's why I had the first observation.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
You need to change the resolution to "Same-sex couples in a civil union...(what you put)" in order to avoid the semantic argument that a couple that is newly dating should not recieve the same benefits as a couple that is married.
Posted by Refer_Madness 8 years ago
Refer_Madness
Justinisthecrazy: And EVERYONE is so sick of HEARING YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT DEBATES YOU DON'T NEED TO READ.

I wish I could debate you, but unlike most topics, the only real side that can ultimately win is the Pro. The con has no justifiable reason to be con.
Posted by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
I am so sick of EVERYONE debating gay rights
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
A civil union is different from a heterosexual marriage.....
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
BEricksonInfraRedEdTied
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 Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
BEricksonInfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
BEricksonInfraRedEdTied
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:50