The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Virgil.Cain
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Same-sex marriage (SSM) Should Be Legal in the USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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...
Virgil.Cain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,032 times Debate No: 17692
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

kohai

Pro

Greetings, I will be arguing that SSM should be legal in the United States of America.

My opponent will argue that it should be and should remain illegal.

First round is acceptance only.
Virgil.Cain

Con

I accept. Looking forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I want to welcome my opponent to debate.org and welcome him to the debate. I will be arguing that Same-sex marriage (SSM hereafter) should be legalized.

Argument 1: Marriage is a universal right
  1. Marriage is a universal right.
    1. These rights cannot be taken away.
  2. All people are eligible for these rights.
  3. Therefore, gays should also have that right.


First, we need to define what a universal right is. A universal right is a right that is given to all people of all nations. This is what the United Nations has to say:

"Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." [1]

With that said, in order to find out what those universal rights are, the United Nations has declared a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is what it says about marriage:

  • (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
  • (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
  • (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. [2]
Did you catch what it said. No-where does it deny the right to marry for any reason. This is what article 1 has to say:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." [3]

Article 2 states the following:

  • Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. [4]
| Conclusion |
  1. All humans are born with the same and equal rights.
  2. These rights cannot be taken away for any reason
  3. Marriage is one of these rights.
  4. To deny the gays right to marry is to deny them of the universal right that has been set forth by the Declaration of Human Rights. The United States has agreed to these rights and thus must submit to them.[5]
Argument 2: In the United States of America, marriage is a fundamental right.

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right. This ruling has been consistent more than 14 times [6].
Let us take, for example, the court case Turner v. Stafley. "[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right" and marriage is "and expression of emotional support and public commitment."
In Loving v. Virginia (1967) "[T]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights to essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Argument 3: Gay Marriage Bans Violate the Equal Rights clause



In the United States, the 14th amendment requires that "[no State shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the qual protection of the laws." [7].

How does SSM bans violate this clause? Well, for two reasons:
  1. They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice.
  2. SSM bans single out and harm a suspect class by preventing only gays and lesbians from being married

| Summary |

To summarize my points, I will re-state them.
  1. The UN has declared marriage to be a universal right.
    1. These rights cannot be taken away.
  2. The USA has agreed to the Universal Rights
  3. Marriage is a fundamental right in the United States
  4. SSM bans violate the 14th amendment.
Back to you! I await your opening arguments.

Sources:

1. http://www.un.org...

2. http://www.un.org...

3. http://www.un.org...

4. http://www.un.org...

5. http://www.un.org...

6. ThinkProgress2. "Ted Olson Interview With Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace."

7. Mount, Steve. "The United States Constitution." The U.S. Constitution Online. 06 Mar. 2011. http://www.usconstitution.net......

Virgil.Cain

Con

I will be defending the following argument, formulated by Jim Spiegel[1]:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Since this argument is rather self evident, I will wait for my Oponent to try and knock it down.


I would also like to define Marriage. Marriage is defined by Dictionary.com as "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Dictionary.com also has a seperate definition for gay marriage. Since the two are not the same, all Pro-gay marriage aguments about equality fall, simply because marriage is not defined to include a same sex relationship. My Opponent has a massive burden of proof because not only must he prove that changing the staus quo would be a good thing, but also that we should change the definition of marriage to include members of the same sex.

Now I will refute Pros arguments.

Marriage as a universial right

We are in agreement that marriage is a right. However we are in disagreement about how such right is defined. I have shown a definition of Marriage, you have yet to give one. I also have historical precedent and the status quo on my side. Your claim that marriage is a right and thus homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry eachother falls, because gays already have the right to marry...a member of the opposite sex. What you are advocating is changing the definition of marriage to suit your purposes, without any compelling reasons to do so. Why limit marriage to only two people? Your syllogism could just as easily allow for polygamy. Example:

1. Marriage is a universial right.
1. These rights cannot be taken away.
2. All people are elgible for these rights.
3. Therefore, polygamists should have these rights.

You may protest that the definition of marriage does not alow for polygamy. However the definition of marriage also does not allow for members of the same sex to marry. Again, you must justify changing the definition and historical precedent. Your equal rights argument quite simply fails at this point.

As for the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, such a document is not binding in the internal affairs of the United States. Furthermore, the reason that the document does not mention homosexual marriage is because marriage is, again, defined as between one man and one woman. When making a document about marriage they go by the common definition, and the historical precedent. Not your obscure definition (which you have yet to even define)

Fundamental right in the USA

Again, we are in agreement about marriage being a right. However you have yet to show one single reason WHY the definitionof marriage should be changed to allow for a same-sex marriage! Gas already have the right to marry a memeber of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. This is essentially explained above.

Equal protection

This is the single argument provided by my Opponent that holds any water what-so-ever. However his claim of its violation is wildly innaccurate. He states:

"1. They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice.
2. SSM bans single out and harm a suspect class by preventing only gays and lesbians from being married"

However there is one glaring mistake in this. The right to marry a person of the same sex does not exist! No denial of rights can be claimed, because marriage is currently defined to include only members of the Opposite sex. Couldn't this argument also be applied to incestuous couples and polygamists?

Again my Opponent must give valid reasons to CHANGE the definition of marriage. As of yet, he has only provided reasons to allow homosexuals to marry a person of the opposite sex. He's begging the question, WHY should we change the definition of Marriage? He has yet to give any reason.

Vote Con.

1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...







Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for his careful reply and again welcome him to debate.org.

First things first, I need to define marriage and give a justification for it. In this debate, I will attempt to argue that marriage is a social union or a legal contract between people that create kinship. The justification is that it is more inclusive and gives more rights.

With that said, I wish to start by refuting my opponent's opening arguments.

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

Just what are we talking about when you say, "heterosexual unions"? Furthermore, heterosexual union is not the indispensable means. The indispensable means is fertilization. This occurs when a male gamete (sperm) combines with a female gamete (egg). That is the indispensable means. [1]

Again, just what are you talking about when you refer to heterosexual union?

Heterosexual Union is heterosexual marriage
Then I have refuted your argument because heterosexual marriage is NOT the indispensable mean.

Heterosexual marriage is heterosexual sex
This is not the indispensable means because of the wonderful tool called "artificial insemination." Gay people can have an artifical insemination without having a heterosexual union [2].

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

Not indispensable as already explained.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

Correct. Marriage is a special value to both gays and straights. Therefore, you have lost the debate. We don't want a special right or to take away the sanctity of marriage. All what we homosexuals want is EQUAL rights.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

Really, how so? Some laws allow get people to marry as well. So what? What does it mean to say that it rejects the special value of heterosexual unions?

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

If enough people deny it, surely that is a sign that it does not, in fact, have special social value? What could be a better arbiter of social value than the popular opinion of society? It would rather be like saying to me "no, your favourite flavour of ice-cream is not cookies and cream, it is vanilla, I know what you value more than you do".

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Your conclusion is false. I have shown that your very first premises is false.

Since this argument is rather self evident, I will wait for my Oponent to try and knock it down.

Actually, for your conclusion to be correct, you need to defend every premises. As I have shown, your syllogism fails at every point!

With this, I wish to parody my opponent's argument:

1. Heterosexual Child-producing union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay non-child-producing marriage as comparable to heterosexual child-producing marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual child-producing unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay non-child-producing marriage - any marriage in which either party is, or both together are, unable or unwilling to reproduce biologically - is unjust.

| Questions for my opponent |

What does it mean to say that something “has special value” or “special social value”?

Does that mean that most people value it?

Does it mean something else?

Why would it have some kind of special recognition?



| Conclusion|

My opponent has yet to back up and defend any of his premises and all his premises, as I have shown, fail.

==Rebuttals of his rebuttals==
My opponent needs to show why we need to keep the current definition of marriage. I have shown why we should change it.

Marriage is a universal right

This is where my opponent and I agree upon. Marriage is, in fact, a universal right as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the US Supreme Court.

Your claim that marriage is a right and thus homosexuals ought to be allowed to marry eachother falls, because gays already have the right to marry...a member of the opposite sex.

My opponent seems to think that the state can just force us to marry someone of the opposite sex or someone who we do not love. This is absurd. In addition, we gays want to marry who we love.

1. Marriage is a universial right.
1. These rights cannot be taken away.
2. All people are elgible for these rights.
3. Therefore, polygamists should have these rights.

This is an appeal to emotion. My opponent seems to think that I stated that polygamy was wrong. Where did I say that? In addition, this debate has NOTHING to do with polygamy.

As for the Universial Declaration of Human Rights, such a document is not binding in the internal affairs of the United States. Furthermore, the reason that the document does not mention homosexual marriage is because marriage is, again, defined as between one man and one woman. When making a document about marriage they go by the common definition, and the historical precedent. Not your obscure definition (which you have yet to even define)

Really? I would love to see your source that says that the UDoHR is not binding in the USA. What is the purpose of the UDoHR? Let's find out:

"Over the years, the commitment has been translated into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed. Indeed, the UDHR has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills, and constitutional provisions, which together constitute a comprehensive legally binding system for the promotion and protection of human rights." [3]

With this statement, we have found out that it is not only into treaties, customary international laws; but also with domestic laws that are guaranteed.


| Conclusion |

I have shown that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding in domestic laws that guarantee the freedom of every human.

Fundamental Rights in the USA

Please read my opening statement, I have shown, in this round, why it should be changed.

We use to not allow interracial marriage, yet the definition of marriage is constantly changed [4]

Equal Protection

I feel I have given a valid reason to change it. My opponent begs the question, "Why should we keep the current definition of marriage?"

VOTE PRO!


Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
3.http://www.un.org...
4. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...;(Note: this is the supreme court case of Loving v. Virginia that legalized interracial marriage).

Virgil.Cain

Con

Kohai tries to define marriage as "social union or a legal contract between people that create kinship". A few problems with this definition. In the USA (which we are discussing) marriage is defined by the defense of marriage act as between one man and one woman, so his definition falls. Using that definition there are no reasons for the stae to recognize ANY marriage, so again, it falls. Furthermore, the definition provided by Kohai is not agaist the law so it isn't topical. Vote Con just because my Opponent cannot even porvde a definition for the marriage he fights so fiercly for.

Now onto my argument.

1. Kohai says that the indispensable means is fertilization...yes. That's the point. Only though a heterosexual union can society continue to exist. The argument isn't talking about heterosexual marriage. I'll get more into that later. Thus, his argument falls.

3. He says "marriage is a special value to both gays and straights". Umm, no? A homosexual relationship does not provide unique benefits for society. A heterosexual relationship does. Therefore the state ought to value a heterosexual relationship over a homosexual one because fertilization can only occur through a heterosexual union, therefore society cannot exist without them. Your appeal to equal rights, again, falls, because you can't ask forequality when the relationships themselves are not of equal value to society.

4. A rejection is constituted because it is recognizing a heterosexual relationship as equal with a homosexual one, when it is not. That would be like awarding every soldier in the military a citation for bravery. Homosexual rlationships are of a lesser value to society than homosexual ones.

5. Con asks "What could be a better arbiter of social value than the popular opinion of society?". This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Some logical analysis please?


Con also makes the mistake of claiming that the argument could also ban infertile couples. False, becuse they are still in a heterosexual union I.E. they are still performing the act of fertalization, even if it does not work. Furthermore, I concee to the fact that the State has no interest in recognizing non-child bearing relationshps, however since the vast majority of heterosxuals can procreate, the State is justified in legislating in the favor of the rule, not the exception.

Answers:

1. It means that since society depends on the action, then it has a spcial value...It's rather obvious.
2. I would think so. Since it is a simple fact that society depends on the action.
3. I do not understand the question.
4. The argument explains this.

Questions:

1. Appeals to equality aside, what compelling reason does the state have in recognizing a homossexual relationship?
2. Do homosexual relationships provide any uniqyue enefits to society?
3. Using your definition of marriage, why should the state recognize it at all?

Marriage is a universial right

Cn states that "My opponent seems to think that the state can just force us to marry someone of the opposite sex or someone who we do not love. This is absurd." Con shows here either a complete misundestanding of my statements, his own unfathombale ignorance, or his willful and foul deception to the audience. The argument was not that ays should be FORCED to marry a memeber of the Opposite sex, rather that they are already equals! The definition of Marriage does not allow for a same sex couple to get married, and he has not provided any reason for the state to recognize it. He dismisses the polygamy analogy, because it isn't what we are debating. Ok, but that analogy simply shows that the same arguments used to justify same sex relationship, can be used to justify all kinds of relationships.

UDOHR

He ignores my analysis that this doesn't cover same sex marriage. Extend it. The UDOHR is only binding in our dealings with other nations. Con asks me for my source to explain this, but he's the one making the claim and thus must justify it. Furthermore, even if he wins on this argument he still loses, because if the U.S. has a legal obligation to legalize same sex marriage, than that explains what it MUST do, not what it SHOULD do.

Vote Con.







Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

I again wish to thank my opponent for his fantastic arguments and welcome him to round 4 of our discussion. I have to say, I greatly enjoyed it. Although we disagree immensely, you have shown great conduct and great respect thus far.

Ladies and gentlemen, I first wish to point out that my opponent's definition of marriage is circular: Marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, therefore SSM=/=Marriage. This begs the question, "Why would one could ever debate on this topic?" I'll tell you why, because tehre IS a debate set up on this, doesn't mean that his definition cannot be, well, definitive?

"Appeals to equality side, what compelling reason does the state have in recognizing a homosexual relationship?"

Ladies and gents, please direct your attention to the Iowa supreme court that said, "The right for a gay and lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex is NO RIGHT AT ALL" (Paraphrased).

Homosexuals do promote stability and committed relationships, both from the symbolism of formal recognition of the union and also from encouragement set up for marriage in tax code & law, like lower tax rate for married couples, and home ownership. More opportunities to provide stable homes and bring children up for adoption is a great reason to allow for SSM!

Fact: There are over 2,000 children waiting to be adopted [1]. If a gay couple can provide a safe, loving, and caring home; why should that right be taken from them?

"Using your definition of marriage, why should the state recognize it at all?"

It promotes stability and family.

Using your definiton of marriage, why should the state allow and promote heterosexual marriage?

1. I think I now understand what you mean. Thank you for clarifying.
2. Dropped by con.
3. My opponent still continues to think that because straights can produce then they have to be the only ones given the opportunity to marry. However, let's take this into a different perspective, should we then deny senior citizens the right to marry because they do not reproduce? Should we not allow abstinence couples from getting married?
What are the benifits of society that gay people can bring? The children who are awaiting adoption will have a greater chance at being adopted with more people wanting children from the gay and lesbian side. Apparently, my opponent shows 0 concern to overpopulation.
4. Lesser value to whom? Under what circumstances do you make that claim? To us, gay marriage is as equal value as heterosexual couples.
5. What I'm trying to say is that what or whom does SSM hurt? No-one! It should be up to the couple to decide who gets married--NOT the state.

Marriage is a Universal Right

My opponent seems to be contradicting himself. Is marriage for procreation or procreation in type?

Universal Declaration...

I have already explained in my previous argument. My opponent is willingly deciptive. How is the UDHR enforced then?

Opponent's Questions

1. Appeals to equality aside, what compelling reason does the state have in recognizing a homossexual relationship?

This is rather a good question. Here are my reasons:
1. The same benfitis that apply to a man-woman marriage will apply to SSM
2. Gay couples will now be able to adopt and thus allow children from broken homes, orphanages and awaiting adoption to be adopted into safe and loving homes
2. Do homosexual relationships provide any uniqyue enefits to society?
Yes.
3. Using your definition of marriage, why should the state recognize it at all?
It promotes stability.


Ladies and gents, to whom or what is Same-sex marraige hurting? Should we allow this discrimination to continue? Here is a question for everyone, why should procreational types be the only thing that matter in a relationship? If a homosexual couple can provide a safe environment and a loving home, should they be denied that right?

For the sake or equal rights and for the sake of humanity, please vote pro!
Sources:
1. http://www.childwelfare.gov...;
Virgil.Cain

Con

Pro starts out as attacking my definition...which is used by the federal goevernment and the majority of States, not to mention the VAST majority of history. Again, he MUST justify why we have to change the definition. Since homosexual relationships do not fall under the federal governments definition of Marriage (which is surely what we're debating because the resolutionsstates USA) he has to show what is wrong with the status quo.

Pro wirtes "Homosexuals do promote stability and committed relationships" Ok? Under what grounds does this justify legal recognition? Even more, what prevents these stable relationships from happening under the staus quo? Clearly they do, so Pro's appeal to stability is false.

Pro also says "like lower tax rate for married couples, and home ownership. More opportunities to provide stable homes and bring children up for adoption is a great reason to allow for SSM" Yet, gays still can and do adopt children. Why should we recognize a homosexual relationship just because they can raise a child? All kids of relationships could raise a child. A brother and sister could raise th younger sibling for whatever reason, should we recognize this relationship as a marriage? How about three men raising a child, should we recognize that as marriage as well? Of course not. The same arguments used to justify homosexual marriage can justify just about any kind o relationship.

Furthermore, all he is arguing for as of yet is Civil Unions. All the benefits he wants homosexuals to reap could be given through these, and yet cause MUCH less controversy. Remember, since the resolution states same-sex marriage, my Opponent must give compelling reasons to change the definition which he has not.

He shows that there are many children waiting to be adopted. I hope that anyone, including homosexual couples, will adopt them. I do not, however, see that as any reason to recognize their relationship as a marriage.

He asks me why the state should recognize a heterosexual relationship. Because the state has a vested interest in heterosexual relationships, and it is the ideal way to raise a child. (a masculine influence, and a feminine influence on the child, not only one)

He drops my objections to his first argument, falsey states that I dropped his second when in reality it is HE who has dropped it, by completely ignoring all of my objections, only saying that we "changed" the definition of marriage when allowing iner-racial marriage. Not really, those laws were a perversion of marriage they were only implemented to degrade minorites. This analogy fails, because the state has valid reasons in recognizing heterosexual copuples alone, it has no reason to recognize gay couples. Furthermore, just because the definition was "changed" in the past is not reason to change it again.

3. Pro continues to straw-man my position, trying to make it out as if I do not want infertile couples to marry. No, because they are still in a heterosexual union. Part of the governments purpose in recognizing marriage is to encourage heterosexul couplings. Whether those individuals will or can procrate is irrelevant, because they're in the kind of relationship where procreation can occur.

4. SSM causes heterosexual marriage to be of lesser value, because it is recognizing two things as equal, when the are not. Heterosexual relationships prvide unique, needed, benefits for society. Homosexual ones do not. Again, to recognize these two types of relationships a equal is like giving every soldier a citation for bravery.

5. "It should be up to the couple to decide who gets married--NOT the state." Umm, as long as the state provides benefits for marriage, than it has the right to decide who can or can't get married. Now, if you're going to define marriage as a loving relationship between tw individuals, than you'll find that it already is perfectly legal, and your entire argument is pointless.


Marriage is a Universal Right

Yes MARRIAGE is. Marriage is not deined to include same sex couples. So your appeal to equality fails. Besides, even if we recognized this argument as fact, the resolution is not "the United State must recognize SSM" it is should. You have given absolutely no reason, other than false appeals to equality, to allow gay marriage.

Universal Declaration

Here's a quote about the Declaratins purpose[1]: "While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights""

"..it is not legally binding...."

So no, it is not legally binding. He ignores the fact that the marriage referred to in this document is a heterosexual one. (after all, it wwrittenn 1948 when SSM was inheard of.)

Also, even if this argument is true, it doesnt show why we SHOULD recognize gay marriage, ather that we MUST.

His responses

Q1.

A1. "The same benfitis that apply to a man-woman marriage will apply to SSM"

RA1- This is absolutely false. Homosexual relationships are not needed for society. Heterosexual relationships are. Since one provides more benefits, shoud it not stand to reason that the relationship giving more benefits also recieves more?

A2. adoption

RA2- Homosexuals already can, and do adopt. Besides, you're arguing for civil unions, not marriage.

Q2.

A1. "Yes."

RA1- Umm, ok. Do you think you could...show us what those benefits are? RememUNIQUE benefits only arrising from homosexual couplings.

Q3.

A1. Stability

RA1- How so? How does legal recognition in any way affect stability?

Please vote Con, although I know most of you disagree with me Kohai's arguments fall very quickly under scrutiny.

Source:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

kohai forfeited this round.
Virgil.Cain

Con

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
we aren't re-defining marriage for everyone. All what we're doing is re-defining marriage for us to have the SAME and EQUAL rights. I fail to see what is immoral bout that
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
I don't want to derail the debate, so this will be my final comment: I am not anti-gay -- I don't go out actively trying to oppress homosexuals. They are free to live as they choose, however they are not free to redefine marriage for all of us.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
ok, anyway what IS the reason for tye declaration of human rights? and why are you so anti-gay? what is gay marriage hurting you!
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Your source doesn't really prove your point. If anything, it supports mine.

"Over the years, the commitment has been TRANSLATED [meaning that the document itself lacked any legal authority] into law, whether in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles, regional agreements and domestic law, through which human rights are expressed and guaranteed"
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
@contradiction
He still needs something to support it. I refuted his claim with a source.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Good point
Posted by debator2213 5 years ago
debator2213
My 2 cents...
The United States was founded on freedom, of all kinds. Although many of our liberties are dwindling, I believe myself to be a true American.
I am PRO choice for gay marriage. I am against the act personally but I believe that the option is a FREEDOM which we are all entitled to.
To the CON people- How could you be against something which 1) does not effect you 2) is not harmful to anyone?
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
"Really? I would love to see your source that says that the UDoHR is not binding in the USA. What is the purpose of the UDoHR?"

Are you seriously kidding me? Again, international law is not American law. International law might *inspire* similar provisions in the United States, but the mere fact that something is international law does not mean that we are subject to it. If you want something from international law to be recognized in the United States, you have to draft and pass it in our legislatures.

Not to mention that this is just an exercise in question-begging.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Thanks for your argument. Will have my rebuttals up tomorrow.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
that's kind of hypocritical stating that you need to follow x and we don't. Anyway, if I were pres, the Universal decleration of human rights would be intigrated with our constitution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
kohaiVirgil.CainTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better sources but Con was more convincing.