The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John_C_1812
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Same sex 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 629 times Debate No: 98754
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I will contend that the USA federal goverment should reconize gay marriages.

My opponent will contend that the USA federal goverment shouldn't reconize gay marriages.


Burden of proof
will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Structure
Round one Acceptance and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three.

Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.

Sex
"2.
a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0]

Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]

Marriage "1.
a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2]

Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [3]

Sources.
0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://www.debate.org...
John_C_1812

Con

Con will contend that the United State of America must declare Binivir"s or UnosMulier"s. As they may or may not see Marriage as a witness and are bound by oath and precedent to truth and fact.
In the Defense of the United States Constitution Con will providing relief as the challenges presented by Pro, are/due pertains to a religious test now cast on all who may wish to hold political office.

Gay 1. Of, relation to, or being a sexual orientation to a persons of identifiable gender.
Burden of proof
Lesbian " A Homosexual woman.
Homosexual " A person sexually attracted to people of one"s own sex.
Gay " A homosexual man.
Upon agreeing on this meaning we are acknowledging that the act of sex is being used as a public identification in a witness account for all people, both minor and adult to both understand and see.
Acknowledge " 1. to recognize the rights, authority, or status of
2. to disclose knowledge of or agreement with.
Marriage " A marriage performed by a government official, as distinguished from a member of a clergy.
Was a Constitutional definition of the visible witnessing of a man and woman with no sexual expectation placed on any witness, though sexual conduct was presumed to occur as part of a consummation of marriage only? Which is in fact why it was most popular among many religions not just one religion as personal property.
Civil Union - was at some point a legal Constitutional adoption and interpretation to this definition to a verbal contract adopted by religion for legal representational purposes only.
Constitution " A basic principle and/or precedent.
Separation " a: a point, line, or means of division.
b: an intervening space.
Witness " 4: one who has personal knowledge of something.
3: one who is asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place.
Binivir " an individual term used for two men who are entering a new form of public explicit contract.
Unosmulier " an individual term used for two woman who are entering to a new form of public explicit contract.

United States Constitution.
www.merriam-webster.com
http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Outline
I. Benefits of marriage
II. Being Gay is not a choice
III. Financial gain to government
IV. Separation of church and state
V. Sources


I. Benefits of marriage

The first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits.

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]


II. Being gay is not a choice

This might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay.

"Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]

"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]

That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust.


III. Financial gain to government

Marriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.


IV. Separation of church and state

Almost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]

By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion.

V. Sources
4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
5. http://www.livescience.com...
6. http://www.livescience.com...
7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
John_C_1812

Con

Table of Content.

I.Marriage as principle.
II.Governing Principle.
III.War, Death, and Birth.
IV.Giving Liberty.
V.Plagiarism and Titles.
VI.The Natural Order of law.
VII. The most well-known common defense.
VIII.Source

I.Obligation of Marriage:

There are no rights denied a Gay man by marriage he could not obtain himself. Liberties granted marriage are only united under order of basic identification to promote a type separation for public record. A Gay man that is married to a lesbian woman can in fact obtain all right pertaining to the most basic Union description MARRIAGE. There is however a basic principle bound to the "Title "of private contract named as marriage, Man and Woman. Marriage is the TITLE which is given to officially recognized and witnessed by a governing process. When a man does not want to be with a woman, refuses, it is saying we a will to accept new TITLE.

II. Governed Separation:

Asking to be seen/recognized by a governing process is not the same as a petition for grievance filing to obtain Liberty"s that are derived by others in response to public service. It is demanding for a Constitutional separation to take place, a separation based on basic principle only with or without precedent if any exists. A liberty can not successfully be directed unless a basic principle is established on behalf of any public person asking to have others bear-witness on their behalf is satisfied.

III.Registered Citizen Ship:

The basic shared Constitutional Understanding of a legal marriage/Civil union, established by Separation of word by State. Is to describe Marriage as a direct title, given by the purchase of license from State agent, to which a Judicial Governing body can easily prove and recognize a native heritage in a child"s impartial record of place, time, and date of birth of public record. These children of MARRIAGE are the offspring of those parents who allow a specific mentioned, in writing, as so, they themselves the children have record they are part of a Republic Nation, mentioned purposely and with cause in the United States Constitution as "Our posterity, our descendants."

The heritage of Religion or Language is incidental as a Title such as VirMulier might be describe by witness to follow equal precedent already set in place to Marriage. A FREE word written in PRESS has no self-value its value must be assessed by those who take liberty to do so. All people of a Republics stature, judicially non-biased, and true to self-value held in liberty must hold only the precedent which is set by the words "ANY WHITE MALE who has resided in limits for two years." (George Washington"s, MOUNT*VERNON, 1790-1795) The terms of the Naturalization act provide and secure the citizen ship of children. Marriage is simple an extension of written legal obligation beyond moral accusation of religion.

IV. Binivir and Unosmulier:

Any basic CONSTITUTIONAL separation starts with a written or verbal expression of fact, there is not one person"s liberty being sought on behalf of an equality of marriage. Only the word marriage can be claimed as free, people have self-value and are held in the Union of United State by liberty in our pursuits of happiness. The shared fact by governing is both men and women who are holding a claim of declaration of independence here, against the title only of Marriage.
Marriage is subject to acts of plagiarism, which is described as taking credit for the work of others. The United States Constitution is an impartial non-biased system of separation. Describes as a Common defense to the general welfare to insure tranquility by the use of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. There is a clear line of State in the form of principle between asking for legislation on public witnessing, and use of literature by title of wording to seek an existing civil credit designed for efficient population record management.

V.Shared Precedent between Gay Marriages Via Lesbian Marriages.

There is already process which describes gay with marriage along with lesbian as a reason to dissolve that legal union. The understanding of constitutional law is to create an overall efficacy to improve the judicial Court"s ability to perform the obligation to impartial non-biased separation. The use of these terms have already been legally claimed on behalf of a group inside marriage.

. Some state have taken position that a spouse extramarital homosexual activity equates to adultery.

. Cruelty to spouse usually consists of continual acts of abuse that cause others spouse mental suffering.

. It is generally accepted that any conduct of a spouse that renders the marital relation intolerable and compels the other spouse to physically leave may justify a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment.

VI.Taxation without Representation

Religion simply does not address the obligation to any who are accusation of being gay or lesbian, providing no distinction between a personal choice of confession or a force choice made by accusation of others. The law of representation of witness falls upon those asking to have others bear-witness at an official event and any witness must have basic right to refuse the responsibility of witness in any legal act.

.Most documents and contracts do NOT require a witness for them to be legally valid.

.What does it mean to EXECUTE a document?

When a person EXECUTES a document, he or she signs it with the proper FORMALITIES. For example: If there is a legal requirement that the signature on the document be witnessed, the person executes the document by signing it in the presence of the required number of witnesses.

A SELF-EVIDENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Homosexual - A person sexually attracted to people of one"s own sex.

Gay " A homosexual man.

Lesbian " A Homosexual woman.

Source.

http://constitutionus.com...
http://www.legalmatch.com...
http://www.lawdepot.com...
http://www.mountvernon.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


"I.Obligation of Marriage:

There are no rights denied a Gay man by marriage he could not obtain himself." John_C_1812

""There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]"

I have proven you wrong and have a source to back up my claim.


" Liberties granted marriage are only united under order of basic identification to promote a type separation for public record." John


This statement is either a non-sequitur and/or a red herring. [8][9] I don't percieve how this statement is related to the debate in anyway. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show how this statement relates to the debate.


"A Gay man that is married to a lesbian woman can in fact obtain all right pertaining to the most basic Union description MARRIAGE. " John

Yes, this is true but a red herring. [8] The debate is about same sex marriage, a gay male and gay female are different sexes.


"There is however a basic principle bound to the "Title "of private contract named as marriage, Man and Woman. Marriage is the TITLE which is given to officially recognized and witnessed by a governing process. When a man does not want to be with a woman, refuses, it is saying we a will to accept new TITLE." John

Again, I don't follow the logic of this statement nor do I understand how this is related to the debate. [8][9]


"II. Governed Separation:

Asking to be seen/recognized by a governing process is not the same as a petition for grievance filing to obtain Liberty"s that are derived by others in response to public service. It is demanding for a Constitutional separation to take place, a separation based on basic principle only with or without precedent if any exists. A liberty can not successfully be directed unless a basic principle is established on behalf of any public person asking to have others bear-witness on their behalf is satisfied." John

Another red herring. My opponent must show how this impacts the debate. Are we even having the same debate here? The topic is same sex marriage, more specifically should the USA federal government recognize same sex marriages?


"III.Registered Citizen Ship:" John

Another red herring.


"IV. Binivir and Unosmulier:" John

This is a red herring.


"V.Shared Precedent between Gay Marriages Via Lesbian Marriages." John

Red herring.

The rest of my opponent's argument seems like one large red herring.

Thanks for the debate.


Sources.
8. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
John_C_1812

Con

I have proved you wrong and have a source to back up my claim."

No. You have not proved that anything has been denied. By any-one accept the Gay man or lesbian woman who wishes not to be married to a lesbian woman or a gay man. The same sex couples would in fact be responsible for achieving any right of the any 1,138 possible benefits claimed lost. The fact that a Gay man is not in some way allowed to be married to a lesbian woman has never been actual established, here, in your argument, or in writing by a cited source, in whole this is a failure in fulfillment, the judicial Obligation of marriage is not to blame for the couples inability man or woman.

I simply believe, you like many others do not see or understand the simplicity of a Constitutional Social Contract.

"This statement is either a non-sequitur and /or a red herring."

Liberty and freedom are interchange by word alone and not definition, for by basic principle in anything that is made/set "Free" holds no self-value like the word liberty. A person must hold liberty not just demand it from others.
What we will find under Constitutional examination is a possible exploitation of a poor choice of wording, use more than just once in a history of exploitations of people, expression of liberty might be better suited for all forms of slaves or P.O.W. (Prisoners of War) held in/by a State of belief.

"Yes, this is true but a red herring."

No, not a red herring it is a public admission to the witnessing of self-denial. The importance here is that this action justifies a Title be assigned in common defense of the United States Constitutional separation. As a pattern may be forming. Separation having been provided with the term Binivir in this matter. This fully exposes a possible plagiarism issue which may have legal ramifications.

"Another red herring."

Not even an effort to establish that a Married couple is in fact providing documentation in advance to the joined State of adding to the population by creating children? A precedent as of yet not followed by the medical field as a common defense.

These are not red herring"s, only an "Official Title" which is not asking witnesses or any-one else to openly plagiarize Marriage. A person demanding to be witnessed, to be seen, is describing an expectation publicly which is not necessary. Same Sex.

Red Herring - Ignoratio elechi
Also known as: beside the point, misdirection [from of] changing the subject, false emphasis.

Pro is simply unprepared for this argument and did not understand the nature of Marriage. It is a word that has been adopted, selected by witnesses, and a judicial process. It has precedent. This subject covers a great deal if issue that a Nation faces, immigration in to a Country, The promotion of natural born citizens, judicial paper work, order of efficiency, and even the understanding of public records birth and relatives.

."A burden of Proof will be upon Con."

."My opponent will contend that the United State of America"s Federal Government should not recognize Gay Marriage."
A form or type of Witness Statement: ( As example only)

Do you( your name) _______, object to a man who wishes to enter into a public binding contract with other. Excluding all others, including both male and female in the binding terms of future agreements of this nature. Binivir? Yes/No? ______ If you, (Full name)_________ do not have any legal reason why this couple can not be held by the term that will be set by this Amendment to Marriage, Titled Binivir, speak now of forever hold your peace.

Gay Marriage or Lesbian Marriage is already describe in the judicial system, therefore; it creates a double standard when held. Same Sex Marriage is incriminating the person watching as witness, but also is creating a double standard. Bad luck or strategy? Either way it is addressed by a statement of legal grievance. Offering common defense to the general welfare by separation of choice not guided limitation.

First the witness is directed to describe something more than what is needed legally by the use of the word sex, as the witness, this kind of direction might be publicly construed as a form of crime in a legal Court, form many directions, a Court which is also being forced publicly to hold several double standards in legislated law by threat of accusation. Forcing the double standard within the union of non-biased impartiality and judicial separation.

The red herring is the debate has now been equipped with a Constitutional Amendment to Marriage, as the Democracy of the United States has accepted many Amendments to Constitution as precedent, so any answer by grievance, disagreement, and legal concern, or any approval can be properly governed. This term Binivir is a self-evident truth used to defend a publicly held accusation against the Legal precedent of Marriage.

Pro starts off round three by first openly admitted a Gay man could have been married and received all the right that had been claimed refused by the Constitutional separation Titled Marriage. What is an Ignoratio elechi is the way in which all witnesses are forced to describe what is seen in an official legal Agreement and the plagiarism which is occurring or allowed here.

Plagiarism is the kind way to say. What is desired by a group, to obtain a credit earned to a word without fully explaining the responsibility the basic separation has publicly.

It is an honor to debate this topic.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent has violated the round structure. My opponent has responded to a round three rebuttal in round three, which should have been saved for round four defense. My opponent should have responded to my round two argument via rebuttal in round three.

"Structure
Round one Acceptance and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three." stupidape round one


"I have proven you wrong and have a source to back up my claim. " stupidape round three


"I have proved you wrong and have a source to back up my claim."

"No. You have not proved that anything has been denied. By any-one accept the Gay man or lesbian woman who wishes not to be married to a lesbian woman or a gay man. The same sex couples would in fact be responsible for achieving any right of the any 1,138 possible benefits claimed lost. The fact that a Gay man is not in some way allowed to be married to a lesbian woman has never been actual established, here, in your argument, or in writing by a cited source, in whole this is a failure in fulfillment, the judicial Obligation of marriage is not to blame for the couples inability man or woman. " John_C_1812

I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense without breaking the structure myself and becoming a hypocrite.
John_C_1812

Con

It looks as though there is an apology due.

Pro was in fact "cited as a source" for the information that had been provided in regard to the debate. It was felt unnecessary to cite outside when writing is part of the debate. "I have proven you wrong is a false statement and can be questioned at any time as this is a shared public claim made by many that is not a proven fact at all, without proper or clear "cite." Backing the introduction of fact, discrimination is far less likely when the person who is be unjustly treated is playing a direct role in the discrimination. Is not violation, though it might appear as such.

Yes, you could have indeed responded to the Con argument of "Title" and its authority without breaking structure of debate after being cited. Simply starting with the rest of all other non-religious pertinent facts. Then moving on to provide some kind of fact that can prove that a Gay man would not be telling a lie. The Obligation of Marriage was being describe with Pro as the "Cite." The Gay Man or Lesbian Woman is not described in a same Sex Marriage together, why? They could be, this has a legal responsibility linked to a physical cost of liberty to the public.

A proper response by Pro, I recant on my misleading innuendo of religious persecution being the cause, with discrimination and abuse replaced with legal concern on behalf of Marriage and a Constitutional Separation. The problem is understanding the introduction of Rank or Job made by Con addressing Marriage as Title anyone can Start. The facts here show even a Gay Man and Lesbian Woman could do so, if they alone so choose.

Con would like to conclude this debate with a response to structure to stipulation of Con"s own Structure. Gay and Lesbian are not just a choice of a form of liberty it is an accusation that some-one may need to defend themselves from. These are all legal reasons and not religious ones that become relevant to the description of a proper Title of work.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: treble_clef_hkd// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: I agree with pro

[*Reason for removal*] Stating one"s agreement with one side is not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The major problem is Government already does acknowledge gay Marriage. The earlier event as example or guide set by that acknowledgement of Governing is basis of reason to separate from Marriage.
The public is for some reason simple asking the impartial part of the Constitutional Judicial Separation System to hold a conflicting term, while one of these terms has clearly had precedent for some time.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
govt should acknowledge gay marriages.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
sorry, resolution. not bop.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 year ago
RonPaulConservative
the bop is that homosexuality is ok or that the govt should acknowledge gay marriages.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Oppps, meant that last comment for a different debate, got confused.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
My opponent only joined debate.org recently, I opted to create another debate in case my opponent forfeits the debate.

http://www.debate.org...
No votes have been placed for this debate.