The Instigator
Derelict
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
Pluto2493
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Derelict
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,018 times Debate No: 6560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

Derelict

Con

My observations...
1. Aff has the burden of proof
2. Aff must prove that federally-recognized same-sex marriages ought never be allowed

My arguments...
1. Homosexuality is natural and homosexuals, being humans, deserve equality
2. In a truly free society all individuals must be equal
3. For true equality everyone must be treated in the same manner and granted the same rights
4. Same-sex marriage is a right necessitated by any free society

Thank you, I look forward to friendly debate.
Pluto2493

Pro

I must prove that same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage. However, I can advocate that same-sex union should be recognized as marriage by the fifty states.
I gain access to all of the reasons why gay marriage should be allowed presented by Con.

Furthermore, same-sex marriage is not a federal power in the constitution, and thus it is enumerated. Usurping this power undermines federalism. According to Norman Ornstein, federalism is needed to prevent dictatorship and war
Debate Round No. 1
Derelict

Con

"I must prove that same-sex unions should not be federally recognized as marriage."
Right.

"However, I can advocate that same-sex union should be recognized as marriage by the fifty states."
Wrong. The resolution says absolutely nothing about the federal government of the "fifty states," therefore your argument is void. The resolution is not referring to a specific federal government, rather it is referring to federal governments in general.

Extent all of my contentions, thank you.
Pluto2493

Pro

Misconception.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We have a system of federalism in the U.S., the presumed country of this debate. The word "federally" in the resolution modifies how the resolution is passed. I have to uphold that SSU shouldnt be upheld federally, meaning the gov't in Wash, DC. However, I can argue that it should be recognized by the state governments, which upholds the rez.

Extend my dropped args, I capture all his args and avoid war. Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 2
Derelict

Con

"We have a system of federalism in the U.S., the presumed country of this debate."
I'll use the same resource that you did to show how many other nations use federalism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) It could also be referring to "Switzerland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, [or] Belgium, etc."

"Extend my dropped args, I capture all his args and avoid war. Vote Pro"
Are you kidding...?

Thank you, extend all my arguments, you MUST negate.
Pluto2493

Pro

He made NO args his last speech.

Even if it isn't the U.S., IT'S STILL FEDERALISM. IT STILL UNDERMINES FEDERALISM. IT IS STILL PASSED AT A LOCAL LEVEL, i.e. the states or provinces in CANADA, as he says.

We have made no arguments against each other. Even if you don't buy the dropped federalism-war argument, vote for me on presumption: the instigator has not provided a reason why MY POLICY ACTION would be BAD (which captures all his arguments why SSU is good).
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Many people believe that the bible teaches 'no sex before marriage' but it actually teaches something infinitely more profound.. that sex IS marriage.
The vows/ceremony etc came after the act. ( something we honour even now in that a marriage is not complete without being 'consummated' ) .
The word 'marriage' refers to many different things, for example the 'coupling' mechanism on train carriages.. a nut and bolt are created to 'marry'.
People of the same sex cannot physically 'marry' in this sense.. our body's do not allow it, externally or internally.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Derelict are you going to challenge me? I would love to take on your debate.

Also again 8000 characters and 3 days to respond?
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
hm, id like to see an objective voters RFD on this debate.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
"Explain how it would be hard to create a chemical imbalance in non-human species...."

I never said that it would be hard to create them. I simply meant that it would be odd for the exact same chemical imbalances, with the exact same effects, would occur in animals whose brains function in different ways.

The phrase "chemical imbalance" is very vague. I would be more inclined to agree if you said "hormonal abnormality".

"Is it your contention that only humans learn and have the potential for chemical imbalances?"

Not at all. As for the former part of that statement, it is observable that the human potential for learning is quite different than other animals. Furthermore, other animals do not make the same associations with sex as humans in various modern societies. The idea that humans and non-human animals "learn" this exact same behavior, despite their vastly different circumstances, is rather silly. As for the latter part of that statement, I would say only that potential for chemical imbalances is different. Case in point: try finding a bipolar pigeon.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Oops. You beat me to it Tarzan. Touché
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"If homosexuality were a 'learned' behavior, or an 'unavoidable function of chemical imbalances'"

Is it your contention that only humans learn and have the potential for chemical imbalances?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "If homosexuality were a "learned" behavior, or an "unavoidable function of chemical imbalances or even possibly a nature/nurture series of events", one would be very hard pressed to explain why homosexuality shows up in other species besides humans."

Explain how it would be hard to create a chemical imbalance in non-human species....
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
If homosexuality were a "learned" behavior, or an "unavoidable function of chemical imbalances or even possibly a nature/nurture series of events", one would be very hard pressed to explain why homosexuality shows up in other species besides humans.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "Unless you can pin point this supposed "gene" and then explain to us why it is not working as it ought, we really have no reason to by into such a notion."

Something that has always confused me about this position is that if there is a gene that selects for homosexual traits, it could not be passed on if it governs the sexual preference of the organism toward a non-viable partner. If there is such a gene, there must be some other procreation gene that is far more "compelling" as it were that forces the organism to procreate with a fertile partner against its wishes. But this simply sounds kind of silly...

Thus, it seems to me that homosexuality is much more likely a "learned" behavior. However, this doesn't indicate that it's a choice, but rather an unavoidable function of chemical imbalances or even possibly a nature/nurture series of events. I'm no student of homosexual lifestyle by any means, but it seems to me that there is not much backing for an evolutionary account of homosexuality in humans...
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
buy*
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
DerelictPluto2493Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 dkerwi8993 8 years ago
dkerwi8993
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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 Ardent 8 years ago
Ardent
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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 Derelict 8 years ago
Derelict
DerelictPluto2493Tied
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