The Instigator
flamingdebater
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
AEQUITAS
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

The State of Florida should vote No on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in November.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 812 times Debate No: 4726
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (9)

 

flamingdebater

Pro

There are three inalienable rights that binds America together: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we the people have the duty to reject and condemn any law or policy that seeks to deny any American these essential rights. The Marriage Amendment or amendment 2 to the Florida constitution is a deceitful effort by conservative religious groups in the state of Florida to deny brilliant, artistic, caring, innovative, and friendly people the right to seek their happiness by denying them the most sacred form of expressing love to one another. I'm talking of course of these groups trying to deny homosexuals the right to marry in the state of Florida.

Lets first start off by proving the advantages the LGBT community brings to a state. Michelle Garcia of the Washington Post reports that "the city council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have increased police patrols, despite statistics showing that the area has one of the city's lowest crime rates." The area she is referring to is the Christopher Street part of the West Village in New York City. This area is not only a very large and almost all gay neighborhood, but also where the infamous Stonewall Riots that catapulted the Gay rights movement took place. Not only does the gay community consistently have lower crime rates but it also has a more culturally diverse and artistic culture. A glance at many of broadway male actors profiles will reveal a huge percentage of actors are gay and well represented in race, national origin, and age.

Before I explain why we should not vote on this proposal, I will reveal the areas of Florida that will be particularly hurt and outraged by this amendment. In South Florida, we have in the city of Miami the gay area of South Beach. In the keys, Key West has a very large percentage of GLBT citizens. In Fort Lauderdale, there is Wilton Manors, parts of downtown Ft. Lauderdale, and Davie. And in Central Florida, Tampa, Orlando, and other areas will particularly be hurt. These people are tax paying citizens who wish to be able to one day say those two special words to the person they love, I Do.

Moving on to the reasons why you should reject this amendment. Nadine Smith, Co-Chair of Fairness for All Families states, "it takes away legal protections from unmarried couples; gay or straight. It prevents civil unions, comprehensive domestic partnerships and removes existing legal benefits. There are about 360,000 unmarried couples in the state according to the U.S. Census Bureau, of which there are roughly 40,000 gay and lesbian couples." This shows that voting for this amendment will harm a significant group of Floridians that could otherwise by left unharmed by voting no. If you also look at what happened in Michigan people had said that they wouldn't go after domestic partnership and civil union benefits once an amendment very similar to this one passed. They immediately after the election starting removed health, medical, legal, and financial benefits.

Smith also goes on to state, "this amendment is not taking away gay marriage, because the legal statues already do that. But what it does do is make it alot harder for us to care for the ones that we love. When Michigan took away domestic partnerships it didn't make married relationships any better, but what it did do is remove the benefits that gay couples had and made it alot harder for them to care for their families and the ones that they love." To protect the integrity of the Florida constitution and to reconfirm our commitment to ALL of our citizens regardless of their race ,color ,sex , national origin , and sexual orientation. I urge you all to vote NO on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
AEQUITAS

Con

"There are three inalienable rights that bind americans together: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we the people have duty to reject and condemn any law or policy that seeks to deny any American these essential rights." While that is true there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You cannot murder, rape, steal, use drugs, engage in polygamy, incest, or child molestation. In fact, there are hundreds of bad things that the law restricts that make some very twisted people very happy. So, by your logic that says, "gay marriage makes gays happy. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry," one could also make the argument that says, "incest marriages make some people happy. These people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, we should allow brothers and sisters to get married." Your first argument is flawed because you don't understand that there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You then go on to say that crime rates are consistently lower in gay neighborhoods. The only evidence you give for this is an article in the Washinton Post that states that the crime rate is lower in a gay neighborhood. First of all, that is one neighborhood. That is by no means a large enough of a sample to prove anything. Secondly, I have to ask myself why the city council and the mayor wanted to increase police patrols. Remember, crime rates only have to do with crimes that are discovered. It is very possible that the city council and the mayor had reasonable suspicion that many crimes were being committed in this neighborhood and needed increased police presence to catch the criminals. It is no secret that the gay community is heavily infiltrated by drugs, especially meth. http://articles.latimes.com...
This website shows the statistics of gays using meth.

"...but it also has a more culturally diverse and artistic culture." So basically your argument is, gay people are artistic, therefore they should be allowed to get married. Hey, look! I can say something and then get a completely unrelated conclusion too! Watch! Hitler was tremendous at making speaches, therefore he should have been allowed to take over the world. I assume you realize that I'm not comparing gay people to Hitler. I'm giving extreme examples to show that your arguments lack any form of logic.

"These are tax paying citizens who wish to be able to one day say those two special words to the person they love, I Do." Again I say, just because they love the other person doesn't mean that they should have the right to get married. There are lots of people who love each other who should not have the right to get married. i.e. Polygamists, pedophiles, and incest. We have these rules for very good reasons. To uphold the structure of our society. Again I refer to the above website to show how gays harm our society.
Debate Round No. 1
flamingdebater

Pro

The first piece of argumentation we must look at is the three inalienable rights argument. You state, " there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You cannot murder, rape, steal, use drugs, engage in polygamy, incest, or child molestation." While I'd be willing to admit that there are limits to a person's rights this does not essentially prove that gay marriage should be limited or prevented. One of the first lessons I learned in a law class is that "a person is entitled to their rights as long as it does harm anyone else's rights." What this means is you have the burden to prove that gay marriage harms other peoples' rights in order to warrant limitation or removal. Lets group that argument with the only offense you provide saying that the gay community is heavily inflitrated by drugs. First I would argue that even IF this was proven true, it has not harmed anyone but themselves. Second, it has nothing to do with why gays should be allowed to marry. And third, in the city of Los Angeles where that article was published, there is one of the highest crime rates in the nation. This means that any reliability from studies of crime would have a very large margin of error since it could not translate into smaller cities and towns.

Now let me revisit the argument I provide saying that gay nieghborhood have a lower crime rate. The article I quoted had to deal with the West Village neighborhood, which is one of the largest gay communities in the nation next to San Fransico. It has reliable data because it surveyed 1920 people who lived in that area of Manhattan and the reported crime rate was extremely low.

To quote you again, ""...but it also has a more culturally diverse and artistic culture." So basically your argument is, gay people are artistic, therefore they should be allowed to get married. " Here is where you are reaching a false conclusion, my argument was saying that gay people provide advantages to the community and that there is no reason to punish or prevent them from being married in the state of Florida.

Next, extend my argument from Nadine Smith, Co-Chair of Fairness for All Families, who states, "it takes away legal protections from unmarried couples; gay or straight. It prevents civil unions, comprehensive domestic partnerships and removes existing legal benefits. There are about 360,000 unmarried couples in the state according to the U.S. Census Bureau, of which there are roughly 40,000 gay and lesbian couples." What this shows is that not only will the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment prevent gay and lesbian couples from having any form of legal union but also takes away and existing legal benefits they possess.

The significance this argument has to this debate is that it shows that my opponent is providing a significant harm to the roughly 40,000 gay and lesbian couples in the state that could otherwise be avoided by voting no.

Next, extend my second Nadine Smith argument which states, "When Michigan took away domestic partnerships it didn't make married relationships any better, but what it did do is remove the benefits that gay couples had and made it alot harder for them to care for their families and the ones that they love." This proves that once this amendment passes and removes domestic partnerships in the state the health and legal benefits that these couples have enjoyed and used to better help themselves will be removed and make it harder to care for one another.

To reiterate, to protect the integrity of the Florida constitution and to reconfirm our commitment to ALL of our citizens regardless of their race ,color ,sex , national origin , and sexual orientation, I urge you all to vote NO on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
AEQUITAS

Con

AEQUITAS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
flamingdebater

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited the previous round, I will basically explain the impacts of the argument my opponent conceded.

First my opponent fails to meet the burden I place on him which is that unless gay marriage harms other peoples rights then limitation or removal is not warranted. His only argument trying to address this was that the gay community heavily uses drugs, which I pointed out in my previous post that this his data was unreliable because of the high crime rate in the city where it was taken. Also I prove that this has no impact on whether gay marriage itself should be legal. Then I also prove the significance of the data I provide from the West Village which proves the opposite of what my opponent was trying to portray gay people as: violent, criminal, and unproductive.

Then my opponent also fails to respond to my argument that gay people provide advantages to the community and that there is no warranted reason to punish or prevent them from being married in the state of Florida. The impact this has is that the con can never win in this debate because there is now no logical or warranted reason to deny this right to the gay citizens in Florida.

Next, throughout this debate my opponent has ignored the Nadine Smith analysis that shows that roughly 360,000 unmarried couples will lose existing benefits if this amendment passes. Not only will the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment prevent gay and lesbian couples from having any form of legal union but also takes away any existing legal and health benefits they currently possess. This shows that passes this amendment will negatively impact a substantial number of citizens in the state of Florida that could be avoided by voting no to the amendment. Domestic Partnerships will also be in danger if this amendment is passed.

By voting pro in this debate you help ensure that the integrity of the Florida constitution is protected and you also help reconfirm our commitment to ALL of our citizens regardless of their race ,color ,sex ,national origin , and sexual orientation, I urge you all to vote NO on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
AEQUITAS

Con

Sorry I missed the last round. I've been very busy between summer semester and work. My first argument was not meant to give reasons why gays should not be allowed to marry, I will do that in this argument. My first round was simply meant to show that your reasoning is flawed. The gay community being extremely artistic has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed to get married. Nothing at all. By not allowing gays to get married we are not, as you claim, punishing them for something. They have the same exact rights as we do. They can marry any member of the oppisite sex they want and I cannot marry a member of the same sex even if I wanted to. What the gay community is asking for is extra rights. They are not being punished in any way, shape, or form. Your crime rate argument is still very weak. First, your basing it off of one study and then apply it to the entire gay community. Second, drugs are still a crime, and buying them still gives money to criminals. http://media.www.nyunews.com...
http://www.stopdrugs.org...
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The last website contains this quote from officials, "Aside from its growing use in gay clubs meth has made little impact in local jurisdictions." Now just as gay people being artistic doesn't give them the right to get married to a member of the same sex, problems with drugs shouldn't bar that right either. The only purpose of that point was to invalidate your argument. Remember, gays have the exact same rights we do. Your biggest argument is that gays love each other and therefore should be able to express that love to one another by getting married. Hey, alot of polygamist love each other too, but we don't give them the right to get married to multiple people. Same with pedophiles. These people love each other and yet we don't allow them to marry. Therefore, love is not the only qualifier for marriage.
http://www.news-medical.net... NLS Annotated Bibliography - Author Search Results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANG, KEVIN
ZAGORSKY, JAY L.
Does Growing Up with a Parent Absent Really Hurt?
Working Paper, Columbus OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Human Resource Research, October 1997
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 3092
Publisher: Center for Human Resource Research

It is widely recognized that children who grow up without one of their biological parents in the home do worse, on average, than other children. However, having a single parent is highly correlated with lots of other socioeconomic disadvantages. Therefore, we must be cautious about ascribing the negative outcome to the parent's absence. Using a variety of controls and instruments, we find little evidence that absence of a parent affects income or wealth. Father's presence has a notable impact on cognitive ability, education and marital status for men. For women, mother's presence is important for cognitive ability and education

It is very beneficial for children to know both parents. Giving gays the same rights as married heterosexual couples would allow them to adopt. This would be very damaging to our society because children would only know two mothers, or two fathers. They need both a mother and a father. http://www.weeklystandard.com...
This website shows more of the damaging consequences of allowing same sex marriages. These facts are from nations that have already tried allowing same sex marriages. This is not speculation or belief, it is fact of what has already happened elsewhere.

There is a reason gay marriage is so devastating to a society. GOD created the earth. On this earth he created man. GOD knew that man would need someone to be his helper. So GOD created woman. Not another man, but a woman. Before any other institution GOD created the family. He created it to be between one man, and one woman.
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites. This is a verse from the Bible. GOD condemnes homosexuality. To allow any form of sin into society is to invite problems. This would also include the people who are living together with kids who are unmarried. Notice this verse also says adulterers and fornicators. We should not allow gay marriage into society.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by flamingdebater 8 years ago
flamingdebater
Its really a shame that my opponent waited until I did not have a chance to respond to his arguments. His most controversial argument were brought up at the end of the round and should not be considered in this debate.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Forcing someone to be unable to do something that does not harm or take away your rights would be just as bad as me wanting the government to tell you that you can't go to church or worship.

You people want to force others by your morals, but when the sides are flipped you scream oppression.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"There are lots of people who love each other who should not have the right to get married. i.e. Polygamists, pedophiles, and incest."

Why shouldn't they? And do your arguments for the latter apply to gays? Personally I'm in favor of all of the above getting married so long as consent is present :D
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as what you do does not take away others right to the same thing.

A gay couple marrying does not directly affect a heterosexual couple's rights to life liberty and their pursuit of happiness, whereas killing , raping, or assaulting someone does directly affect those freedoms.

Sure they may get their panties in a wad over it, but it's avoidable.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
LMAO.

THEY CALL THIS THE "MARRIAGE PROTECTION" AMENDMENT???

YOU MIGHT AS WELL CALL RAPE "TRAUMA PROTECTION"!
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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 Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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 SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by flamingdebater 8 years ago
flamingdebater
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Karoz 8 years ago
Karoz
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
flamingdebaterAEQUITASTied
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:30