The Instigator
marc88567
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Legitdebater
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 9 votes the winner is...
Legitdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,978 times Debate No: 32943
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (9)

 

marc88567

Pro

I want to say good afternoon to everyone, and this is my first debate of any kind ever. I will try to get the format for the debate as correct as I can, I will try to research any fallacies I may commit and correct them before I do, and I invite anyone on this site to take up the con on this issue. This is an issue I have been debating several people on for weeks now, and its time to put it to a vote...since this is a topic in front of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Accordingly, people of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community has argued that States which do not allow same-sex marriage, as well as the Federal government, are discriminating against the LGBT couples rights because of their sexual orientation.

FOR THIS DEBATE THE CON MUST ARGUE FOR THE STATES THAT DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Definitions of terms:
Definition of HOMOSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Definition of HETEROSEXUAL
1
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sex

Definition of COUPLE
1
a : two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired b : two persons paired together

Definition of STATE
a : one of the constituent units of The United States of America

Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION
: the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, bisexual, and zoophilia behavior


My contentions:

C1: State or Federal government is not discriminating against homosexuals couples right to marry because of their sexual orientation.

After reviewing several state requirements on marriage http://www.usmarriagelaws.com..., I do not and have not seen any state that asks the soon to be married couple their sexual orientation. Therefore since the state doesn't not ask for sexual orientation, the state cannot discriminated nor deny a couple a marriage license based off of sexual orientation.

C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry.

As stated in C1:, states cannot discriminated based off of sexual orientation...homosexuals can therefore be married. Homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals can.

C3: Arguments that allow same-sex marriages can be argued for all types of marriages i.e. polygamy, incestuous, bestial.

Same-sex marriages would have to redefine what marriage is based on, through the equality of sexual orientation. By making the state recognize the rights based on sexual orientation, the states interest would change and have to recognize all sexual orientaions as equals. Thus allowing poygamy, incestuous, and bestial marriages to take place.

In conclustion, the right to marry is currently provided to everyone equally under the law, and does not discrminated against homosexuals.

Legitdebater

Con

Welcome to DDO! I will gladly accept this debate and the definitions. As Pro, I will be arguing that the majority of states do discriminate against gay marriage and as well as the federal government. The first round is usually acceptance, but I see that you have not established a debate procedure and have already stated your contentions. Oh well, it's your first time. Next time you should say the first round is acceptance so people know whether to argue or not in the first round. Before my opponent will expand on his arguments in the second round, I would like to define discriminate.

Discriminate: to recognize a distinction; differentiate negatively

If Pro has any objections to this definition, he must do so in the comments section.
I hope for a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
marc88567

Pro

Thank you for accepting, but I do believe you are taking the Con, (correct me if I'm wrong, no big deal), as we are of opposing views on the topic. I wasn't sure the establishment of the 1st round for I have seen different formats, so I will expand my argument now. Thanks for the heads up!

I gladly accept your definition of Discriminate.

C1: State or Federal government is not discriminating against homosexuals couples right to marry because of their sexual orientation.

1. I have reviewed the website http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... and obtain my information from this website. I believe this website to be a credible source of the laws in each state regarding marriage requirements. I do believe this website to be credible because it provides official *.pdf files from each state listing the requirements, as well as address and phone number to contact the county clerks within each state. The website is dated 2012, and as we are only arguing for the states that do not acknowledge same-sex marriage, I believe the marriage requirements to be the same for those said states in 2013.

2. I can find no state that requires the couple to identify their sexual orientation on a marriage application. I can find no state that identifies the couple’s sexual orientation on the marriage license. Also, I can find no state that prohibits marriage based on sexual orientation.

3. As of the law now, (in the states that do not recognize same-sex marriages) an opposite-sex couple may marry. The state does not require an opposite-sex couple to identify themselves as a heterosexual couple. While society may imply the opposite-sex couple is heterosexual in their sexual orientation, it does not necessarily make it true. For an opposite-sex couple may marry, even if both individuals that make up the couple are homosexual. Example: A homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman. Thus, their sexual orientation is not the basis for denying a state marriage license, or recognition through the state and federal government.

4. A "couple" does not always mean that two individuals are romantically involved. There is also no requirement for a couple to be romantically involved to be married, although it may be implied by society. Therefore, a homosexual couple may have no romantically involved at all, and also not of the same-sex.

C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry.

1. Any homosexual may marry a person of the opposite-sex. The right to marry is not based on sexual orientation as pointed out above. Example: A homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman; a heterosexual man may marry a homosexual woman and vise-versa respectively. Therefore, the right to marry is not being denied to homosexuals.

C3: Arguments that allow same-sex marriages can be argued for all types of marriages i.e. polygamy, incestuous, bestial.

1. Generally speaking, in the states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, the state defines marriage as: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. To argue for a change in the definition to include:the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, the Con must present an argument of what a marriage is and what a marriage is not.

2. In addition to arguing a change for the definition of marriage, Con must also provide an argument of why a state’s interest in recognizing only opposite-sex marriages is flawed, and provide interest of such state to recognize same-sex marriages.

3. Con must also argue both points 1 and 2, without it applying to people of all sexual orientation, and only to homosexual same-sex marriages.

To summarize, homosexuals are not being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation because states do not ask individuals their sexual orientation. It is only implied by society, that it is sexual orientation discrimination because of the assumption same-sex marriage are homosexual. Certainly two heterosexual men cannot get married to each other either.

Legitdebater

Con

My Refutations
My opponent's first contention is that the State or Federal government is not discriminating homesexuals couples right to marrry because of their sexual orientation. However, this isn't true as we can look at this.

In America, there are more states in which you can marry your first cousin than states in which you can marry the love of your life — if that first cousin is of the opposite sex but that love of your life is of the same sex. Same-sex marriage is illegal — not just not possible, but specifically outlawed, sometimes via a constitutional amendment, in 31 states, and legal in only 10 states, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, along with the District of Columbia.[1]

In Pro's first contention, he claims that he can find no state that requires their sexual orientation before they can marry. I'll give you one, Alambama. According to the Alabama Marriage Act,

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.[2]

Alabama, as well 31 other states, do not recognize gay marriage. The majority of states only recognize marriage between a male and a female, thereby banning marriage between two homosexuals for their sexual orientation.

Pro's second contention is not backed up by any source, so I may refute it. According to Pro, he claims that a homosexual man may marry a homosexual woman. How would this be possible as two homosexual persons would not marry the opposite sex. This would be called heterosexual, as two people are marrying the opposite sex.

C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry.

This isn't true as I have already stated that the majority of states ban gay marriage and consider marriage between a man and a woman under their own constitution i.e Arkansas, Tennessee, Colarado, Georgia, Kentucky and so on. Also, the federal govenment doesn't officially grant gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act.

‘‘§ 7. Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’
‘‘In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of
any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’means only a legal union between one man and one woman as
husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person
of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’’. [4]

We can see that even the federal government defines marriage as only between a man and a woman,
thereby not granting gay marriage.


C3: This isn't a gay marriage debate, this debate is about whether the United States is discriminatory towards gays by denying them marriage.
Pro is claiming things without

actually sourcing them so we don't actually know if what Pro says is legitimate.

My Arguments

The Federal Government doesn't officially recognize gay marriage
If the Federal government defines marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act between a man and woman, how can you
can you claim they aren't being discriminatory. The definition of the discriminate is to recognize a distiction; differentiate negatively.
The Federal Government is doing this by recognizing a distinction in marriage.Gay marriage isn't officially recognized under this act,
therefore the Federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage.


The Majority of States deem Gay Marriage Illegal
As I stated in my refutations, the majority of states deem gay marriage illegal under their own constitutions.

States like Alabama only recognize marriage between a man and a woman like the federal government. Only
in states like these, not only are they not recognized, but prohibited. Again, states like are being discriminatory
by recognizing a distinction' differentiating negatively. Therefore, gays

are being discriminated against by not only the federal government, but the majority of states.

Summary
Many of Pro's arguments aren't backed by a source, so we can't take him seriously.

Pro has also contradicted himself by calling two homosexuals marrying the opposite sex heterosexual.
The definition of the debate defines heterosexual as the sexual desire toward the opposite sex.
In summary, the U.S. is being discriminatory towards homosexuals.
  






































Sources:http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...;[1]

http://www.legislature.state.al.us...;[2]

http://statesthatallowgaymarriage.com...[3]

http://www.gpo.gov...[4]

Debate Round No. 2
marc88567

Pro

My Rebuttal

Let me say I appreciate my opponents response. However, my opponent has not provided evidence of discrimination against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation. Con has only provided evidence of discrimination against choice of gender. This is not sexual orientation discrimination.

C1: State or Federal government is not discriminating against homosexuals couples right to marry because of their sexual orientation.

My opponent sites the state of Alabama and the Alabama Marriage Act as evidence the state discriminates against the sexual orientation of the individual or couple. Con provides 3 paragraphs which I accept as a valid source:

(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.

(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.

(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.

(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.[2]

However, nowhere in these 3 paragraphs does the language say the couple must be heterosexual to marry, or does the language deny homosexuals from marrying. In fact, the words heterosexual and homosexual are not found in the section of marriage recognition in the Alabama Marriage Act.

1. The act does state same-sex marriage license shall not be issued, and marriage contracted between individuals of the same-sex is invalid in the state. This however does not specify whether the same-sex marriage is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Certainly two heterosexual males would be allowed marriage if the state specifically denied only homosexuals. This is why it is not discrimination against sexual orientation, because all sexual orientation are prohibited from same-sex marriage, not just homosexuals.

2. My opponent states, “How would this be possible as two homosexual persons would not marry the opposite sex.” This is an argument from omniscience, for Con cannot possible know everyone’s intention for marriage, nor can Con know what gender a homosexual may marry. Con is implying homosexual must marry the same-sex because of their sexual orientation. This is not an absolute. Example: (Names protected) Brooke is a homosexual woman. Brooke married Tony, a homosexual man. Brooke and Tony do not have a sexual relationship; they do not live together; and both have same-sex partners. Brooke and Tony only married to exploit health insurance benefits at Brookes work, for Tony needed surgery. Now the state did not deny Brooke or Tony a license because of their sexual orientation. Brooke and Tony are a couple; Brooke and Tony are both homosexual; and Brooke and Tony are opposite-sex. Therefore, Brooke and Tony are a homosexual opposite-sex couple. Their right to marry was not based on their sexual orientation, nor was it denied based on their sexual orientation.

3. The state of Alabama (from what I’ve read so far) does not use the term “Gay Marriage”, in any of its language. It uses the term same-sex marriage, which could mean any sexual orientation. It is discrimination against choice, not sexual orientation.

C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry.

Con claims this this statement is false and sites the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and list states that do not allow same-sex marriage.

1. Same-sex marriage is not the same as gay marriage. Gay marriage is definitely a same-sex marriage, but the vise-versa does not apply, because as I provided above: two heterosexual males cannot marry either. If two heterosexual males could marry this would not be a gay marriage, for the two males are heterosexual, but instead just a same-sex marriage.

2. Con assumes that all homosexuals would marry only homosexuals and this once again is an argument from omniscience fallacy, for Con cannot know who all homosexual would marry, or the reason they would get married.

3. DOMA does not (from what I have read so far) use the language “Gay Marriage, homosexual, or heterosexual” in defining who and who cannot get married. DOMA only defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, but does not say what sexual orientation that man and woman may be. While society may imply an opposite-sex marriage is “heterosexual”, and a same-sex couple as “homosexual” it does not state so in these laws and acts. Therefore, any sexual orientation may get married. It is only the choice of gender that is being denied, not sexual orientation.

C3: Arguments that allow same-sex marriages can be argued for all types of marriages i.e. polygamy, incestuous, bestial.

Con is correct in saying this contention is a debate on a different subject than the topic. Therefore I digress my contention.

Summary

Con’s refutations introduces language that is not in the law or acts of the states or federal government. Con uses the terms “Gay Marriage” and “Same-sex Marriage” as synonyms. While “Gay Marriage” may always be a synonym for “Same-sex Marriage”, “Same-sex Marriage” is not always a synonym for “Gay Marriage”. This is why the states chose this particular language. The law and acts are non-ambiguous to encompass all sexual orientations without discrimination. If the state used the term, “Gay Marriage” it would be a discrimination against sexual orientation. For the states that do grant “Same-sex marriage”, those states do not limit the marriage to only homosexuals. A heterosexual same-sex couple could marry in those states, for whatever reason they want and not have to identify their sexual orientation.

Con suggests I contradict my argument by “calling two homosexuals marrying the opposite sex heterosexual.” I did not say this at all. Con is implying that an opposite sex marriage is heterosexual, meaning the man and woman have a sexual desire towards each other. Sexual desire is not a requirement for marriage.Therefore a homosexual opposite-sex couple may marry and not be heterosexual.

I conclude the right to marry is not discriminatory based on sexual orientation.

Legitdebater

Con

My Refutations
1.Pro: The act does state same-sex marriage license shall not be issued, and marriage contracted between individuals of the same-sex is invalid in the state. This however does not specify whether the same-sex marriage is homosexual or heterosexual in nature. Certainly two heterosexual males would be allowed marriage if the state specifically denied only homosexuals. This is why it is not discrimination against sexual orientation, because all sexual orientation are prohibited from same-sex marriage, not just homosexuals.

The Alabama act specifically states in section (d) that no same-sex marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama of the same sex[1]. Pro also claims that nowhere in the Alabama Marriage Act does it say you have to be heterosexual to marry, but it does.

Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.[1]

Although it doesn't use the language heterosexual, it is saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, a heterosexual marriage. Pro also states that two heterosexuals could marry each other. Where have you ever heard of this? Pro only provides a hypothetical scenario that's unlikely. The state of Alabama denies same-sex marriage because they think marriage should be between a man and a woman, not between two men or two women. This is discriminating against homosexuals right to marry.

3. My opponent claims that becuase the Alabama Marriage Act does not use the term "Gay Marriage" and uses the term same-sex marriage, and that it's disrmination against choice, not sexual orientation. However, the topic of this debate is The United States does not discriminate against homosexuals right to marry. States like Alabama are discriminating against homosexuals right to marry by enforcing laws that prevent this.

C2: All homosexuals currently have the right to marry just as all heterosexual have the right to marry.

1. Pro states that same-sex marriage is not the same as gay marriage. However, these terms are often used interchangeably. If two heterosexuals marry, it would be defined as gay marriage. As defined by dictionary.reference.com:

Definition:

the union of two same-sex partners; also called [same-sex marriage ], same-gender marriage,homosexual marriage

Therefore, homosexual means gay and homosexual marriage is a synonym to same-sex marriage.

2. Again, if you give me a real life example, I'll accept.

3. The topic of this debate is "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." DOMA is recognizing marriage as between a man and a woman, and is differentiating any homosexual marriages.

My Arguments

The Majority of States deem Gay Marriage Illegal [2]
Again, the majority of the states in the U.S. are discriminating against homosexuals right to marry. These states use constitutions to recognize marriage between a man and a woman, thereby indirectly discriminating against homosexuals orientation becuase their choice is to marry a gender their attracted to.

Religious Aspects
Many religions such as the Christianity specifically discriminate against homosexuals rights to marry based on orientation.[3] Many of these Christians discriminate against homosexuals because of their orientation as they follow the Churches teachings. About 78.4 % of American adults are Christian and 51.3 percent are Protestants[4]. In a gallup poll towards the attitude of Americans against gay marriage, the poll revealed that among religious Americans, Protestants in general were opposed to gay marriage.[5] This shows that as a society, about half of Americans, many who are Protestants are against gay marriage because of their orientation.

The Federal Government doesn't officially recognize gay marriage
Since the federal government sees marriage as between a man and woman under the DOMA[6], they aren't acknowledging gay marraige because they don't recognize that two people of the same-sex that love eachother should get married. Therefore, they're indirectly being discriminatory against gay's sexual orientation since they still won't allow gays to marry even if they raised a family by adopting kids. The resolution above us is "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." The Federal government is doing this by differentiating marriage and is being discriminatory towards gays.

Summary
This debate is "The United States does not discriminate agianst homosexuals right to marry." If Pro wanted to have a debate on whether the United States discriminates against gays becuase of their sexual orientation, he should have specified that on the above resolution. I still think I've made a good case on how the United States still does discriminate gays because of their orientation.













Sources:http://www.legislature.state.al.us......;[1]
http://statesthatallowgaymarriage.com...[2]
http://atheism.about.com...[3]

http://religions.pewforum.org...[4]
http://global.christianpost.com...[5]
http://www.gpo.gov...[6]

Debate Round No. 3
marc88567

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for carefully taking the time and thoughtfully arguing the Con side of this debate. I would also like to thank anyone that has patiently read through these rounds and taken the time to vote. I also hope and encourage everyone to vote based on the debate itself, and remain unbiased towards the subject. Do not vote on whether you are for or against the topic, but rather the presentation and delivery of the arguments.

*I reject Cons argument from the Religious Aspect, for this debate is not about religious discrimination.

Closing Argument

While my opponent reminds us that this is a debate on whether, "The United States does not discriminate against homosexual’s right to marry." I would like to remind Con and our humble audience that in order for the United States to discriminate against homosexual…homosexuals must be identified within the context of the law or acts by their sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. This is why I have contended that if a state or Federal government is not identifying our sexual orientation in the law or acts, then that state or Federal government is not discriminating against any marriage rights specifically towards homosexuals.

If we look back at the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which, (to summarize here), separated race into two categories, white or colored/non-whites. From this act, our nation passed many anti-miscegenation laws that banned marriages between whites and colored/non-whites. These anti-miscegenation laws would specifically use the term white and colored/non-whites in the law. Our agreed definition of discrimination is to recognize a distinction which would encompass; age, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, height, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, skin color, and weight. Sense no law is specifically identifying sexual orientation as being banned from marriage; it therefore cannot be a direct discrimination against homosexuals. Con may say it is an indirect discrimination, but the law applies to all.

Con has addressed my contention and has refuted my claim and named the state of Alabama (really doesn't matter what state) as proof, that sexual orientation was being discriminated against. Also Con has agreed with me by saying, Alabama does not use the language that identifies our sexual orientation, but the law implies homosexuals cannot marry because the law identifies a marriage between a man and a woman. Now I have given examples and scenarios that satisfy a homosexual’s right to marry can be met in an opposite marriage, and also given examples and scenarios that heterosexual cannot marry into a same-sex marriage. No matter how unlikely Con may think these scenarios may be, the unlikeliness of such scenarios doesn’t make what I say untrue. Just because something is unlikely, doesn’t mean it can’t happen; doesn’t mean it won’t happen; and doesn’t mean as we speak, it isn’t happening right now. The fact is: all sexual orientations are banned from having a same-sex marriage, not just homosexuals.

Now, we are all aware that society may believe the term “same-sex marriage” means “gay-marriage.”, but it also just means “same-gender marriage,” as the highly unlikely scenario of two heterosexual men marrying for health benefits. But the law has a responsibility to use language that does not discriminate. If the law stated homosexual were banned from marriage, then my next example would be illegal. https://www.youtube.com...

For those of you that didn’t watch the clip, or any other clips of this, I will summarize for you. This is a segment from the Ricki Lake Show, in which a homosexual man is married to a woman. Now while the title of this show is disparaging from my argument as well the sexual acts of this couple, the principles back my contentions. If homosexuals were banned from marriage, then this man would not be allowed to marry this woman.

The fact is this is a denial of choice to the marriage applicants….not a denial because you are homosexual. There are many laws and acts out there that deny us choice, and those laws and acts are for whatever reason the state or Federal Government may have the interest in doing so. Comparison for this would be the denail of choosing more than one spouce. Everyone is denied this choice for whatever the states or Federal governments interest are. Its certains isn't being denied becasue of someone's sexual orientation. If a choice is being denied to only one group, then it is discrimination. Marriage is available to every man and woman in the United States no matter if you identify yourself as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or asexual…marriage is available to you as a right. You may not like the choices you have to exercise that right, but there are many rights out there you can’t choose to exercise the way you would like. This is why, “The United States does not discriminate against homosexual’s right to marry.”

Thank you!

Legitdebater

Con

My Final Refutations and Arguments

Religious Aspects
Con states my argument about religion is invalid. I strongly disagree. The point I was trying to make was that the majority of people in society that discriminate agaisnt homosexuals were due to religious reasons. In fact, the reason why laws are established to ban gay marriage are because of people who vote against gay marriage on referendums. The reason why gay marriage is banned in some states is becuase of some Christians (78.4 % of Americans) disagree with gay marriage just because of their sexual orientation as that is what their church teaches them.[1] Washington state actually passed a law that allowed businesses to discriminate gays for religious reasons. Read this:

"Republicans in Washington state have proposed a bill that would allow businesses to openly discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation if they want to do so because of their religious beliefs. SB 5927 carves out a specific exception to the state’s nondiscrimination law that says only federal protections — which don’t include sexual orientation — apply when a person’s religious belief is “burdened”: Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience."[2]

These same people are against gay marriage because of their sexual orientation due to their religious beliefs.

The Majority of States deem Gay Marriage Illegal
Not only do some states discriminate gay's rights to marry, but some cities like Cincinnati actually allow discrimination. Read this:

"the U.S. Supreme Court also let stand a lower court ruling which upheld the Constitutionality of an amendment to the Cincinnati city charter which prohibited legal bans on discrimination by sexual orientation.So, in Cincinnati, it became quite legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. If you have gay man working for you, you can fire him at will. If you have a lesbian as customer, you can refuse to serve her if you wish. None of it would be illegal.[1]

We can see that people are extremely discriminatory to gays just because of their sexual orientation. This is the kind of mentality people have on voting against gay marriage. It's sad that gays can't get married in some states, but it's tragic to make it actually legal to discriminate against gays. As I mentioned in my previous contention, states like Washington pass laws to actually discriminate against gay's sexual orientation, and is the same rational for denying them marriage.

The Federal Government doesn't officially recognize gay marriage
The federal government is still discriminating against gay marriage by deeming marriage legal under a man and a woman. If the DOMA defines marriage between a man and a woman, they're discriminating against homosexuals right to marry by differentiating homosexual marriage fom legal marriage: between two heterosexuals, a man an a woman.

Conclusion
From states and cities specifically passing laws to allow discrimination against gay's sexual orientation, we can see that the United States is discriminating against homosexuals right to marry. . The definition of discriminate for this debate was to recognize a distinction; differentiate negatively. Under the DOMA, laws that allow discrimination, and states that declare homosexual marriage illegal, we can see that the United States is discriminating against homosexuals rights to marry. I thank Pro for an excellent debate, and may the best debater win.












Sources:http://atheism.about.com...[1]
http://purpleunions.com...[2]

Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
Oh...We had to pick a topic given a selective amount of subjects and come up with a debate for class, and agree to debate it against my partner. So we came up with this after reading some of the transcripts with the SCOTUS. We debate this on Monday...(and I hope he hasn't seen any of this debate). I mean, technically I'm right...the law doesn't say homosexuals...like it did with the interracial laws, in where they did identify coloreds and nonwhite. And my opponent can't argue that same-sex only means homosexual even though that is what we believe it means in society. And technically homosexuals can get married and technically to straight men cannot get married.
Posted by davidw 3 years ago
davidw
That the government does not discriminate against homosexuals.
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
I'm not sure what sounded like a joke?
Posted by davidw 3 years ago
davidw
I cant tell if you are joking or not. I appreciate your point, but I think it is a legal distinction that mat save face in the courts but makes no difference in reality. Obviously different sex marriage has tbe same problem and yet those are legal.
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
Its really not that high of a percentage davidw. Although, I don't believe anyone has done a survey on it, I know a few people that are strictly heterosexuals that have joined in civil unions, (marriage if it was available) just for health benefits.
This number will of course increase once same sex marriage is legal.
Posted by davidw 3 years ago
davidw
I suppose it would be pointless to point out the obvious - that homosexuals in the relevant cases are same sex couples that desire same sex marriage, and 99.999% of heterosexuals do not desire to do so. Thus, outlawing same sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals.

Outlawing behavior for all groups that are practiced really only by one is still discrimination against that one group.
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
I keep thinking about this debate and how to perfect it for later. I think I should have had a contention that stated, C4: Law is not discrimination if it pertains to everyone...meaning its not just homosexuals being denied a same-sex marriage license. I know a thousand more arguments that can spawn from this; like choosing to marry the one you love, and why would any other sexuality want a same-sex marriage other than homosexuals etc. But I could have listed a hundred examples of laws that people could argue discrimination because it pertains to everyone
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
You still continued to argue states passed laws against gay marriage. No they don't! there was no source either you or I provided that says "gay marriage" is illegal. It says same-sex marriage which does not always mean "gay marriage".
Posted by marc88567 3 years ago
marc88567
I posted in the political forum. A few people have agreed to vote. I didn't know we had to finish our debate for the vote, so I'll go ahead and rap up my closing argument. Yeah, it drives me nuts when I try to debate an issue and be attack me; attack my character; attack my beliefs; attack my intelligence; or attack my grammer (misspelled intentionally). I'm lucky to have found this site and can't wait to more debates. I wish I could find an actually format for a debate on here. All I have found are examples of good debates, but not like a....template. Let me know if you see anything. Oh, and is there an add feature on here? I would like to add you and check out any other debates you may have in the future. I think I got lucky finding you instead of someone that wouldn't care to take the time.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
I understand your point. It's unfortunate that those people called you those names. What I meant is post a forum on this site. By posting a forum, you can get more attention and encourage people to vote. Also, people who use that kind of language on this site usually get reported and thus get banned from the site. I hope it doesn't happen again.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by danielawesome12 3 years ago
danielawesome12
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: good debate, I'm definitely split ticket
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used more and better sources so the point goes to him. I also felt he won in mostlf his arguments like the Federal Government and the states while Pro's arguments were mostly left to a draw.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con completely missed the point and kept arguing that they discriminate against gay marriage. That was not the debate. The debate was that the homosexual right to marry is not infringed upon. This is true. They have the opportunity to have a legal heterosexual marriage. No rights have been infringed upon.
Vote Placed by GeekiTheGreat 3 years ago
GeekiTheGreat
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Any decision in america made by a religious text is against the constitution.
Vote Placed by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I am against gay marriage, but was willing to admit that it was discriminatory, (but for good reasons). However, Pros argument that the marriage law do not specify sexual orientation and that homosexuals are free to marry the opposite sex was convincing. Also, for the record the Cincinnati source is dated, that law has since been. overturned. Excellent debate by both sides. Marc outstanding for a first debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 3 years ago
Lordknukle
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Freedom is based in context. Marc's arguments are that homosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex, but that is irrelevant to what homosexuals actually are. Legitdebater points out, correctly that the equivalent freedom of heterosexual marriage that would be transferred to homosexuals would not equivalent to that which heterosexuals currently enjoy. Thus, Con wins.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Marc basically argues that since gay people can marry people who the vast majority wouldn't want to marry, they aren't discriminated against. Legit points out that they are still denied the freedom to marry the people they actually want to. Legit wins.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB for loveu157. If vote is removed or and RFD is provided, the CVB can be removed.
Vote Placed by loveu157 3 years ago
loveu157
marc88567LegitdebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Legit is legit