The Instigator
drhead
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

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 1 vote the winner is...
drhead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,095 times Debate No: 33352
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

drhead

Pro

This is a challenge in response to a forum post, quoted below: (all [sic])

At 5/6/2013 11:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 5/3/2013 9:11:32 PM, drhead wrote:
At 5/3/2013 7:29:59 PM, sadolite wrote:
I have nothing against homosexuals. And quite frankly the idea that if you don't approve of everything on the homosexual agenda it automatically makes you against homosexuals is always the narrative. This narrative is used on pupose. It is used to marginalize any and all who would oppose anything the homosexual agenda puts forward.

For instance, there is no possible way you could be in favor of defending the institution of marrige as being between a man and a woman. There is only one narrative. You are against gays and that is why you want to defend the institution of marrige. End of story end of debate end of all dialog. Works every time.

Might I ask what you hope to gain through defending the institution of marriage? Or what you have to lose through failure of its defense?

Oh, wait, that's right. Nothing. This is why people use this 'narrative' you speak of. There is absolutely NO REASON to be against ANY of it.

I rest my case. As you can painly and blatantly see you have set the homosexual naritive. So anything I may put forward is all based on bigotry. As you have stated "there can be no other reason to oppose gay marrige". Diolog is pointless, debate is pointless. Works every time.

This response appears to imply that there are valid arguments being dismissed as bigotry in the same-sex marriage debate, thus the resolution for this debate.

This debate will be fairly simple:
  1. No arguments in the last round.
  2. Con should present arguments in the first round.
  3. The resolution is a negative statement, therefore, burden of proof lies on Con.
  4. Any argument that is not sufficiently refuted by Pro and is sufficient to justify denying the right to marry someone of the same sex (either by itself or coupled with other arguments) would mean a win for Con. In other words, Con is trying to build a case against same-sex marriage, while Pro assumes a prima facie case for gay marriage.
This debate's purpose is to defend my statement, not as "Arguments against gay marriage are based on bigotry", but as "Arguments against gay marriage are fallacious, irrelevant, or otherwise invalid". I feel rather strongly about this, and I feel like my opponent feels strongly enough about the opposite view to the point where we can have a fruitful exchange of ideas. I wish the best of luck to my opponent.
sadolite

Con

I "feel" that gay marriage should not be legal. Many arguments in favor of gay marriage are based on "feelings" and nothing else. One persons feelings on an issue are not more powerful than another. My feeling against gay marriage is therefore valid and sufficient. Any argument you make against my feeling against gay marrige is purely "your opinion based on your "feelings" in favor of it.
Debate Round No. 1
drhead

Pro

There are several flaws with this line of reasoning that makes it insufficient to justify a ban on same-sex marriage:
  1. The prima-facie case for same-sex marriage rests on the premise that we should not outlaw things when we have no good reason to do so. Without a premise to justify an opinion against same-sex marriage, the opinion alone isn't sufficient to justify a same-sex marriage ban. The case for same-sex marriage is not limited by this, since it argues in favor of personal freedom, which is something that our society undoubtedly supports.
  2. Even if personal opinion is a valid argument, most people seem to not share this opinion: http://www.cbsnews.com...
    "As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage - California's Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal."
    It also seems it will stay this way for the foreseeable future:
    "As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage - California's Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal."
    When justifying something purely based on public opinion (assuming no prima-facie case), the strongest opinion always wins. Clearly same-sex marriage is winning here.
  3. That being said, it would be impossible to make something illegal exclusively because of a small minority that disagrees with it, since it is inevitable that someone will always hold a view opposite to the majority opinion.
I would also like to defend the prima-facie case by stating that it is not based in opinion (or, as Con chose to put it, "feeling"), and that it is based in the fact that allowing people to marry someone of the same sex increases personal freedom for everyone. Yes, even heterosexuals can marry someone of the same sex if they want to. I await any other arguments Con has.
sadolite

Con

Public opinion has no place in the interpretation of law. Siting polls as eveidence in a court of law renders the court of law a kangaroo court. Polls are "feeling" based. They are in no way legal arguments for interpreting already exsiting law and are irrelevant.

Legal precedent is a valid and sufficiant reason to oppose same sex marrige.

Baker v Nelson

Apllication of Baker v Nelson in federal courts

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006)
Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005)
In re Kandu, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (2004)
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (2010)
Defense of Marriage Act Cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit (2012)
United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (2012)
Sevick v. Sandoval, United States District Court for the District of Nevada (2012)
Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005)

Application of Baker v Nelson in state courts

Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005)
Hernandez v. Robles, New York Court of Appeals (2004) In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeal (2010)
Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court (2011)

These are all legal precidents and not opinion. If legal precedent is not valid then nothing is.
Debate Round No. 2
drhead

Pro

I would first like to clarify that my first rebuttal did not say that polls in favor of same-sex marriage are valid legal arguments. I was instead pointing out that personally-held opinions are not an argument against it, because even if it didn't completely ignore burden of proof and the need to justify one's claims, it would be an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. The point stands.

The legal precedent argument is essentially a variant of an appeal to tradition. Existing law shows nothing about whether or not something should be legal unless the existing law can somehow be justified. I would also like to remind my opponent that this debate is not about valid reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, it is about valid reasons to justify it being illegal. The current state of affairs has nothing to do with this debate. Just because something is illegal, does not mean that there is a valid reason for it to be illegal.
sadolite

Con

"This debate is not about valid reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, it is about valid reasons to justify it being illegal."

This is clearly semantics. I have provided sufficient and valid reasons to both "oppose" and "justify it being illeagal"

I have legal precedent to "sufficiently justify it being illegal" . There have already been numerous cases before the courts with regard to same sex marrige as I have clearly shown. These are also sufficient and valid reasons to "oppose gay marriage."
Debate Round No. 3
drhead

Pro

I would once again like to remind my opponent that a legal precedent only shows that something is currently illegal. It does not, on its own, justify itself. Just because a precedent was decided, does not mean that it was decided correctly.

Furthermore, the precedent only rules that it is allowed by the Constitution for states to ban same-sex marriage, meaning that the legal precedent proves nothing in the context of this debate. Just because something is constitutional does not mean it should be done. There is nothing in the Constitution which specifies that all states must ban same-sex marriage.

As for the accusation that I am pushing semantics by pointing out that the debate is not about reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, nowhere in the resolution or first round did I ever mention reasons to oppose same-sex marriage having any relevance. I only mentioned reasons to justify it being illegal having relevance in this debate.
sadolite

Con

I only have to show "one" valid reason. My opponent clearly states that there are "NO VALID ARGUMENTS" My opponent is changing the rules. He is now saying I have to show more than one reason.I now have to combine several different reasons. Legal precedent is "one" valid and sufficient reason, if in fact the rule of law and court precedent have any meaning. Further more I have shown 13 legal precedents "using Baker v Nelson." Not just Baker v Nelson

Baker v Nelson has held up 13 times in a court of law both state and federal with regard to same sex marrige.
My opponent seems to think this as meaningless and insufficient. If it is then I see no point in even having courts or rule of law.

I would also contend that the word "sufficient" is feelings based and therefore subjective in the context of this debate. All of my valid and legitimate arguments can simply be cast aside by the voter and my opponent because of their blatant and well established bias by stating that there is "not one" reason, be damned the rule of law and legal precedent.
Debate Round No. 4
drhead

Pro

I would like to cite rule #4 set in round 1:

"Any argument that is not sufficiently refuted by Pro and is sufficient to justify denying the right to marry someone of the same sex (either by itself or coupled with other arguments) would mean a win for Con. In other words, Con is trying to build a case against same-sex marriage, while Pro assumes a prima facie case for gay marriage."

I underlined the relevant parts. If one argument provided is insufficient to justify same-sex marriage, then it must justify illegalization of same-sex marriage in spite of the case for it, as in, outweighing the benefits to legalizing it. Quantity is not important, quality is. If there is one valid argument against same-sex marriage, and it is not sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal, it would not be sufficient to win the debate. All of this was clearly stated in round 1.

I showed how a legal precedent regarding whether or not it infringes on Constitutional rights for a state to make same-sex marriage illegal is irrelevant to the resolution of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. As I have stated before, the precedent says that states CAN make same-sex marriage illegal. It has nothing to do with whether or not they SHOULD make same-sex marriage illegal. In other words, using this as an argument to justify same-sex marriage being illegal is equivalent to saying "Because we can". It proves nothing, because it relates to whether or not states can make same-sex marriage illegal, not whether or not they should. Its relationship to the resolution is tangential at best. There are a lot of things that we can do. That does not mean that we should do them, though. I hope that I have explained this clearly enough this time.

Whether or not "sufficient" is subjective or not does not even need to be addressed - the arguments presented by Con were shown as irrelevant. While a legal precedent that actually showed a reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal would be quite useful for Con, what Con had was one that showed why it can be illegal.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
Actually the rules do not apply to everyone. Not everybody is allowed to legally marry the consenting adult that they wish to marry, based entirely on the gender of the person. If a person is not allowed to marry a person due to their gender, then that is sexist discrimination. Are you joking?
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
A feeling is not a valid reason to hold the position that gay couples should not have the same privileges as straight couples.

But, Suzi loves Suzi and they want to get married so they can be like everyone else. Oh that's not a feelings based argument at all. I made no other arguments other than siting legal precedent, because how I feel about same sex marrige or anyone else for that matter is irrelevant. Nearly all arguments in favor same sex marrige are feelings based arguments. You can show no discrimination under the current marrige law as written. There is absolute equal protection under the law be it sex, race, religion, and including sexual orientation. The law is the same for everyone homosexual heterosexual or purple or yellow. The same rules apply to everyone.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
A feeling is not a valid reason to hold the position that gay couples should not have the same privileges as straight couples. That actually makes you a bad person.

I feel that 99% of music is disgusting so it's a valid position that these artists should be put in prison.

No....just no.
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
Could somone vote bomb for me
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
Hey, why can't I vote bomb in pros favor
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
drheadsadoliteTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Against pro for breaking his own rule of no last round arguments. Argument: BoP was with con, and incredibly low. He did not need to beat down anything from pro, but merely present a case then defend it. His opening argument was "I feel" which I did not find sufficient. Round 2, mentioning the existence of legal matters without explaining any of them or giving links (no sources for either side). He ended with a cry of outrage... Con had BoP I did not even need to read pro's argument (as much as it was good at spotting those fallacies). There are arguments for it, but saying they exist is not the same as showing them.