There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.
Debate Rounds (5)
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:
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:
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.
There are several flaws with this line of reasoning that makes it insufficient to justify a ban on same-sex marriage:
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.