The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
32 Points
The Contender
Puck
Con (against)
Winning
91 Points

This is why you can't have a constitutional amendment that reads: "A marrige is between two people"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 7/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,460 times Debate No: 4572
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (65)
Votes (30)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is impossible to write a Constitutional Amendment to include same sex couples without discriminating against other people of either sex. As it stands now there is no Constitutional Amendment to define marriage. But we as a society haven't needed one until recently because all common sense has gone out the window with regard to this subject. There is only one thing that needs to be said if you have any common sense. Homosexuals cannot procreate. Anyone who claims to be homosexual and has children through natural means is not homosexual they are bi-sexual furthermore anyone who has had sexual relations with both sexes even though no children were produced are also bi-sexual and cannot be counted as true homosexuals. Marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a women, which is the way nature intended it to be. One can make all the arguments they want that homosexual activity takes place in the animal kingdom and therefore it is natural for humans to. But in the animal kingdom the animals are often attacked and killed or run off or rejected. Natural selection almost always prevents these animals from passing on their genes thus limiting their numbers. But we are not animals, we are human beings. We are suppose to understand why homosexual behavior is not conducive to society. Homosexuals cannot procreate not now not by accident not ever. I have three homosexual couples as neighbors, one on ether side of me and one and one across the street. I find it curios that all of them agree with my position. None of them wants to marry because of the financial implications that go with divorce. All of them accept one are also Republicans which I find even more perplexing. They are all great people and one couple has the keys to my house. So with that said, please no comments about me being a bigot, I am not and have never been even though taking a politically incorrect stance makes you one automatically. Now on to the funny part:

Don't know who wrote this but lets open up Pandora's box shall we!!!

City Hall in San Francisco
( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?" "Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been
denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get
married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want
to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and
me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express
our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bi bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's
just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more
the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution
guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry
the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

I'm am not opposed to civil unions that allow for power of attorney and hospital visitation rights though. But none of the other rights that go with marrige as it is defined today.
Puck

Con

I should clear up that 'gay' is colloquially reserved for male homosexuals, though applicable to both sexes. I will use the term 'gay' in the latter sense.

"As it stands now there is no Constitutional Amendment to define marriage.
Marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a women." (That's either polygamy or a spelling error.) ;)

1 a (1): 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 (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons: wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Clearly if California, Massachusetts(or any country for that matter) can legally marry same sex couples then the legal definition current and future of any given state may also include definition 2.

"But we as a society haven't needed one until recently because all common sense has gone out the window with regard to this subject."

We can, safely ignore your claims of 'common sense' and any future appeals to similar rhetoric of 'well my gay friends agree', because we are not debating that here. What you have succinctly failed to show is why same sex marriage is in any way negative. You claim it is discriminatory without providing an argument for such. You infer it is 'bad common sense' without showing in any coherent manner why. Perhaps society needs it now because it recognises the rights of individuals a lot more than in ignorant filled history.

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual though not a requirement in any way) are sanctioned with governmental, and/or religious recognition. It is created via contract or through civil processes. Civil marriage is the legal form of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with any marriage laws of government.

"Homosexuals cannot procreate. Anyone who claims to be homosexual and has children through natural means is not homosexual they are bi-sexual furthermore anyone who has had sexual relations with both sexes even though no children were produced are also bi-sexual and cannot be counted as true homosexuals."

Is this you sole pre-requisite for marriage? That any given couple must by necessity procreate for whatever reason? That a failure to bear children renders one useless as a legally married partner? Certainly lack of sex can be a reason for annulment, but it is not sex we are talking about either.
So can any given gay couple have children? Well yes they can. Why this is a social necessity and/or a requisite definition for marriage you will have to explain in the next round, but for now let us go through a few though certainly not exhaustive options.
Male gay couple:
Adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, surrogacy and donated egg.
Female gay couple:
Adoption, artificial insemination, artificial insemination and surrogacy, donated egg with sperm with/without surrogacy.

So yes, gay couples can have children. Whether or not it is a 'traditional' method is irrelevant. If you are arguing that a child is a requisite for a marriage then you must explain why a 'natural' child has more inherent value/worth than one conceived otherwise.

Even if we assume you crass definition of bi sexuality is correct...

'Bi-sexual' partner and gay partner wish to get married. The 'bi-sexual' has children from a previous relationship. So they fulfil the 'look at us we have children' requisite of yours, they are a same sex couple thus fulfilling any same sex marriage definition. Why then should they be refused marriage?

However since your definition is a crass one...
b: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes
2: of, relating to, or involving both sexes

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Tendency is no absolute; one may be bisexual and have same sex (or not) partners in entirety of their sexual history. Are you going to argue that bisexual is only a physical act? You may be married have children and have attraction to both male and female partners. I really don’t know or care. The point is that one may be bisexual in thought and preference and uni sex partner in daily life. By definition 2 the same issue applies. You have also failed to argue why going by your 'worst case' scenario two same sex bisexuals who wish to marry should be denied marriage purely on any previous sexual episodes. Ones sexual history in no way derails any definition of same sex marriage. Unless you also argue opposite sex marriages are invalid if at least one partner has had a same sex past relationship.

One can make all the arguments they want that homosexual activity takes place in the animal kingdom and therefore it is natural for humans to. But in the animal kingdom the animals are often attacked and killed or run off or rejected. Natural selection almost always prevents these animals from passing on their genes thus limiting their numbers. But we are not animals, we are human beings."

Not wishing to derail this into any evolutionary debate but, there are at last count at least 470 species of animals that engage in some manner of same sex act, which in no way has any implications for a process of natural selection to remove said traits. We (humans) are however animals; descended from and currently. We are not some discrete biological entity on this planet removed from our natural history. Same sex acts provide sensory gratification, and social bonuses, these are both strong motivators. If you wish to argue the whole biology/choice issue then fine, but it is hardly relevant here.

"We are suppose to understand why homosexual behavior is not conducive to society. Homosexuals cannot procreate not now not by accident not ever"

We are supposed to? That is doubtful and somewhat homophobic to be frank. We should be more concerned why homophobia exists and exhibits itself in anti social behaviour. Anti gay sentiment/rights is the behaviour that is not socially conducive. Again you will have to argue clearly why child birth is some immovable standard to set for marriage. What about heterosexual couples that choose not to have children? Or those where one/both members are sterile? What about those that are prone to miscarriage? Will you demand divorce for those couples that cannot 'supply' children?

"Now on to the funny part"

Nope. No laughter there. All I see is a base slippery slope argument and useless as such.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

You are debating the morality of homosexual marriage. It is impossible to write a constitutional amendment that wont discriminate if you include same sex marriage in the definition. You can,'t say a marriage between to people and then have a bunch of exceptions. You did not address the issue of the debate at all. There is no legal definition anymore in the two states you mentioned,. The supreme courts just arbitrarily decided to add same sex marriages to the definition of marriage and made no attempt to rewrite it to include same sex marriages because it is impossible. You will have to allow brothers and sisters to also marry. And you know they will ask just to take advantage of the financial benefits.
Puck

Con

"You are debating the morality of homosexual marriage."

No I am debating you. It is a bit hard to debate a topic when you make no coherent argument for one and address no points that I raise. :) Arguing that reproduction is a requisite for marriage is a moral argument. Saying same sex marriage is bad for society is a moral argument.

"It is impossible to write a constitutional amendment that wont discriminate if you include same sex marriage in the definition."

Firstly.... "The U. S. Constitution does not define marriage nor does it require states to define marriage."

http://www.lao.ca.gov...

The current definition of marriage already 'discriminates'. Why should a new definition be an issue in that regards? You are discussing same sex marriage. Incest etc. is another set of laws. If you want to argue that same sex marriage will lead to a push for incestual marriage then start that debate. Homosexuality is not analogous to incest, or schizophrenia or dissociative identity disorder.

As it stands Californian state law in regards to marriage removes gendered pro nouns from its definitions. It is not a requirement of same sex marriage to have "same sex" in the definition of marriage itself. The recent court ruling was the removal of a Bill that asserted gendered pro nouns in its marriage definition.

"You can,'t say a marriage between to people and then have a bunch of exceptions."

Of course you can. The current norm definition of marriage EXCEPTS same sex couples and familial marriage. Why should the inclusion of same sex marriage stop current laws from already in place that deny familial marriage? I really shouldn’t ask because you have made no case for it so far, and this is the final round. You have singularly failed to present any coherent argument for any position.

"There is no legal definition anymore in the two states you mentioned,. The supreme courts just arbitrarily decided to add same sex marriages to the definition of marriage and made no attempt to rewrite it to include same sex marriages because it is impossible."

Arbitrarily? One day the judge just woke up and decided to flip a coin to see what crazy law he could pass? Just because you do not agree with the law does not make its process any less deliberated. Considering the nature of the law and the history of same sex laws in the US in general, we can be fairly sure it was anything but arbitrary. You should look at the legal precedents (121) that were considered in the making of the ruling.

Chief Justice Ronald George, "an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Before you cry AHAH! Incest is not an orientation. You are arguing sexual orientation, not sex remember.

"And you know they will ask just to take advantage of the financial benefits."

Why is this wrong? If same sex couples have certain privileges/benefits received from marriage, then same sex couples should equally be allowed. If you are arguing constitutional amendments, then you are arguing about civil marriages. i.e. Those that occur under the jurisprudence of governmental law. Not religion. If any state provides any legal or financial benefit, it is there under the title of 'married'. It makes no claim or judgement on intent.
Debate Round No. 2
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
I am not part of any group, I was just as surprised as you. It is unfortunate that the voting process has been corrupted by both sides. I am going to join the Michael Savage revolution when he starts it. Boarders, Language and Culture. God help this nation restore common sense. I liked it better when I had no wins, it meant I was getting somewhere and making people upset and being forced to think that there is more than one point of view.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Ditto.
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
Amusing. Looks like your little group has voted you up, Sadolite.
Posted by jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
Horseradish argument:

"Marriage is currently defined as a union between a man and a women, which is the way nature intended it to be."

Nature never intended marriage.

I was never able to grasp the point of your argument, sadolite. Maybe "It is impossible to write a Constitutional Amendment to include same sex couples without discriminating against other people of either sex." The answer to this is more procedural than substantive. A constitutional amendment may be ratified with any kind of language in it discriminating against any group of people. However, it will still be upheld in court. Why? Because it is impossible to rule that a certain provision of law is unconstitutional when that provision of law is itself in the constitution.
Posted by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
I agree with NeoLiberal. I think that all of you are being ridiculous...none of you know what you're talking about so get over it.
Posted by NeoLiberal 8 years ago
NeoLiberal
The German couple weren't "mocking" marriage or scamming the Government. They were raised apart and fell in love later.

In the Netherlands, there was a similar case where a couple had their marriage annulled because it was later found the hospital had switched babies at birth and they were siblings.

These cases are so rare and harmless, I have no idea why anyone would think there would be a rush of "fake" marriages. If you wanted a fake marriage, why wouldn't you marry someone less conspicuous?
Posted by gonovice 8 years ago
gonovice
There is absolutley nothing wrong with same-sex couples having children. It shouldn't matter if it's two men, two women or a man and a women. As long as the child has two parents raising it and loving it that's all that should matter.

Sadolite, you probaly think you know everything since you sure act like it. Here's the thing, a chlid isn't born with the knowledge of marriage or relationships. Which means that it will grow up probaly accepting same-sex marriage as normal.

How did a debate about gay marriage turn into something about incest. That's totally two different subjects.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Rangnar, You said it all. Thanks for playing the mockery of marriage game everyone!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I should note that there is a brother-sister couple pushing to legalize incestous marriage in Germany. As far as I'm concerned they are welcome to it of course :D
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Can animals not have rational thought?"

Other than humans, no terrestrial animal is capable of such.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
sadolitePuckTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadolitePuckTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadolitePuckTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
sadolitePuckTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sadolitePuckTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadolitePuckTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
sadolitePuckTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
sadolitePuckTied
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 jurist24 8 years ago
jurist24
sadolitePuckTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
sadolitePuckTied
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