The Instigator
logicrules
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Conan98
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

US Law permits gay marriage

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 3 votes the winner is...
logicrules
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/3/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,652 times Debate No: 19644
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

logicrules

Pro

Round one acceptance.
Rules...No theological argument as the debate is about LAW. Opponent must stipulate
1. Marriage is a Contract
2. Marriage requires a license, whose only requisite is payment of fees
3. Marriage is NOT a delineated Right
Conan98

Con

I have accepted this challenge. First of all I think we should not have gay marriage. In this debate I will give examples and reasons.
Debate Round No. 1
logicrules

Pro


US Law is codified in the United States Code, published and reviewable, which is cited as USC. There are no Statutes in this code relating to marriage. The US Constitution does not address marriage, that is to say it is moot on the subject, which grants any authority which may be prevelant to each individual State. Every State in the US has adopted the licensure process for marriage and has adopted Contract law, subsection Family, as the governing jurisdiction. All parties involved in the legal contract must be licensed and the contract must be witnessed. All citizens of the age of majority may enter into contracts provided conditions of Contract are met. (Terms are legal, parties have a meeting of the minds and there is an exchange of consideration) In days of old the consideration exchanged were termed consortium, and dowry. Loss of consortium is still an actionable offense.


Inasmuch as marriage is a contract, and all adults may enter into a contract, any and all discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability is de facto unconstitutional and illegal, against the very principles of Liberty upon which this nation is founded.


Conan98

Con

Conan98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
logicrules

Pro

guess you withdraw and concede.
Conan98

Con

Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society should expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.






http://www.stopgeek.com...
Debate Round No. 3
logicrules

Pro

Your response fails to adress the issue. Yor arguments are all of the ad populem falacy and presume unsupported premises. The law in the US permits it.
Conan98

Con

Conan98 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Conan... Your arguments on that site are making fun of our arguments.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
@bjrscj
No one argued any such thing, not here anyway. its straight forward Contract Law. I guess you could argue being gay is mentally ill, but there no support for such a position except evangelical nonsense, and there is no State religion.
Posted by bjrscj 5 years ago
bjrscj
Saying the government is wrong for not providing gay partners with marriage rights is like saying the government is wrong for not subsidizing particular businesses or institutions. The government promotes and extends privileges to those things it deems beneficial. Now you can argue that heterosexual marriage shouldn't be promoted by the government, or that homosexual marriage is beneficial, but seriously, how is this at all about rights?

I am very sympathetic with the view that re-defining marriage doesn't actually "define" it, but says thee is no definition. I can't even imagine all the permutations that should be called legal marriage under gay activism, and I don't see why the government is forced to support such a thing. I think most people argue this from a terribly misguided starting point.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
Pro and con Homosexual marriage is a religious debate. Law has no place in such a debate. The only way a debate of that sort is worth the effort is if both parties share the same theological construct, and I am certain , based on your posts, we do not. FYI, religions get to decide who gets married according to their teachings, or who doesn't, I have no problem with that at all.
Posted by dipnt 5 years ago
dipnt
If you start a new debate on this topic I would be glad to join you. I think we could make our arguments more clear in that way. However let's just make it Homosexual marriage pro and con. You can limit it by excluding everything but concepts of law and history if you would like. Let me know.
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
@dibt
I got it. Im a bit slow, and yea opposed to yad yada yada was a bit over the top, but real effective when speaking...LOL
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
any adult
Posted by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
You can, but the State can not prevent you. Constitution applies to the Government, you and I can discriminate in our personal choices all we want. That is way corporations pitch a fit, they are individuals under the law. There is no question, nor is it refuted by any competent authority, that marriage (civil not religious) is a voidable contract under the law.
Posted by dipnt 5 years ago
dipnt
In other words I can refuse to enter into a contract with a person simply based on the fact that he is a homosexual and there is no federal law that would preclude me from doing so.
Posted by dipnt 5 years ago
dipnt
logicrules:

It is not true that anyone can enter into a contract. There are many exceptions including minority and lack of capacity. However your statement raised the issue I was arguing against with the following words that I quoted from your debate:

"all discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability is de facto unconstitutional and illegal, against the very principles of Liberty upon which this nation is founded."

My comment was based on a refutation of that statement.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
logicrulesConan98Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Kinda Obvious why PRO won this debate. CON didn't actually make any logical arguments and forfeited most of his rounds...
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
logicrulesConan98Tied
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: Pro undertakes to prove that homosexual marriage is legal by this argument: 1. Marriage is a contract. 2. All adults can enter into contracts. 3. Therefore, all adults can marry people of the same sex. That's like saying "proving" that nobody is allergic to wheat in this manner: 1. Wheat is food. 2. Everybody eats food. 3. Therefore, everybody can eat wheat. 1.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
logicrulesConan98Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit and CON failed to address PRO's premises accurately and adequately, leaving PRO's contentions partially unrefuted.