The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
MitchPaglia
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

With the current constitution, current bans on gay marriage in any state are unconstitutional.

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: 10/4/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,016 times Debate No: 5633
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (6)

 

libertarian

Pro

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." A ban on gay marriage says that straight couples can get these rights, but gay couples cannot.

2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel.

3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
MitchPaglia

Con

I unfortunatly have to forfeit this round but will be able to resume in round 2
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." A ban on gay marriage says that straight couples can get these rights, but gay couples cannot.

2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel.

3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
MitchPaglia

Con

MitchPaglia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

My opponent must lose this debate. Now, whatever arguments he presents, I would have no way to respond to. And that would be extremely unfair. If my opponent would like to retry this debate and challenge me, I would love to try it.

1. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states that "no state shall deny equal protection under the laws." A ban on gay marriage says that straight couples can get these rights, but gay couples cannot.

2. The Supreme Court case, Loving vs. Virginia, states that marriage is "civil right." This case was referring to interracial marriage in the 60s. But there is a direct and obvious parallel.

3. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article 4, Section 1) of the constitution states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means if I get married in one state, like Massachusetts and California, the next state I move to should recognize my marriage. And the government should give full faith and credit to my marriage.
MitchPaglia

Con

If you put it on the challenge board, I may re-respond. Otherwise I'm sure others will gladly take this one.

Voge for Pro.

However, it would still be fair if I made an argument and you couldn't respond. The rounds end with my arguments and you wouldn't have a chance to respond at the end of this round anyways since it was the last one. Any arguments you wouldn't be able to form are more than made up for by the automatic wins you get in the first two rounds.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
See the tenth amendment. The states have the power to do everything not mentioned in the constitution.

Marriage is a civil right.
Gay men have the same right to marry women as straight men. They are equal.

Ta-da!
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I would love to argue this.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
libertarian,

I could really argue with this one :)
Posted by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
Touche.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Unless the ban becomes an amendment, at which point it overrides your case :o
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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 wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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 lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by libertarian 8 years ago
libertarian
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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 MitchPaglia 8 years ago
MitchPaglia
libertarianMitchPagliaTied
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