The Instigator
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
mrsmooth27
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

You slice the cake, I'll pick the first piece

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/15/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 977 times Debate No: 5989
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

The above is not the actual resolution I am debating, it is a metaphor that sets the terms of this challenge.. My opponent shall write the resolution, any resolution they please. I then choose which position on it I will argue (So I may or may not be the actual "Pro" in this debate). So, I advise you to only accept this debate if A. You are a traditional debate wonk who is willing to argue any position, or B. you are quite sure the resolution is one on which I'll actually disagree with you on (my profile should be complete enough that it won't be hard to tell for most debates). There is a hidden third possibility I would also advise you to take the challenge under, but I won't be telling you what that third possibility is, just to mess with your head :D. Feel free to disregard the stated or implied advice, so long as you comply with the terms of the challenge, if you think you know some other good way to go about it :D Other than that, go wild.
mrsmooth27

Con

Topic:

Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government.

Definitions:
Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church.
Federal / US Government - The national governing body of the United States of America as defined and regulated in the US Constitution and any relevant legislation / Supreme Court decisions.
Civil Union - the legal but not religious binding of any two persons of any gender as recognized by the US government, which provides the same legal rights as marriage.

Stipulations -
Outside of this argument, no stipulations will be made. (You can't slice any cake, and neither can I after you pick your slice.)
The passage of a law expressly legalizing gay marriage will cause no jurisdiction battles, therefore the decision to permit gay marriage will be absolute unless specifically revoked; Federal legislation is the supreme law of the land.

No emotional appeals will be made; arguments will appeal to voters' logic.

The Slices:
Pro - Gay marriage should be expressly legalized by the Federal government.
Con - The Catholic Church should have the right to deny a marriage license because marriage is a religious contract just as it is legal. Instead, the federal government should establish a system of civil unions and civil union licenses parallel to the marriage system.
Debate Round No. 1
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Something smells funny, and due to that funny smell I must be Con.

According to the definition stipulated, "Marriage" would have to be approved by both the government and the Christian Church. The explicit "legalization" of such a joint institution would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church", despite it's dictate to approve gays. I.e., it would establish some "Christian Church" (or some bastardized version thereof) as the state religion, and also require "consent" from that church from gay marriage". This would lead indubitably to discrimination against non-Christians, or at the very least require them to sit through a Christian ceremony to achieve some legal status, thus requiring them to sanction those beliefs. Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem. So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution (i.e. Marriage license requests of the Catholic Church can be denied by the Catholic Church, fulfilling the slice's requirement, but it cannot deny requests made of, say, a Synagogue, since it has no part in fulfilling those requests), that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion.
mrsmooth27

Con

For the sake of easier debate, I will number my arguments. Good luck.

1. "The explicit "legalization" of such a joint institution would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church", despite it's dictate to approve gays. I.e., it would establish some "Christian Church" (or some bastardized version thereof) as the state religion, and also require "consent" from that church from gay marriage"."

___A. "The explicit legalization of such a joint would have the effect of establishing some "Christian Church" as having a veto on state approval of contracts not necessarily involving said "Christian Church"

The explicit legalization of gay marriage would not require, support, or suggest a state operated / approved church, but rather redefine marriage as a legal contract, and move the religious aspect of marriage from "mandatory" to "optional"

____B. "...or some bastardized version thereof..."

Definition:
Bastard - 1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
2. slang - a viscious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person.
(http://dictionary.reference.com...)
(note - this definition is not stipulated and therefore is arguable)
Violation:
Third stipulation; slanderous argument yields emotional appeal.

____C. The passage of a law establishing a "state religion" is "respecting an establish of religion" as dictated by the first amendment and would thus legally have to be rejected by the US Congress.

2. "This would lead indubitably to discrimination against non-Christians, or at the very least require them to sit through a Christian ceremony to achieve some legal status, thus requiring them to sanction those beliefs."

____A. This argument depends entirely on the argument addressed in argument 1A. If it is not applicable then neither is this.

____B. I would also like to point out the fact that by this argument my opponent has conceded that discrimination against non-Christians is fundamentally negative.

3. "Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem. So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution (i.e. Marriage license requests of the Catholic Church can be denied by the Catholic Church, fulfilling the slice's requirement, but it cannot deny requests made of, say, a Synagogue, since it has no part in fulfilling those requests), that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion."

____A. "Tossing the term marriage to the side in order to establish "civil unions" as the sole governmental involvement in that domain is no great problem."

"Tossing the term marriage to the side" causes a definite distinction between Christians and Non Christians and, by extension, gays and straights, which will invariably lead to the discrimination that my opponent has so honestly labeled as inherently wrong, and that will also worsen the inherent situation in which discrimination against gays is not only socially accepted, but the popular opinion. My plan, to put the religious part of marriage in a "separate package," prevents this from occurring and will help to ease the popular discrimination against gays by not labeling "religious marriage" and "non-religious marrage" separately.

____B. "So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution ... that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion."

__________1. "So long as each Church can only deny requests for marriage that are made of their institution"

In my plan, this condition will be applicable.

__________2. "...that slice is far superior to a state establishment of religion."
Again, my plan dictates no state establishment of religion because such an establishment is unethical, unnecessary, and illegal.

4. My plan is superior to that of my opponent for several reasons. The first is that my opponent's plan establishes a finite and definite distinction between the the joining of a religious couple and the joining of a nonreligious couple, and, by extension, a gay couple, whereas my plan will create no distinction and therefore prevent discrimination against non-Christians and alleviate discrimination against gays. The second is that the establishment of procedures to provide civil union licenses, etc. will require a massive investment by the government both in human resources and with the growing $1.3 trillion that has been, and is being, created by the Bush Administration the government is in no state to invest in something that harmful and menial. While other reasons that my plan is superior exist, these two are the prime examples and the only ones that I will enter into the debate at the present time.
Debate Round No. 2
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"The explicit legalization of gay marriage would not require, support, or suggest a state operated / approved church, but rather redefine marriage as a legal contract, and move the religious aspect of marriage from "mandatory" to "optional"
"

"
Gay Marriage - the legal and religious binding of two persons legally registered as of the same gender as recognized by the US government and the Christian Church."
This is your definition, stipulated specifically for the purpose of the debate. It does not say "and/or" religous, it says AND religous debate. Ergo, nope, try again. This of course constitutes addressing most of your argument.

"Definition:
Bastard - 1. a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.
2. slang - a viscious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person.
(http://dictionary.reference.com......)"
"

The definition intended is another given in your source:

"6. spurious; not genuine; false: The architecture was bastard Gothic. "
Since, of course, a Christian Church coopted by the law into recognizing gay marriage would not likely be a "Christian Church," for Christianity hath the requirement to render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's... church recognition of marriage is not Caesar's.

This was not intended for emotional purposes, merely to point out the contradiction involve in this conception of a "Christian Church" recognizing gay marriage just because the state told it to.

"I would also like to point out the fact that by this argument my opponent has conceded that discrimination against non-Christians is fundamentally negative."

That STATE discrimination against non-Christians is. Churches remain valid in discriminating against nonmembers.

"

"Tossing the term marriage to the side" causes a definite distinction between Christians and Non Christians"

No, it removes the distinction "marriage" from the legal vocabulary, replacing it with civil union. The only distinction will be among the various people using the term marriage outside a legal context, who will distinguish between those who are and are not of religions they approve of in their dealings with them, as they have every right to.

". My plan, to put the religious part of marriage in a "separate package,""

Violates stipulated definition :D.

"
In my plan, this condition will be applicable."
Not according to the definition given.

"The first is that my opponent's plan establishes a finite and definite distinction between the the joining of a religious couple and the joining of a nonreligious couple"

No it does not, at least not by the relevant definition of establish: i.e. state establishment of religion. It was stipulated only that my plan would constitute the creation of a civil union system legally parallel to where the marriage system now. You forget the consistent implication that my plan also entails removal of the legal term "marriage," leaving that term to private citizens in their religous (or other) dealings. This does not contradict the stipulation for my position, indeed, the opposite would contradict it unless one were to grant Catholicism a legal monopoly, which I have not argued for.

"The second is that the establishment of procedures to provide civil union licenses, etc. will require a massive investment by the government both in human resources and with the growing $1.3 trillion that has been, and is being, created by the Bush Administration the government is in no state to invest in something that harmful and menial."

It takes rather minimal resources to create a computer program that replaces all instances of the term "Marriage" with "civil union" in the electronic versions of government records, and pass a few new laws to clarify everything. Given the regular reprinting of government documents, the issue should be taken care of within a few years, all requiring minimal effort and a few postings of government notices here and there, just like we do all the darn time. The government is used to changing the rules, it's one of the few things bureaucracies are good at processing.
mrsmooth27

Con

mrsmooth27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mrsmooth27

Con

mrsmooth27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"This is your definition, stipulated specifically for the purpose of the debate. It does not say "and/or" religous, it says AND religous debate."

correcting error, replace "debate" with "binding."
Posted by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
R_R,

I like teh debate. Interesting way to go about it.
Posted by mrsmooth27 8 years ago
mrsmooth27
mehz. Brainfart on my side.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
but meh, i'll bite.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Good lawd dude, I said write a resolution, not two opposing nonexhaustive resolutions one of which is rather vague. :P
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Ragnar_Rahlmrsmooth27Tied
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 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 Hushed 8 years ago
Hushed
Ragnar_Rahlmrsmooth27Tied
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:30