The Instigator
induced
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Controverter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

banning gay marriage makes gay people second-class citizens

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
induced
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 891 times Debate No: 31887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

induced

Pro

banning gay marriage is like banning gays from voting. they would simply not have the same rights as everyone else, which is exactly what it means to be a second class citizen.

start your rebuttals in the first round.
Controverter

Con

They are not oppressed in the working world (entitled to all jobs a heterosexual person is), in their personal life (gay people in a civil union are very entitled to adopt in many states and nations across the globe in this day and age) and gays are also fully entitled to any financial schemes outside of marriage-specific schemes that any straight person is.

Any and all human rights laws applied to heterosexual people are all applied to gays so the resolution is an incorrect assertion to make.
Debate Round No. 1
induced

Pro


"They are not oppressed in the working world"
so? if we denied muslims freedom of religion, you could say the same thing. im not arguing that gay people have no rights

"gay people in a civil union are very entitled to adopt in many states and nations across the globe in this day and age"
civil unions are marriages. you imply there is only a semantic difference. i agree, which is why for the purposes of this debate, i am grouping them together as the same thing. im referring to people who cant legally marry (aka, people who cant have a civil union). i dont care what you call it.

"and gays are also fully entitled to any financial schemes outside of marriage-specific schemes that any straight person is."
but gays who cant marry have less rights, like hospital visitations. also, saying they can go out of their way to make contracts that are similar to legal components of marriage contracts, is like requiring blacks to go through extra measures in order to be allowed to vote. you could say "they can get the right to vote if they go through all these hurdles we put up in an effort to deny them rights", but that is treating black people differently under the law, just as gays are treated differently under the law, thus making them second class citizens
Controverter

Con

"I'm referring to people who can't legally marry (people who can't have a civil union)" I am afraid this semantic twist is too out of order and I deny the request for this change of definition.


"but gays who cant marry have less rights, like hospital visitations" I am sure that friends are allowed to visit people in hospitals.

"also, saying they can go out of their way to make contracts that are similar to legal components of marriage contracts, is like requiring blacks to go through extra measures in order to be allowed to vote." I don't see how race and sexuality are the same thing and how visiting one in hospital and voting are the same thing either.

I don't see how gays are second-class citizens at all simply because they can't marry. Marriage is only really serving a purpose for a man and woman not to have a bastard (not the swear-word usage) child anyway.
Debate Round No. 2
induced

Pro

"I am afraid this semantic twist is too out of order and I deny the request for this change of definition."
you are OUT OF ORDER! ahaha. anyway, im not changing any definition. you said yourself that they are the same thing, so too late, you already agreed.

"I don't see how race and sexuality are the same thing and how visiting one in hospital and voting are the same thing either."
in both instances, a group of people is specifically chosen to be denied the same rights as everyone else.

"Marriage is only really serving a purpose for a man and woman not to have a bastard."
that's not why people get married. i've never heard anyone say that they are getting married just so that their son wouldnt be born to unmarried people.

here are some rights you get when getting married:
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about last rites
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful-death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans.


There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law.
http://www.hrc.org...


Controverter

Con

Controverter forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
inducedControverterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did a lot better. I wasn't comfortable awarding him the argument point because he didn't provide the assumed bop.