The Instigator
headphonegut
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
johngriswald
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 4 votes the winner is...
johngriswald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,256 times Debate No: 10406
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

headphonegut

Pro

I would appreciate if you accepted this debate Resolution homosexuals should be able to marry

contention 1- not only is not allowing gays a violation of the so proposed ideology of america being equal but it is also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals
want to be miserable in a marriage then let them "we the people of the united states are endowed with three unalienable rights the right to liberty, freedom, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" does this not imply or state that men can pursue other men or marry other men if this makes them happy and if everyone has these unalienable right's does this not say or imply that we're equal
observation1- what are straight men and women afraid of? that gays will have a better long lasting marriage and won't fall or crumble when shaken (any homesexuals marriage)
contention2- how can the goverment decide if gay marriage is wrong or right
for reasons not known to me the goverment banned gay marriage and the equal rights amendment is still in debate today if the goverment decides on what is right and wrong then it's not working for the people anymore it is becoming tyranicle and taking away the people's choice to what they want and when gay supporters support gay rights they are supporting gay marriage whether they are aware of this or not many gay supporters must be straight because there are more straight men then gay men in the U.S. so it would be impossible if only gay's supported gay rights and hope that congress passes ERA (equal rights amendment).
contention3- By cristianity or any religion opposed to gay marriage says it is wrong and god sorry God doesn't approve well then I say to you why did god create them if god is the creater of all and everything. also a question does the bible (or God or you) approve of brothers and sisters having sex and reproducing?

It is the burden of the Neg. to prove that gay marriages are wrong and immoral the resolution she not be interpreted on anything and no assumptions should be made as to what the resolution means It is clear and doesn't need explaining.

homosexuals-having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
johngriswald

Con

I appreciate my opponent's clear resolution and clear contentions. I wish him luck in this debate.

I pose for clarity the following definitions:

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).

Civil Marriage - a legal status established through a license issued by a state government. Such status grants legal rights to, and imposes legal obligations on, the 2 married partners.

Religious Marriage - considered to be a liturgical rite, a sacrament, or a solemnization of the uniting of 2 persons and is recognized by the hierarchy and adherents of that religious group. The hierarchy, clergy, and in some cases members of religious organizations, establish their own criteria and rules for who may marry within their assemblies. They are not bound by statutory definitions of marriage. Civil government entities in the United States have no authority over a religious organization's autonomy.

ARGUMENT:
Now obviously these are two very different things, however they confusingly use the same word "Marriage". There is a religious ceremony, and then there is a legal aspect to marriage. My opponent and I both agree they should remain completely separate. After all, why should religion have a say in the rights and benefits of a partnership? We all share different faiths ideas and opinions (and sometimes no faiths). Furthermore why should government have a say in a religious ceremony? After all it is unconstitutional that a government should make any law respecting that of a religion.

Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage. Marriage is commonly known as a religious ceremony.

NEGATION:

1. "not only is not allowing gays a violation of the so proposed ideology of america being equal but it is also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals also preposterous on the idea that if homosexuals want to be miserable in a marriage then let them "we the people of the united states are endowed with three unalienable rights the right to liberty, freedom, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" does this not imply or state that men can pursue other men or marry other men if this makes them happy and if everyone has these unalienable right's does this not say or imply that we're equal"

I negate that legalizing Gay marriage violates the proposed ideology of America being equal.

The first amendment prohibits the U.S. Congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion". Marriage is a religious institution. As most American's recognize the word marriage as having religious connotations, it thus falls under the realm of the religious institution.

Furthermore, our rights are created from the US constitution. However my opponent stated "liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness" which is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which has no bearing on our Constitutional rights.

2. "how can the goverment decide if gay marriage is wrong or right"

The government can't decide what is right or wrong. Since marriage is a religious institution, it has no authority to decide whether it should be legalized or illegalized. It is unconstitutional that the government should do anything to illegalize or legalize gay marriage. No religious institution should be forced to marry gays, neither should a religious institution be banned from marrying gays if it deems fit.

3. "It is the burden of the Neg. to prove that gay marriages are wrong and immoral the resolution she not be interpreted on anything and no assumptions should be made as to what the resolution means It is clear and doesn't need explaining."

This is incorrect. The burden of proof always lies on the person who made the resolution, and more importantly who is the Pro in the debate. Since my opponent did both the burden of proof is on him to show why the government should make any law respecting religion when it implicitly states in the US constitution that this is not allowed.

To conclude: Legally homosexuals partners should have the same rights that heterosexual partners have. However, marriage should be considered a religious institution as it is commonly known as such. Thus, it is unconstitutional for government to make any laws respecting the institution of marriage. The word marriage is commonly recognized by our society as having one with religious connotations, which my opponent also agrees with. Society gives words their meaning. In the past the word faggot was a term known for a bundle of wood, however today, the word faggot is a derogatory term used to insult homosexuals. Thus since society recognizes in large the word marriage as being a word to describe a religious ceremony, it should be considered as such and should not have any government interference. If a particular religion wants to allow homosexuals to participate in a religious ceremony it should be allowed to. If a particular religion wants to prohibit homosexuals from participating in a religious ceremony it should also be allowed to
Debate Round No. 1
headphonegut

Pro

for the intention of this debate to remain interesting I will say Religious marriage but will define marriage as a social union between two individuals.

N1- My opponent says " the first amendment prohibits the U.S. congress from making laws that "respect an establishment of religion" I will ask him to clarify this and extend it and how does the first amendment prohibit this? If you say right to freedom of speech, religion and blah blah blah then can't a Homosexual that is a Christian or catholic marry someone else who is gay and have a religious matrimony and "Furthermore, our rights are created from the US constitution. However my opponent stated "liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness" which is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence which has no bearing on our Constitutional rights." my opponent never says we don't have these rights (which we do even if it is an excerpt from the declaration of independence) what are constitutional rights and give a few examples

n2- what is a religious institution? can you clarify and extend your last sentence

n3- you do not answer my question so please do and what religions specifically say that gays can't marry

contention1- freedom of speech the word speech is a very general term what does it exactly mean "speech" a concept now that has been expanded far beyond verbal communication this is due to courts it also includes ways of expressing freedom
so with that in mind wouldn't gays be using there first amendment right and if the church doesn't want or let them marry wouldn't this take away homosexuals 1st amendment right? would this make the church discriminatory
It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on grounds of their sex (including gender re-assignment) or marital status (including civil partnerships), or on grounds of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or on the grounds of philosophical beliefs.
wouldn't being gay fall into one of these categories (sexual orientation) then wouldn't the church be breaking the law and the government can or could intervene?

contention 2- "homosexuality is a sin"
the bible says this and what is the bible exactly a piece of literature that needs to be written by someone so someone had to write this and nowadays there are several versions of the bible and while although there are several religions my opponent I believe is referring to one of the 4 major religions Catholic,Christian,and Eastern Orthodox, and Muslims
although they may have different literature that they support and several feuds between the Christian and Catholic church they all pray to the same God so if this is true and they believe God is the creator of all If God didn't want homosexuals why did he create them. back to the bible In the beginning the bible says how Adam and eve were created, and reproduced by having children "be fruitful and multiply" If they were the first here then they must of had boys and girls to further reproduce and those children had to reproduce with each other then in the eyes of the church correct me if I'm wrong then wouldn't that violate the church's or religious beliefs After all this if the brother / sister thing is ‘against nature' then isn't the bible contradicting itself making itself wrong on base of self contradiction?
and if the church is wrong about this then the vendetta against homosexuals not marrying is irrelevant?

2nd round conclusion my opponent said " the burden of proof always lies on the person who made the resolution, and more importantly who is the Pro in the debate...the burden of proof is on him to show why the government should make any law respecting religion" now what my opponent did here is very interesting not only does he shift the burden of proof he excuses himself on how he doesn't have to show proof anymore or during this debate. well although I do have to prove my points so does my opponent also my opponent agrees on some issues which makes him seem more open minded, but in the final analysis he is against Gays and everything that means because if you are not with them you are against them unless you don't really care (neutral). and he now is commanding me to say as to why the government should make any law respecting religion when I never said it should

"I negate legalizing Gay marriage violates the proposed ideology of America being equal" let me clarify what I said I did not say that if you legalize gay marriage this would violate the ideology of America being equal I said or intended to say that "not only is not allowing gays to marry a violation of the so proposed ideology of America being equal" because although America says it has equal opportunities for everyone apparently not, according to the church ( by church I mean any religion that has the bible as it's literature) gays can't marry and history does not support America and being equal.

In order to make this debate more interesting lets not provide information supporting contentions if you say no I will provide information for my contentions in 3rd round as well as several new ones w/ information supporting my contentions
johngriswald

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response and wish him luck in the final round.

"I will ask him to clarify this and extend it and how does the first amendment prohibit this?"

The following is a direct quote of the first amendment, which my opponent most likely failed to read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
SOURCE: http://topics.law.cornell.edu...

"my opponent never says we don't have these rights"
What rights are you even talking about? The direct quote from the declaration of independence never specified any concrete right, and neither did you. You simply took a quotation from the declaration of independence, and attempted to misinterpret it to say that you have the right to force a religion to marry someone who they don't want to marry.

I mean seriously. The right to life? Yes everyone has the right not to be killed. This is built into the justice system. The right to happiness? Yeah you can go ahead and be happy. The right to liberty? Define liberty. Honestly the quote in the declaration of independence never specified any concrete right, nor does it have any bearing upon our rights. So you can't simply take a quote from it and misinterpret it to suit your own purposes.

"what are constitutional rights and give a few examples"

Constitutional rights are our rights given to us by the constitution obviously.
I'm not doing a copy and paste of the Bill of Rights, but I'll at least link it for you in case you want to read it.
BILL OF RIGHTS: http://topics.law.cornell.edu...

"what is a religious institution" A religious instiution is a broad term that essentially means "Anything that falls under the scope of religion." Some examples would be marriage, church service, rituals used in worship, celebrating etc. Anything that is a part of religion.

"you do not answer my question so please do and what religions specifically say that gays can't marry"
I don't have to answer the question because it does not pertain to nor affirm your resolution. It doesn't matter if there is a particular religion that says gays can't marry. The affirmation is that gay marriage should be legal, and my point is that it should neither be legal nor illegal because it falls under the scope of religion, and it is unconstitutional that government make any law respecting a religion.

Contention 1 - NEGATION

My opponent fails to realize the impact of the following amendment to the constitution:
Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

By construing the meaning of freedom of speech my opponent is denying others their right of religious freedom by expanding the right to freedom of speech. This is explicity unconstitutional as stated in the above amendment.

SOURCE: http://topics.law.cornell.edu...

Contention 2 - NEGATION

Irrelevant to the debate, objective analysis and false interpretation with no logical or factual backing.

"now what my opponent did here is very interesting not only does he shift the burden of proof he excuses himself on how he doesn't have to show proof anymore or during this debate."

I did not shift the burden of proof as it was yours to begin with, I simply blocked you from trying to force it upon me. It is ridiculous that a con should have to disprove a resolution that the pro made.

"well although I do have to prove my points so does my opponent"
No, I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points.

"but in the final analysis he is against Gays and everything that means because if you are not with them you are against them unless you don't really care (neutral). and he now is commanding me to say as to why the government should make any law respecting religion when I never said it should"

Your resolution says it should thus you say it should. And what a ridiculous analysis in a pathetic attempt to win votes from members of this site who are homosexual by stating " you're not with them you're against them" Absolutely ridiculous.

"In order to make this debate more interesting lets not provide information supporting contentions if you say no I will provide information for my contentions in 3rd round as well as several new ones w/ information supporting my contentions"
It wouldn't make the debate anymore interesting by simply providing conjectures with no factual or logical sense, it would turn this debate into an unintelligable argument.

My opponent accepts my definition of marriage (by not refuting it), he therefore is defeated because all of his contentions have been rebutted. Furthermore his resolution fails to hold ground as it infringes upon the first amendment as is shown throughout the debate by well documented sources.
Debate Round No. 2
headphonegut

Pro

how does the 1st amendment prohibit laws that respect an establishment of religion?
Rebuttal contention1-
so the government can't prohibit people from being gay, but yet the bible implies that homosexuals are bad and immoral yet many church's of similar religion have supported the gay cause so not only does the bible contradict itself, so does another similar religion.
http://www.startribune.com...
" what rights are you even talking about?" unalienable rights http://www.lexrex.com...
http://www.christiangallery.com...

I am not denying anyone anything if you wish to complain what the courts are doing blog and further more the ninth amendment is very hard to interpret so here is a better insight to the 9th amendment
http://civilliberty.about.com...

Rebuttal C2
my opponent doesn't disapprove my assumptions so they still stand and here's some proof
1. common sense that the bible was written by someone.
2. one god for 4 major religions http://atheism.about.com...
3.the bible is literature http://www.americanbible.org...
It is very relevant if I can show that the bible was wrong on something then we can interpret that it must be wrong on many other things for example gay marriage "objective analysis and false interpretation" then shouldn't it have been easy to refute or are you as moronic and close minded as I think you are and make a simple refutation on how I falsely interpreted the bible and have objective analysis

"it is ridiculous that a con should have to DISPROVE a resolution that the pro made" isn't that what the con does disprove?

"I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points"
so my opponent is saying that he is making assumptions and he doesn't need proof "by simply providing conjectures with no factual or logical sense,it would turn this debate into an unitelligable argument".

refer to my 2nd round conclusion
"what a ridiculous analysis in a pathetic attempt to win votes from members of this site who are homosexual"
he never says if he is supporting gays. and doesn't say he is against them, but under these circumstances he is against homosexuals because he is trying to prevent gays from marrying.

I have refuted all my opponents negations and he doesn't negate any of my "points using proof". he just uses his links as references to his points not disproving any of my points using proof.

contention1- Equality for all
since my opponent went into constitutional rights and such was his move of placing a king in check basically no I will capture the king (beat him) supreme court has deemed it that it is unconstitutional to deny gays equality where marriage law is concerned http://liberalslikechrist.org...

3rd round conclusion
my opponent says all I have to do is negate your points using proof so if he didn't negate any my points using proof in his statements/arguments then his statements/arguments should be disregarded according to him. I ask my opponent is he pro gay or against gays. ( he will not answer it) finally he attempts to discredit me using by ridiculing me or making me look moronic so it would seem like he is more intelligent and win more votes, but he fails to do this and will end up losing because of " I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points"
johngriswald

Con

"so the government can't prohibit people from being gay"
No it can't. And your source has absolutely no relevance to what you just said.

"but yet the bible implies that homosexuals are bad and immoral yet many church's of similar religion have supported the gay cause so not only does the bible contradict itself, so does another similar religion."

I fail to see the relevance of this pertaining to the resolution.

"unalienable rights"
Unalienable rights are not constitutional rights therefore they have little relevance to this debate. Also both sources are both not credible for what you are attempting to prove.

"I am not denying anyone anything if you wish to complain what the courts are doing blog and further more the ninth amendment is very hard to interpret so here is a better insight to the 9th amendment"

A link is not an argument.

"my opponent doesn't disapprove my assumptions so they still stand and here's some proof"
Yes my opponent gives proof however he fails to prove that homosexuality is a sin, furthermore he fails to prove how it is a contradiction. Which were the two main things I accused him of not having proof. Furthermore, and more importantly, this entire argument is not relevant to the debate or to your resolution as the main argument I am making is that by making any law respecting religion you are violating the constitutional amendment of freedom of religion.

"then shouldn't it have been easy to refute or are you as moronic and close minded as I think you are and make a simple refutation on how I falsely interpreted the bible and have objective analysis"

1. My opponent calls me "moronic" and makes a laughable attempt to insult me.
2. My opponent calls me close-minded without any reason.
3. I don't have to prove you wrong as you are pro and have the burden of proof in this debate. Therefore you must prove your points to be correct. My only job is to tear down your arguments. Furthermore, your conjecture didn't even pertain to the argument at hand which is another reason why I won't even attempt to consider typing another word about it.

ME: "I simply have to negate your points using proof, not prove any points"
HIM: "so my opponent is saying that he is making assumptions and he doesn't need proof "by simply providing conjectures with no factual or logical sense,it would turn this debate into an unitelligable argument"."

Obviously you're a terrible reader as the quote explicitly said that I have to negate your points using factual or logical proof. I do not have to prove any points because it is not my affirmation.

"I have refuted all my opponents negations and he doesn't negate any of my "points using proof"."

No you have ignored every point I made about gay marriage being a violation of the US constitution and stead placed your entire argument in R3 on arguments that have no relevance to the argument I made. The points you made were not relevant to the debate, and the sources you used were either not credible - or did not pertain to the irrelevant points you were attempting to make.

"since my opponent went into constitutional rights and such was his move of placing a king in check basically no I will capture the king (beat him) supreme court has deemed it that it is unconstitutional to deny gays equality where marriage law is concerned"

LOL sorry mate, not only is your source completely biased and contains little to no factual information, but also a State Supreme Court cannot overrule the federal supreme court nor make applicable case law to overturn a constitutional amendment. But good try :)

"my opponent says all I have to do is negate your points using proof so if he didn't negate any my points using proof in his statements/arguments then his statements/arguments should be disregarded according to him."
Your points were irrelevant to the debate so I merely called them out for being the baseless conjectures that they were and negated your resolution using proof of the first amendment. The only defense for which was to give me a extremely biased source with no factual information that said a STATE supreme court made a ruling which is irrelevant because it was not a FEDERAL supreme court.

" ask my opponent is he pro gay or against gays."
You are simply trying to win leverage from the gay community and portray me as anti-gay to win your argument. This question does not pertain to the resolution and has no bearing upon anything.

"he attempts to discredit me using by ridiculing me or making me look moronic"
I didn't make my opponent look like anything, my opponent wrote what he wrote, I called it out for what it was. I never once called my opponent a moron, however you my opponent did call me a moron.

To conclude: My opponent has accepted and not refuted my point that marriage is a religious institution. He only made one weak, two sentenced effort in attempt to discredit the first amendment by using a Californian Supreme Court which has no bearing on the constitution of the U.S. As my opponent accepted that marriage is a religious institution, and failed to disprove the first amendment. It stands that his affirmation has been negated because it is unconstitutional. Furthermore my opponent should lose points for conduct for calling me a "moron" and also attempting to gain votes by pandering to the public on my stance in this debate of being against gay-marriage. Furthermore his sources are either not credible, irrelevant to the point he was trying to make, or the point he was trying to make was irrelevant to the affirmation. Thus I am also advocating that he lose the source point because my sources were accurate, valid, and were a direct quote of the US constitution.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
"he attempts to discredit me using by ... making me look moronic"
No, you did quite a thorough job of that yourself, without any help from JG. :)

C: Con. Pro bases his last two rounds on ad homniems.

SP/G: Con. No comment needed...

A: Con. Effective negation of underbaked "arguments."

S: Con. Cornell University vs. Liberalslikechrist.org; which one is the better source? :P

It's not often that I award all seven points to the same side; usually both sides have SOME merit, but not in this case.
Posted by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
I like the "all marriage is unconstitutional" argument from Con, which pro didn't seem to understand.

Frankly, I thought the debate was a little embarrasing for Pro. Before someone starts debating constitutional issues, they need to know what constitutional rights are, the difference between the DoI and the Constitution, and the difference between a state supreme court and the Supreme Court.

Even apart from the lack of punctuation, that was painful to read.
Posted by daniel_t 4 years ago
daniel_t
The most interesting thing about this argument was that both sides were effectively arguing *for* gay marriage, but they proposed completely different solutions.

Before and After: Con.
My personal belief about the Gay Marriage issue matches exactly what Con presented.

Conduct: Tie.
I marked this a tie, but want to give kudos to Con for keeping his cool.

Spelling and Grammar: Con.
I rarely vote against someone for spelling and grammar, but Pro's grammar was so bad that it made his text hard to understand. Pro, periods really are important.

Convincing Arguments: Con.
Pro's ability to "clearly explain" his argument was hindered considerably by his grammar problems.

Reliable Sources: Con.
Pro's instance that the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with the issue was a real problem in this category.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mixer 4 years ago
Mixer
headphonegutjohngriswaldTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
headphonegutjohngriswaldTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 4 years ago
XimenBao
headphonegutjohngriswaldTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 4 years ago
daniel_t
headphonegutjohngriswaldTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06