The Instigator
anuj_atal
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!

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: 1/20/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,833 times Debate No: 6586
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

anuj_atal

Pro

yes. in my opinion it should be legalised bcoz everyone have right to live there life according to them n the society don't have any right to interfere in that. it's there personal matter that whom they prefer. if they like the person of same sex n they think that they will remain happy wid them then let them be happy............
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

According to the resolution, this debate concerns the legal right for homosexuals to marry. My argument is not from a moral standpoint, but rather a legal one.

***************************

There are two considerations that concern whether or not to apply a strict scrutiny standard to the question of whether or not lack of a legal right for an individual to marry and individual of the same sex constitutes an abrogation of one's fundamental rights.

1. Are homosexuals a protected class?
2. Is the right to marry a fundamental right?

Let us examine the two considerations...

On the Status of Homosexuality as a Protected Class.

There is no immutable characteristic about homosexuals that separates them as a protected political class in the same way that people can be separated on basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. Furthermore, the supreme court case Lawrence v Texas did not establish homosexuals as a protected class when considering a specific challenge to a law regarding homosexual sodomy. Had the court seen a need to establish a protected class, it certainly could have.

On the Right to Marry.

Homosexuals already have a right to marry. It simply happens that the state has placed a restriction on who they can marry. This is the same as the restrictions the state places on the ability of fertile first cousins or twelve-year-olds to marry.

Failing these two considerations, the state does not have to pass a strict scrutiny test, but rather simply a rational relation test. The state generally contends that there would be negative effects to a family's children wherein it was the "norm" for the family unit to consist of same-sex parents. These sort of negative effects would be centered around the lack of a balance between mother and father figures in a child's life - the sort of balance that would be necessary to function in a world where that balance prepares them for the vast amount of their social and professional interactions.

Thus, the question becomes, "Is a regulation on same-sex marriage rationally related to protecting the stability of children's upbringing?" The answer to this is obviously "yes." The simple fact that the answer is yes, regardless of whether or not there may be another way to achieve the same end indicates that the state has satisfied the requirement for showing that there is a rational relation to a compelling government interest (children's mental stability) in their restriction on same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

******************************************

Furthermore, marriage is generally defined as a union between a man and a woman ("the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." - Dictionary.com). Thus, according to the definition of marriage, homosexuals cannot get married, thus negating the resolution.

******************************************

Also, for the record, since there are fools on this site who vote without reading debates, I'd like to note that I am not opposed to Gay Marriage. The Moot Court resolution this year concerns the concept and I need to come up with a somewhat plausible argument against it...
Debate Round No. 1
anuj_atal

Pro

My friend, first of all I would like to clear the thing that here I m not saying about a particular country. I am saying that it should be legalise all over the world. I know the fact that in some of the countries homosexual marriage are legal but there are some countries who think this as wrong.
And I think you are simply diverting the topic. you are telling the rules and laws of Homosexual marriages but here topic is "Homosexual marriages should be legalised!!!" so, you have to contrast the thing that it should be legalise or not.
And the last and the only thing you have given is the definition of marriage. This is the only argument that people give respect and accept the persons happily after they get married. Otherwise there relation is not treated as social(here also I am talking about the whole world). so, I am just saying that this right of marriage should be given to homosexuals so that they will also get the social importance.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

My opponent does nothing to actually rebut my argument, but simply states that homosexual marriages should be legalized worldwide. I provided a legal argument that shows that they should not, an argument that easily has parallels in other legal systems.

My opponent did not address this argument.

He also largely ignores the substance of the argument concerning the definition of marriage. The argument is valid when one considers that "getting married" is something that homosexuals cannot do, regardless of the legal validity of a "marriage" between two persons of the same sex. Calling what is definitionally a non-marriage does not make it a marriage.

Lastly, my opponent argues that I have not addressed the normative condition of the resolution. Obviously, if one considers my legal and definitional arguments valid, the normative condition "should" is satisfied. Basically, if my arguments are valid, then gay marriage should not be legalized because of the state's interests against it. Under the rational relation test, a state interest in simply codifying the moral considerations of the majority is enough to strike gay marriage.

***************************************************

Extend my arguments; my opponent has not actually addressed them, but rather incorrectly asserted that they are off-topic and ignored them.

AFFIRMED.
Debate Round No. 2
anuj_atal

Pro

Here my opponent is simply revolving around the talks which he had earlier mentioned.
my opponent said that most of the persons are against them. so, I would like to tell him that here we are asking about the reasons why they are against them. why they are not favouring them. Here we are looking for the reasons not for data that who is in favour and who is against.
Earlier my opponent said that he is not opposing gay marriage(you can check it's written in the first round). so, that means he is not opposing the topic but simply arguing. It shows his opinion differ from the facts. My opponent is in favour of the topic. so, what's the point to debate?
my opponent is talking about the legal argument which he had given. my opponent had mentioned about the "supreme court case Lawrence v Texas". There he had written that it's not a protected class, I would like to say that here we are not talking about any special rights, we are talking about homosexual marriages should be legalised and it doesn't required to be in protected class for that.
so, at last I just want to say that my opponent had not given any relevant point to debate on.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

Once again, my opponent does not even address the issue at hand...

Responses:

>> "Earlier my opponent said that he is not opposing gay marriage(you can check it's written in the first round). so, that means he is not opposing the topic but simply arguing."

My personal beliefs have no bearing on the argument at hand. I can present an argument without believing it.

>> "It shows his opinion differ from the facts. My opponent is in favour of the topic. so, what's the point to debate?"

Again, my personal beliefs are immaterial.

>> "my opponent had mentioned about the "supreme court case Lawrence v Texas". There he had written that it's not a protected class, I would like to say that here we are not talking about any special rights"

This argument inherently involves special rights. The fact that homosexuals are not a protected class indicates that there is no requirement that the state consider the legislation already passed as an affront to a group meriting special considerations. For non-suspect classes, the legislature is allowed and encouraged to take into considerations the desires of the majority. They have done so.

>> "we are talking about homosexual marriages should be legalised and it doesn't required to be in protected class for that."

This is simply incorrect. My opponent must show that homosexuals are a protected class or that marriage is a fundamental right in order to apply a level of strict scrutiny to the case at hand. He has not done so. Otherwise, the level of review is merely rational relation, and I have clearly shown that the legislation forbidding individuals from marrying others of the same sex passes the rational relation standard.

>> "so, at last I just want to say that my opponent had not given any relevant point to debate on."

Clearly false.

************************************************

Since my opponent seems to have missed the relative arguments, I shall repost them for our readers:

On the Status of Homosexuality as a Protected Class.

There is no immutable characteristic about homosexuals that separates them as a protected political class in the same way that people can be separated on basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. Furthermore, the supreme court case Lawrence v Texas did not establish homosexuals as a protected class when considering a specific challenge to a law regarding homosexual sodomy. Had the court seen a need to establish a protected class, it certainly could have.

On the Right to Marry.

Homosexuals already have a right to marry. It simply happens that the state has placed a restriction on who they can marry. This is the same as the restrictions the state places on the ability of fertile first cousins or twelve-year-olds to marry.

Furthermore, legislative restrictions do no apply to only homosexuals - the same legislation prevents a straight person from entering into a marital relationship with another straight person of the same sex. Thus, the legislation does not even infringe upon the rights of only a protected class.

*************************************

Readers, PRO has put forth no actual argument.

The vote is clear - vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Well for the record, I think the USSC has improperly categorized homosexuals as a non-protected class, and on top of that, the statues proscribing gay marriage do not meet the strict scrutiny standard that is to be applied in cases where you have a protected class or a fundamental right at stake...

But I still have to argue both sides of the issue in MC...
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
No, Tarzan. We are speaking of Pro - isn't that obvious? (psst- I'm gay, and I'm pretty sure Maya is at least Bi)
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
You guys talking about my position?

I'm mostly trying to find a logically tenable position that is against Gay Marriage... for moot court we have to argue both sides of the issue, and this seems to be the best notion we have come up with so far that stands a chance of standing up in court.

Personally, I think my argument is terrible, and I could shoot holes in it all day long... but I have to defend both sides :(
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Seconded, Maya.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Nothing grates on me quite like a valid position taken up by someone with invalid arguments. It inevitably makes the position look bad.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
You mean you'd have TO BE stoned. Give a straight guy 2 drinks....
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I thought about going with the quite humorous "HO-MO-SEX-YOU-ALLLL-ITY is a GOD-DARNED SIN!!" argument and beginning with some lovely quotes from Leviticus.

Anyway - I can't take sex from you even if I wanted - I'd get stoned. And the girlfriend isn't into MMF.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Well, ya ain't getting any FROM ME, that's for darn sure. (hehe)
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
My girlfriend will prolly tell me no sex for a week because I took this - lol
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I hope people do read this debate and do not vote out of emotion. Just seeing you on the con side made me mad, but then I read it. Good job.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by BirdDog 8 years ago
BirdDog
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Rawlsfulcopter 8 years ago
Rawlsfulcopter
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:33 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by A_Rootless_Oak 8 years ago
A_Rootless_Oak
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
anuj_atalJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04