CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
With 37 states now recognizing same-sex marriages, many see federal recognition as an inevitably. Even Court Conservatives such as Scalia and Thomas have said as much, with Clarence saying that the court allowing same-sex marriages to go ahead in Alabama "may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution".
So what do you guys think? Is the issue pretty much over?
The social acceptance of this issue has been growing for several years. Its reasonable to believe that our SCOTUS will someday rule in favor of gay marriage. The argument claiming homosexuality to be a conscious choice, is steadily loosing credibility, as researchers discover more of its actual causes.
I often disagree with Daver on things, but glad to agree with him on this one.
I don't think it is inevitable that the court will legalize gay marriage in their ruling due out this summer, but I do believe it will eventually be federally recognized.
I do think it will go that way in the Supreme Court. But it may not be inevitable. Further, your wording is misleading. To someone who doesn't have a clue on gay marriage, you make it out to be that 37 states have passed gay marriage or support it. The reality is only 12 states believe in gay marriage. The other 25 states had it forced upon them by federal judges. So only a minority of states believe in gay marriage. If each state were to get one vote only, it would be a landslide against gay marriage.
Technically you are correct, but I could site different issues that make it out to be any way I want it to.
I never claimed that 37 states democratically legalized it, I simply said that those states have recognized it, which they did through the judicial branch. That is a part of our system of government, and it was hardly "forced upon them" any more than interracial marriage was.
No those states have not recognized it. Take Alabama, nowhere in their state laws OR constitution does it recognize gay marriage. In fact, it openly is against it. When the Supreme court makes it a constitutional right, then it becomes the law of the land. Until then, it is one or so judges who forced it upon them.
Ask the Alabama legislative branch if it was forced upon them. Ask them if they recognize it.
Recognition is, in this case, a legal term. It means that someone who gets married is, in that state, legally entitled to the benefits and status of said contract. Alabama is violating a Supreme Court motion, and will be in quite a bit of trouble soon.
Additionally, marriage is already a civil right, which is protected by multiple constitutional rights. This is about if states will extend said rights to homosexuals.
And the legislative branch of a state often gets overruled by the judicial branch. That is our system of government. Do you have an issue with our system of government?
Alabama is not violating any Supreme Court motion, yet. They have not ruled on it. Gay marriage is a states right until a federal law is passed or the Supreme Court rules it a federal right. Neither has happened yet. When a judge makes a ruling and the state APPEALS that ruling, they are not recognizing it. Therefore, Alabama does not recognize gay marriage. Are you saying when a defendant appeals a verdict he recognizes it? No he does not.
One more thing. Why did you use the word recognize? That means to know or identify. Poor choice of words. In terms of politics, recognize means to accept. Here are a couple of examples.
The USA recognizes the state of Taiwan.
The USA recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Both mean to accept. Saying Alabama recognizes gay marriage is wrong. The state of Alabama does not accept gay marriage.
Yes they do get overruled. And sometimes they win on appeal. Til the Supreme Court rules on this appeal by the state show me the federal law that forces a state to accept gay marriage. Show me a Supreme Court ruling that forces gay marriage on to a state.
There is no such thing as "gay marriage", only marriage, which is already a civil right as per Loving v. Virginia and thus subject to Due Process and Equal Protections rights. Additionally, a federal court legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama. Alabama tried to petition the SCOTUS to put a stay on the marriage, and the SCOTUS denied, which effectively passes the ruling back to the federal court. Because the stay was not granted, Same-Sex marriage is legal in Alabama. The judges refusing to grant those licenses are failing the duties of their jobs because of this. Additionally, I told you that I chose recognize for the legal implication, not for the societal implication. As in acknowledging the legal validity of the contract in question.
You do know that the motion to put a stay on the legalization WAS denied, right?
Yes I did. Scotus was not ready to take ANY gay marriage cases at the time. Now they are. I believe you purposely used the word recognize instead of legal to influence the uninformed that 37 states passed gay marriage laws. You are not a dumb person, you knew how that would sound by using recognize. I called you out on it and you conceded it meant legal. Which I agree with you.
Say what you want, but gay marriage is now a political issue since we are dealing with state laws, the federal government, and every level of the court system. Recognition means acceptance. At least people who are reading this debate now know that individual states do not recognize, "accept," gay marriage like you had hoped they would.
This is my last post on this subject. I got you to use the word legal. So we have no more disagreement.
Yes, I did use the term recognize, because they LEGALLY recognize same-sex marriage. That was an intentional usage of the word, as I have already told you. I said it knowing it would sound the way I intended it. No concession occurred, just an explanation.
Legal recognition means legal acceptance, not social acceptance. Social acceptance is irrelevant to this issue, so it does not matter if states "accept" this, only that they recognize it (again, legally).
Do you really think social acceptance should matter on this sort of issue, though? That it should have an impact?
