CreateDebate


Debate Info

67
41
Yes Bigoted question
Debate Score:108
Arguments:102
Total Votes:110
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (54)
 
 Bigoted question (37)

Debate Creator

BigOats(1449) pic



Should there be a legal definition of marriage in the USA?

The DOMA has been rendered null and void by by the supreme court.

Many activists are now campaigning for "marriage equality".

However, I haven't seen any of them give a strict definition of what is meant by "marriage".

Yes

Side Score: 67
VS.

Bigoted question

Side Score: 41

Yes: A legal binding contract between two consenting adults creating a familial relationship for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Clarified
2 points

So, homosexual incestual marriage between adults is OK ?

Side: Yes
1 point

While I personally find it questionable, I hardly see why we have any justification to prevent it. I see no compelling interest for the state to forbid it.

Side: Bigoted question
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

are you purposefully trying to equate homosexuality and incest?

is that what you are attempting to do here?

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
2 points

Ok, now the real arguments...

1. Logically, that definition is somewhat lacking. It actually defines one unknown (marriage) by means of another unkown (family).

Either there has to be a legal definition of "family",

or we should omit the "creating a familial relationship" part.

Which gives:

"A legal binding contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc."

That's more or less a definition of civil contract.

So why the need for redefining marriage?

2. Proponents of polygamy would argue that the definition violates their rights, from the equal protection clause perspective.

If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

Side: Bigoted question
2 points

Ok, now the real arguments...

1. Logically, that definition is somewhat lacking. It actually defines one unknown (marriage) by means of another unkown (family).

Either there has to be a legal definition of "family",

or we should omit the "creating a familial relationship" part.

"Family is defined as “one or more persons occupying a single dwelling unit, provided that unless all members are related by blood or marriage". It's not a complicated legal definition of family, and it makes perfect sense as it applies to a legal concept of marriage.

"A legal binding contract between two consenting adults for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, etc."

That's more or less a definition of civil contract.

Marriage already is a civil contract.

So why the need for redefining marriage?

Because there are many individuals who are prevented from entering into it with their partners in a way that violates Equal Protections and Due Process.

2. Proponents of polygamy would argue that the definition violates their rights, from the equal protection clause perspective.

If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

First, there is no legal argument linking those two. Second, marriage as a contract is between two people. No part of the marriage contract could work with more than two people. Third, I see no problem creating provisions within the civil contract of marriage that allow more than 2 individuals to enter into it, so long as issues of inheritance, taxation etc are provided for in a way that does not create a more advantageous situation than a two party marriage.

If one minority (gays) has been granted the priveledge of marriage, then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

Again, that isn't a legal argument, that is the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is no compelling interest for the state to prevent two consenting adults to enter into a civil contract that already provides the framework for such. Comparing that to completely reworking the structure of the contract and all the benefits within is just silly.

Side: Yes
1 point

then why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

Exactly why not?

Side: Yes
1 point

That's more or less a definition of civil contract.

Except the government is basically a party to the marriage contract as it not only recognizes it, but provides benefits based on it.

So why the need for redefining marriage?

Is removing an exclusion on who can enter a contract a redefining of the contract itself?

Was allowing interracial marriage a redefining of marriage?

why not grant it to another group of consenting adults?

Yes, logistics is a valid state concern, but I think the government can and should overcome those hurdles for polygamy. (We already allow people to marry lots of people, just not at the same time.)

Side: Yes
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

as far as the state is concerned marriage IS a civil contract.... that's the problem. DOMA and other such laws have tried to make access to that form of contract out or reach for certain ppl based only in their sexual orientation.

such policy does not pass constitutional muster.

the easiest solution, with the least amount of paperwork, is to simply remove the "gender" question from the marriage license application in every state.

done.

Side: Yes
2 points

Civil marriage law enables the state to extend certain financial benefits and legal conveniences (e.g. end of life care, child-rearing, etc.) which generate greater overall social stability. It ought to be entirely distinct from any religious conception and viewed exclusively as a governmental mechanism for securing social well-being.

Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage law. Most current civil marriage law is overly restrictive in this respect, and thus fails to realize the full potential benefits of civil marriage law.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Unless there are well documented, direct harms resulting from a relationship then it should qualify for inclusion within civil marriage law

And here's the flaw.

It's impossible to have any valid research on how gay adoption affects the well being of adopted children, until gay marriage has been allowed and gay adoption is legal.

Side: Bigoted question
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

The only flaws in reasoning are yours. They are as follow:

(1) Same-sex marriage and same-sex parentage are two distinct issues, and the latter does not necessarily follow from the former just as it does not in opposite-sex relationships.

(2) Children have been and presently are being raised by same-sex couples. Adoption is not the only avenue to parentage available to same-sex couples, nor is marriage requisite to either adoption or alternative options (e.g. in vitro fertilization, children from prior relationships, etc.).

(3) Same-sex marriage is legal in multiple states within the U.S. now, and has been legal in other nations for considerably longer. There has been more than sufficient time for research to demonstrate any potential harms associated with same-sex marriage (including parentage), and that no such evidence has emerged underscores the invalidity of your unfounded objection.

(4) On a question of rights and equality before the law, the burden of proof falls upon the party attempting to restrict the Constitutionally secured rights of other citizens. Pointing to an absence of evidence for an unfounded fear is an entirely illegitimate basis from which to deny equally rights to any person on any matter.

Side: Yes
1 point

simply remove the gender question from the marriage license.

Side: Yes
1 point

There is a legal definition of a marriage. You are even given a marriage license as proof.

In fact, if you get married in a church without applying for a license, you are not legally married.

Side: Yes

Definiton: Marriage should be defined as two consenting adults, regardless of gender, entering a lifelong commitment to each other.

Side: Yes
2 points

Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality". Which actually stands for something else - creating legal precedent.

Side: Bigoted question
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

The legal definition of a black person used to have them counted as 3/5 of a person. That changed. The legal definition of a voter used to be a white male. That changed. Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.

Side: Yes
BigOats(1449) Disputed
2 points

Having a legal definition doesn't mean that equality has been reached.

That's absolutely correct and totally irrelevant here.

Having a legal definition of marriage doesn't mean that equality has been reached. Whereas not having a legal definition of marriage means that campaigning for "marriage equality" is political demagogy, at best.

Side: Bigoted question
1 point

Certailny a bigoted question, because having a legal definition will mean that liberal LGBT activists will no longer be able to waddle in their lalaland of "equality".

yup... that's sounds pretty bigoted.

i gotta give you that one

Side: Yes
1 point

Thanks .

Side: Yes
2 points

Personally, I think marriage is an archaic practice. It was started to secure a males line of secession and to enslave a women and we see how well that has worked out. Now, it is used to give unfair tax advantages to married people and social acceptance. I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together. Otherwise, it's a bunch of crap. If the religious want to make it a religious event then do so, but don't try to force the rest of us to follow your beliefs. Feelings is what keeps a couple together and makes a home, not a piece of paper.

Side: Bigoted question
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

I think if people are going to procreate together they should have to sign a binding agreement to raise the child or children together.

that's what marriage is.

and why limit it to only couples who will pro-create... why not provide it for couples who want to adopt... or couples who just want to live together as a unit because they love each other?

there are societal advantages for encouraging this kind of thing (up to a point).

there are no societal advantages to marriage when:

the couple produce more than 2 children

more than 2 ppl try to enter into marriage

when the 2 ppl are related directly by blood

when 1 of the 2 ppl is not of the age of consent

Side: Yes
1 point

who is man to change the rules?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argument

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." Aristotle

Side: Bigoted question
2 points

who is man to change the rules?

since we made up the rules in the first place, then i would say we (huMANs) are the best ones to "change" them.

change is a funny word for it too... the definition of marriage has evolved over time along with our species... only the knuckle draggers have been the ones trying to hold it back.

Side: Yes
Stoner(69) Disputed
1 point

man made the rules ?do you read the Bible?that is one of the stupidest remarks i have heard in a Long time

Side: Bigoted question
Stoner(69) Disputed
1 point

only the devil wants change from what God put us here for..in the Image of him!

Side: Bigoted question
1 point

who is man to change the rules?

What? We are referring to the "legal" definition of marriage, something that man created. Since man created it, man is justified in changing it.

?the only reason change is wanted is so others will accept their lifestyle and they wont feel bad about the life they are living.

No. In fact, it has nothing to do with getting others to "accept" a "lifestyle" (sexual orientation isn't a lifestyle). Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality. It is about the Constitutional rights of Due Process and Equal Protections applying to the civil right (Loving v. Virginia, + dozens of other cases) of marriage.

people are free to choose their own life style but when they want to be made equal to something its not that is the injustice of the whole argument

Except if it was made equal, it would be equal. This is a legal topic, and thus legal equality is the only relevant form of equality.

Side: Yes
Stoner(69) Disputed
1 point

so Gods rules matter not cause of mans rules?is that your point?everything else is pointless if you think that!people are free to choose not free from the consequences of their choice!

Side: Bigoted question
BigOats(1449) Disputed
1 point

Changing the legal definition will have no impact on acceptance of homosexuality.

You are either deliberately lying, or completely ignorant of the facts.

Changing the legal definition of marriage, by allowing gay marriage, does have an impact on acceptance of homosexuality. And is already has affected it.

That was the main purpose of injecting the whole "gay marriage" idea.

The logic is stupid, but simple and effective.

Since now gays are officially married and

Matt and Steve are just as much "married" as the normal couple

then they are just as normal

and so, schoolkids should now be "educated" on this subject

to remove any chance of "ignorance" and "bigotry".

And from here, we move to the deeper levels of propaganda.

Inventing "gay teens"

making "safe zones" for them

and in fact encouraging homosexual experimentation among young children.

I've described just one of the many propaganda methods which are based on the "gay marriage" precedent.

THAT was the real of the "gay marriage" agenda.

Only about 2% of gays have gotten married, in the states where it has been allowed.

So, it's really not about marriage.

It's about indoctrination and raising as many "chickens" as possible for future consumption.

(BTW, gay slang has more than 200 terms for preteen boys, all of which have sexual connotation).

Side: Bigoted question
1 point

Man already has changed the rules. Marriage used to be between a man and a women of the same race. Or the same social class. Or the same religion. Do you oppose interracial marriage? By this argument, you should.

Side: Yes

I love the down votes you got without any responses.

Side: Yes
Stoner(69) Clarified
1 point

no i support Gods rules not mans.racehas nothing to do with it !

Side: Yes
Stoner(69) Clarified
1 point

no i support Gods rules not mans.race has nothing to do with it !

Side: Yes
Stoner(69) Clarified
1 point

no i support Gods rules not mans.race has nothing to do with it !

Side: Yes
1 point

Interesting way to word this side of the debate. Either way, all states have a legal definition of marriage, and the overwhelming majority state that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.

Side: Bigoted question
1 point

Now federal courts do not have the power to over rule what the people and state governments have enacted, unless of course it is unconstitutional. For the issue of marriage, being that this is not a federal issue, ergo it is a power left to the people and the states, the federal courts cannot interfere with state issues.

Loving v. Virginia established that marriage was a civil right, which makes it a federal issue, and therefore the courts are justified in pointing out that the states you are referring to are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Side: Yes
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

Federal courts do not have the power to overrule what the people and state governments have enacted. In face the federal court cannot make any rule or legislation.

Side: Bigoted question
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

In 1804, Jefferson wrote: “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

His own view was that: "Nothing in the Constitution has given [the judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them."

Later, in retirement in1819, he wrote that: “[T]he Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

“If this opinion [he wrote in the same 1819 letter] be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation.”

Well, it’s only Jefferson, but he’s entitled to his opinion.

Side: Bigoted question
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/ 2012/11/why-should-unelected-supreme-court-get-final-say-about-our-laws

n his first inaugural address (1861), referring to the constitutional questions that were then tearing the republic asunder, Lincoln said:

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court. Nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government [by which Lincoln means the executive and legislative branches]…

At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

The history of judicial review is full of awkward surprises, and dissenting testimony from some of the most beloved figures of U.S. history, but I would say the controversy has mostly disappeared.

Most Americans accept that the Supreme Court has the “supreme” final word on the meaning of the Constitution. But We the People are getting kind of cranky about it.

Side: Bigoted question
Astac(242) Disputed
1 point

http://eaglerising.com/18303/is-the-supreme-court-supreme-who-gets-the-final-say/

As Thomas Jefferson noted in an 1804 letter to Abigail Adams:

You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition law. But nothing in the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment; because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it: because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument [the Constitution] meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch. 1

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson. And that is exactly what has happened.

So, according to the Founding Fathers, there was no final or supreme arbiter of the Constitution. Each branch of the civil government had the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of its action within its own sphere. The President was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of enforcement. The Supreme Court was final arbiter of the constitutionality of its judicial decisions. And Congress was the final arbiter of the constitutionality of its laws. And the states could challenge the constitutionality of any of the general branches. This was necessary to check despotic power.

Perhaps Ben Carson didn’t word his statement very precisely, but the effect of what he is saying is constitutionally and historically sound.

We can see that judicial supremacy, in direct contradiction to the original intent of the Constitution, has become so accepted as to be a commonplace. It’s apparently taught in Civics 101. In spite of the fact that it is completely unconstitutional. And teaching it as fact is an Orwellian distortion of history.

Judicial supremacy isn’t just unconstitutional. It’s also destructive to this nation. The Supreme Court acts like it can decide for every other branch, and all the states, what should or should not and what can or can not be done. This has created innumerable injustices in local governance. And it needs to stop.

Side: Bigoted question