Round 3. John bull 1 V Phoenix: Marriage

The topic for this debate is "Same sex marriages should be recognised in law."

John Bull 1 will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
Phoenix will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours. If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

The Rev "Righteous".W. Lock of the Church of the Burning Cross steps up to the lecturn.He surveys his congregation,eyes boring into the souls of the assembled.

"Good People,

Today I want to talk to you about a great evil that is amoung us.Today I want to talk about Homo-sex-u-ills.

Yes! You heard me right.There ain't no greater ill in the world today than a Homo-sex-u-ill!

Let me here you say Halleluja!"

(Chorus) Halleluja!

"Now I hear that some lib-er-als,those allies of Satan,have suggested that these homo-sex-u-ills should be allowed to marry!

(Chorus of gasps)

That's right ,good people! Marriage recognised in law!

This is a good Christian country.Do I hear a Halleluja!

(Chorus) Halleluja

That's right! Those that wrote our constitution were just being polite to the jews when they said it was secular.

This is a good Christian country with good Christian People and we must have good Christian laws!

God doesn't love Homo-sex-u-ills!

Jesus didn't die for Homo-sex-u-ills!

God sent a plague on Homo-sex-u-ills!

I have told you before that Aids stands for the number of the beast!

A = 6
I = 6
D = 6
And S = a full stop! Period!

This proves that God doesn't like Homo-sex-u-ills!

Halleluja!

(Chorus) Halleluja!

Homo-sex-u-ills are like animals! They rut like wild beasts.They spread disease.

Let me hear you say Gonorrhoea!

(Chorus) Gonorrnoea!

These Homo-sex-u-ills are not human.They don't have feelings!They are not true Americans!

Rev .W. Lock again surveys his congregation,sweat now pouring down his face.He let's his gaze linger a while on Mr Smith who is a fireman.He knows that Mr Smith likes Musicals and that he has a signed picture of Liza Minnelli inside of his locker at the firestation.He seems to have the spirit of God in him.Perhaps he has been saved.

OK,back to John Bull 1.

I hope that's the last of the religious rants in this debate.The proposition is that "Same sex marriages should be recognised in law."

Law is the important word here.There are two types of Marriage.Marriage recognised by church and marriage recognised in law.We are debating the second.A couple can get married in a church that is not recognised in law and a couple can get lawfully married but it is not recognised by church.You don't need both.

Let's keep Christian Conservative Morality out of this debate.

Two people want to commit to each other then the secular state should recognise that committed relationship.

Hello John Bull 1 - Let the debate begin!

I agree in the main that religious zealotry can be left out of this debate however it will be necessary to refer to it in the historical sense as we progress further along.

�Same sex marriages should be recognized law�

No - same sex marriages should not be allowed or recognized by law.

In this debate I intend to discuss the history of marriage as it pertains to the good order and maintenance of personal, public and national welfare.

I will detail the alternatives to marriage for same sex couples that preserves the contractual rights of individuals in same sex relationships without destroying thousands of years of religious, secular and cultural tradition in western civilization.

I will detail the possible unconstitutionality of courts making new law rather than ruling on existing law and referring the matter back to the states legislatures respectively.

John Bull 1 � Again I want to reiterate that even though religious zealotry is an issue that would bog down this debate in dogmatic inertia - causing our judges and spectators much boredom. Religious beliefs and cultural benefits are the historical basis for secular sanctioning of marriage and therefore they cannot be excluded from this debate � I will stay away from dogma.

John Bull 1, The ending sentence in your introduction statement,

�Two people want to commit to each other then the secular state should recognise (sic) that committed relationship.�

Well supports my contention by the use of the words, �commit� and �committed� rather than, �marry� or �married� that you believe and support �civil unions� as a contractural solution to same sex relationships in respect to the law.

John Bull 1, I will now turn this over to you. I am looking for a well reasoned response, hopefully more in line with the very eloquent Lincoln, Douglas style of debate, That is so much more entertaining to our ATS members and visitors, Rather than the (modern) style you have used in the previous debates to make bullet points as fast as possible that seem very in-eloquent to read or listen to in a debate of this type. Step up to the plate and let�s provide the quality that ATS deserves.

As a member of ATS I want to again thank everyone involved in the debate forum for their time and consideration.

Phoenix

First,let me start by saying that I will not be changing my debating style.Nice try though Phoenix.

Let's make another thing clear while we're at it.This is not a US-Centric topic.Other countries already have same sex marriage,Denmark for instance.

Why we should hold up the USA as an example of how law should reflect the rights of individuals is beyond me.Afterall it is only three and half years since Alabama repealed it's laws making interracial marriages illegal.

Section 102 of the Alabama Constitution. The passage, written , in 1901, bars the Legislature from enacting any law "to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."

In 1967,only 37 years ago,16 US states had similar laws.At one point 40 states had similars laws.

Phoenix-"In this debate I intend to discuss the history of marriage as it pertains to the good order and maintenance of personal, public and national welfare."

I'm looking forward to it.The institution of Marriage has changed so much over the centuries.Women are no longer "owned" by their husband.Women can seek divorce.Views on polygamy have changed,and,of course,couples with different racial backgrounds can marry to name just a few changes.

Highlighting this history of marriage and it's changes will go a long way to answer one of your other arguments which I fear this next statement of yours presages.

Phoenix-"I will detail the alternatives to marriage for same sex couples that preserves the contractual rights of individuals in same sex relationships without destroying thousands of years of religious, secular and cultural tradition in western civilization."

The dreaded argument on semantics and wordplay.The vestige of the pendant.

The argument goes that if you call it a "Civil Union" or "Civil Partnership" it's not a marriage.This argument is undermined when we see that marriage,as an institution,is not a constant.Call it whatever you like it is still marriage in the eyes of those that undertake it and those that will most fervently oppose it.

What is Marriage?

Well,the US Supreme court describes the 4 main attributes of marriage in 1987 to be:

1) An expression of emotional support and public commitment.

2) For some,an act of spiritual significance,and for some the exercise of religious faith.

3) A relationship with the expectation that for most,the marriage will be consumated.

4)A relationship that can receive tangible benefits,incuding government benefits and property rights.

-Turner v Safley,482 U.S. 78, 94 (1987)

So why are Homosexuals denied the benefits of marriage?

Anyway,I'm going to leave it there for the moment as it is early days.I will be looking at what rights and benefits are denied same sex couples because their partnership is not recogniZed in law.I will also look at what other countries are doing to address this inequality,not just Denmark but Holland,UK,and Canada.

�Same sex marriage should be recognized by law�

No, they should not be recognized,

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. reminds us, "A page of history is worth a volume of logic." Western history provides very little support for extending the legal category of marriage to include same-sex unions.

Marriage is frequently thought of as a religious institution laden with prejudices. It is true that Judaism and Christianity have contributed much to the Western understanding of marriage. But marriage also absorbed parts of the secular marital codes of Greek law, Aristotelian philosophy, Roman law, and German law. Even in ancient secular systems, legal marriage was seen as a way to help society regulate and achieve a complex set of desires and goals: sexual activity, procreation, paternity (presumed), mutual help, parental care and accountability - all contributed to the orderly maintenance of civilization.

Changing law to accommodate same sex marriage would have unknown and quite possibly unintended consequences to the detriment of society.

The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting is scant at best. The numbers of gays and lesbians raising children are so small relative to the population (and their visibility so recent) that there are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples' children. Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia wrote in March 2001 (after a thorough review of the studies on same-sex parenting) that every study on this question "contained at least one fatal flaw" and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research."

Is it wise, then, to develop legal policies that go to the heart of family life and the societal good without better knowledge? � My answer�s, it is not very wise at all!

Denmark is a great example of the law of unintended consequences, In an article titled �The End of Marriage in Scandinavia� published in The Weekly Standard, written by Stanley Kurtz, dated 02/02/2004,

� A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.�

www.weeklystandard.com...


In the courts ruling from Bower�s v Hardwick, I would like to cite the judge�s opinion on constitutional violation, referencing to the courts making law outside of the democratic process.

�The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.... There should be, therefore, great resistance to expand the substantive reach of those Clauses, particularly if it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental."

JB1, your references to Alabama law while quaint, specifically dealt with marriage within the traditional context of marriage between a man and a woman � not same sex marriage. If you are trying to infer that modification of law dealing with marriage in the traditional sense justifies or allows same sex marriage under the law, or makes it OK and good law, you are wrong in that assumption. It was correcting a racial inequality in marital law and that�s a different subject for another time and debate

Lets assume for a moment that the courts do indeed trample the rights conferred on the republic and the democratic process is subverted by a ruling for same sex marriage, putting it into law. What are some of the unintended consequences? The basis for marriage of same sex partners rather than civil union is the equal protection clause in the U.S. constitution � nothing in the law says they cannot marry, it just says they must marry like everyone else. But on to the consequences, Because legal precedent will be made, One should be able to marry �

Your; brother, mother, sister, father, 1st cousin, aunt, uncle, grandmother, grandfather or any combination thereof, under the doctrine of equal protection.

Now one can hardly agree that this would be a good thing for society but that�s how the law works � you cannot make a special exception for one group without inferring that right on another.

If those following this debate or judges did not read the link provided by Phoenix then I would encourage them to do so.

At the head of the piece quoted it excuses itself as "The conservative case".Phoenix has chosen to link to a contraversial piece by Stanley Kurtz which makes no claims to be impartial in any way and as such does not disappoint us.

Kurtz starts by telling us that the majority of children in Scandinavia are born out of wedlock though how this is the fault of homosexuals, unable to procreate within a same sex relationship,and,in Denmark,barred by law from adoption and artificial insemination rights,is never convincingly explained.

Births out of wedlock have been rising steadily across Europe and the USA anyway.

Just how conservative is Kurtz? Well he attacks a piece written by Andrew Sullivan called "The case against same-sex marriage crumbles.".Now I regularly read Andrew Sullivan's collumn in the Sunday Times and I can tell you he is no bleeding heart liberal.

Never will you read an essay that is as good an example of twisting facts to suit an argument.

Kurtz says:"It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties."(Denmark legalised same sex marriage in 1989)

But Kurtz tells us this is "because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time."

Kurtz excepts:"that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996"

But Kurtz tells us that "marriage statistics in societies with very low rates must be carefully parsed"

Throughout the whole piece(both pages) Kurtz is happy to overlook every statistic that is in some way relevant to the same sex marriage issue while continually refering to the birth out of wedlock statistic which is biologically and legally irrelevant to the issue of same sex marriage.

One relevant statistic that is relevant is that in Denmark, where same-sex marriages are legal, the Washington Blade reported a 1.31% divorce rate for homosexuals, and 2.95% rate for heterosexuals. According to the Baltimore Center, the divorce rate for U.S. heterosexual marriages is 3.86% !!!

Moving on,I can understand why Phoenix wishes to widen the debate to include parenting.However,parenting has no place in this debate and I would ask Phoenix to confine his argument to the parameters of the proposition.That:�Same sex marriage should be recognized by law�.Parenting is a completely different issue and should be dealt with in a different debate.

In the last week I've been visiting a lot of gay sites.God knows what my wife will think if she checks the history.I've been looking for,amoung other things,a site that would lay out what benefits partners in a same sex relationship are denied because they have been discriminated against.It is very hard to find a site that gives a comprehensive list.

Then I came across the site that I link to below.I make no apologies for it being a "gay site"

I'm not assuming that the judges are all straight but it's probably safe to assume that the majority of them are and as a consequence they will not have faced the heartbreak and frustration of being in a long term relationship with a life partner and yet have no rights.
gayweddings.com is a site set up for homosexuals in long term committed relationships.There is an old saying that if you want to understand someone then you should walk in their shoes for one day.That is what I am going to ask you to do.Hard as it may be for you to empathise please read the whole page.Considering as you do the distressful situations that many homosexuals go through every day.

The danger for me posting a link to piece is that Phoenix could say."See you don't need gay marriage because there are ways of getting around the legalities." But really is it fair that gay men and women should have to jump through all these legal hoops just so they have the right to visit their sick partner in hospital? Or not be able to organise and attend their partners funeral? For heteosexual couples it is rarely an issue and often we overlook just how profound and personal this form of discrimination really is.

I'm running out of space now so I must finish soon.I would like to add before passing over once more to Phoenix that I do not accept his assertion made earlier that same sex marriage would lead,because of precedent,to legalised incest.I would hope that if the judges disagreed with everything else I have said they would atleast accept that.

My able opponent in this debate, John Bull 1, made one request for limitation in his introductory statement,
�Let's keep Christian Conservative Morality out of this debate.�

I honored that request conditionally with the statement: �I agree in the main that religious zealotry can be left out of this debate, however, it will be necessary to refer to it in the historical sense as we progress further along.�

John Bull 1, signaled his agreement by not challenging or making further limitations (other than not agreeing that this was a U.S. centric subject) in his next debate posting. No other limitations were offered or accepted.

Now my opponent would have the Judges and audience believe that the preposition �Same sex marriages should be recognized in law� is a topic that can only be debated in a vacuum of legal interpretation, with no discussion of detrimental effects on society. JB-1 knows these consequences are persuasive to my side of the debate and therefore is making a facetious and unsporting attempt to limit debate to his complete advantage, hence the following statement by JB-1,

�Parenting has no place in this debate and I would ask Phoenix to confine his argument to the parameters of the proposition.�

It is now time to define the word �should� as used in the preposition in "Same sex marriages should be recognized in law."

Definition of �should� used as auxiliary verb (Cambridge dictionary):

Should (OPINION)
Auxiliary verb
SLIGHTLY FORMAL
Used to express a desire or opinion.

The use of the word �should� in the topic is specific to the debate in that it directs the debate to the opinion (ergo judgement of right/wrong) and NOT a purely �legal� argument. If that were the case, then the topic would have read, �Same sex marriage must be recognized by law.�

JB �1 is completely wrong in his contention that parenting (for that matter numerous issues that�ll be brought forward to the debate) aren�t issues pertinent to the preposition. Rule of law denotes a �benefit� or �good� derived for society. JB-I has already asserted that same sex marriage �should� be recognized by law on the point of homosexual �rights� to fair and equal rights. So then, it would not be a huge jump for me to assert the point of what�s �fair� to the children. Attempting to limit debate on core issues knowingly or unknowingly affected by same sex marriage law, such as parenting denies not only myself but also the Judges and audience information vital to the final outcome of this debate.

In my introductory statement I said,
�Religious beliefs and cultural benefits are the historical basis for secular sanctioning of marriage and therefore they cannot be excluded from this debate.�
This statement was not challenged by JB-1.

Further I said in my first debate posting,
�Changing law to accommodate same sex marriage would have unknown and quite possibly unintended consequences to the detriment of society.� Again unchallenged by JB-1.

No, JB-1, I will not limit the debate now, had your chance and blew it!

I too hope that the Judges read link provided in my last post fully, and in detail, so that they may see what a hatchet job JB-1 did in taking quotes from it out of context and in mid sentence making it read as something it�s not. Example JB-1 quotes (trying to imply Kurtz said), "that the Danish marriage rate increased 10 percent from 1990 to 1996.� In fact, Kurtz disputes Sullivan and Eskridge study that makes that claim. The same misrepresentations are made on the rest of the quoted points by JB-1.

The Washington Blade statistics quoted by JB-I are simply erroneous. How can one measure divorce rates for a population that can not legally marry? It defies logic. From what sample does this number derive? Furthermore, The Baltimore Center�s statistics are inflated. The last-reported U.S. divorce rate is 0.40% per capita per year, estimate for the year 2002 from the National Center for Health Statistics.

In rebuttal to JB-I�s statement that legal precedent would not lead to incest: My point is simple. If law recognizes same-sex marriage, it will set a precedent upon which other (highly perilous) claims could be made. Legal precedence is a foundational component of our legal system. If same sex marriage is recognized by law... what�s next? Polygamy?

Prior Supreme Court opinion shed�s some light on precedence and predicts events:

Lawrence v. Texas,
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an angry dissent to Lawrence. Among other points, Scalia warned that the Court�s decision means state laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity cannot survive. In sum, Lawrence is itself a monumental development in Constitutional law, but the future may be even more interesting. After Lawrence, challenges to laws banning same-sex marriage are the next logical step.

800 words

Well,I must say that I am just a little disappointed that Phoenix has chosen to attack me rather than the proposition.After all I have urged judges to read a link he provided.

I only pointed out that the parenting issue was irrelevant in the hope that we might not waste time on it but just very quickly I will address it and explain why it is so irrelevant.

Phoenix has supplied a link which shows that 60% of births in Scandinavia were to unmarried couples.There is nothing sinful about this,I am unmarried myself and have a young daughter.This rise in unmarried people having children is being seen across the western world and it is an indication that even heterosexual couples are increasingly not linking marriage with family.

Marriage is a public commitment to a partner.I am not married because I have a private commitment to my partner.

If we take the intellectual route of proclaiming marriage purely for procreation what are you going to do?Force couples who are childless through impotence and infertility to seperate?

There is a very different debate that could be had about adoption rights for homosexuals,one I might add that I may have a different view on.This debate,however,is about public commitment of two consenting adults.

Scalia? Didn't he go shooting with Cheney recently ? Another scaremongering story from the American Christian right.

Let's move away to the crunch of this issue.

The conservative christian right do not want homosexual marriages because without it they can claim that homosexuals are promiscuous.Here we have a situation where homosexuals want to commit to a life long monogamous relationship thus shooting a hole in the argument for the moralists who like to dehumanise homosexuals.

For many when this issue is raised there is a niggling feeling that gay marriage is just not right somehow but when we look for a convincing argument why they should not be allowed to we struggle to find reason.This ,sadly ,is a sign of discrimination.

We are not talking about a Religious marriage though some churches do bless gay marriages.This is about civil marriage,two consenting adults wishing to commit in a life long monogamous relationship having the legal benefits that heterosexual couples have.

John Bull 1, Sorry you�re taking personally that I�ve pointed out misrepresentations you�ve asserted about Kurtz�s article and my taking exception to your ill timed attempt to limit debate, no personal offense was intended.

�Same sex marriages should be recognized in law." Absolutely not,

Let�s begin by asking some questions about marriage, If marriage is only about love and commitment, why is there any reason for secular law? If on the other hand marriage is only a contract, why should the state sanction it in law, after-all it�s just a civil matter right?

WRONG, Most men and women are powerfully drawn to perform a sexual act that can and does generate life. Marriage is our attempt to reconcile and harmonize the erotic, social, sexual, and financial needs of men and women with the needs of their partner and children to the benefit of society as a whole. This is the reason secular law sanctions marriage in its current form. Traditional marriage is the place where having children is not only tolerated but also welcomed and encouraged.

WHAT about childless heterosexual couples? Neither older married couples nor childless husbands and wives publicly challenge or dilute the core meaning of marriage. In essence they positively reinforce traditional marriage.

WHAT about non-traditional families? Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen "good." It would mean the law was neutral as to whether children had mothers and fathers. Motherless and fatherless families would be deemed just fine.

Quoting Glenn T. Stanton, Author of Why Marriage Matters,
�All things being equal, children with married parents consistently do better in every measure of well-being than their peers who have single, cohabiting, divorced or step-parents, and this is a stronger indicator than parental race, economic or educational status, or neighborhood. The literature on this is broad and strong.�

THE PROBLEM with sanctioning same sex marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people, (0.5-% same sex households - U.S. Census Bureau), to choose alternative family forms. But that it would require society to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires.

IS it discriminatory to not allow same sex marriage? Formally speaking, no. There are no sexual-orientation tests for marriage, many gays and lesbians do choose to marry members of the opposite sex, and some of these marriages succeed. Our laws do not require a person to marry the individual to whom he or she is most attracted.

WHAT about the issue of benefits?
Quoting Maggie Gallagher, co-author, "The Case for Marriage."
�To get a proxy for how many gay couples would avail themselves of health insurance benefits marriage can provide, I asked the top 10 companies listed on the Human Rights Campaign's web-site as providing same-sex insurance benefits how many of their employees use this option. Only one company, General Motors, released its data. Out of 1.3 million employees, 166 claimed benefits for a same-sex partner. That equals one one-hundredth of one percent.� One can hardly make the case for same sex marriage based on the need for benefits based on these results.

Quoting John Bull 1,
� The conservative Christian right do not want homosexual marriages because without it they can claim that homosexuals are promiscuous.�

A recent survey of gay couples in civil unions by psychologists Esther Rothblum and Sondra Solomon confirms that married gay male couples will be far less likely than married heterosexual couples to identify marriage with monogamy. They compared gay couples in civil unions with heterosexual couples and gay couples outside civil unions. Among married heterosexual men, 79 percent felt that marriage demanded monogamy, 50 percent of men in gay civil unions insisted on monogamy, while only 34 percent gay men outside civil unions affirmed monogamy. By the results one can hardly argue that same sex marriage will change the Christian right assertion.

IRONICALLY, the form of same sex matrimony that may pose the another threat to the institution of marriage involves heterosexuals forming marriages of convenience. Consider the plight of an underemployed, uninsured single mother who sees little prospect of marriage (to a man). Suppose she has a friend, also female and heterosexual, The single mom will get medical and governmental benefits will share her friend's paycheck, and will gain an additional caretaker for the kids besides. The marriage would obviously be sexually open. And if lightning struck and the right man came along for one of the women, they could always divorce and marry heterosexually. Such arrangements "would turn marriage into the moral equivalent of Social Security benefits."

800 Words

It is a strange debate in which the birth of my own daughter becomes a statistic used by the christian right to prove a moral decline in western society.

Who are these people to judge?

What gives them the right to be so sanctimonious as to tell us what is right or fair?

Throughout history these people and their ilk have been responsible for the most terrible crimes.People like that hanged African Americans,and burnt woman as witches for talking to their cat.In Britain they burnt Catholics,in France they burnt protestants,during the crusuades they burnt muslims and during World War 2 the gassed Jews.

This is what happens when people claim to know the will of God.These people wish to judge on Earth because they know his will.If there is any judgement leave it to God.

These people can't help but stick their noses into other peoples private business.The want to order your life.Imagine what other new laws these people would bring in if they had the chance because they prove anything by twisting statistics in the way you've seen here.America wouldn't be a secular state for a start.

Society will not breakdown if gays are allowed to marry.Don't be like Chicken Licken,the sky isn't going to fall in.

There is not one rational or exceptable reason why gays should not marry.

Murderers and rapists imprisoned for life for the most heinous crimes can marry.

These are my final words.

Whether gays can marry or not is none of my business because there is no detrimental effect on society or me as an individual and if it pisses off those self righteous,sanctimonious bastards then all the better as far as I'm concerned.They are all a bunch of hypocrits anyway.

As with any decision for change whether an individual or collective one encompassing all of society, there exists responsibility to reflect on the possible future relating to the change being considered. A change cannot reasonably be evaluated in a vacuum where some would wish no other influence or effect to be considered; truly one-sided debate is the desire.

At this time in our history many are shirking the responsibility of considering cause and effect, few are upholding it and those that do are ridiculed by the far left in an attempt to suppress rational opinion, lest the masses learn the truth.

The truth is, allowing recognition of same sex marriage in secular law is shortsighted and bad law period.

Where do we stop once the threshold is crossed? Consider that all the legal challenge is based on assertion of privacy rights, equality and repudiation of so called sexual morality law, on the face of it, sounds OK doesn�t it? Yeah it does until you really think through all its legal iterations. With same sex marriage affirmed on legal grounds at hand, there is really no reason the government could regulate what it currently regulates in relation to marriage or sex, no big deal you say? Well who�s to decide that the government has a right to limit the age, number of, inter-family relation or convenience of marriage participants once the precedence is set? Law�s a funny thing, it�s an all or nothing proposition, and you can�t go halfway. Is this the future you want for your children? One of chaos?

In my research for this debate I came across much information published by groups strongly supporting same sex marriage not because they derived a direct benefit or felt discriminated against, no it was worse than that. These groups consisting of far-left law professors, polygamists, polyamorphorists, and incest support groups all want the precedence of same sex marriage to succeed furthering their ultimate goal of either being able to do what is now illegal or in the case of some doing away with marriage altogether.

In a sincere way 50-% of people agree that same sex marriage is OK. Unfortunately through media manipulation or outright intellectual laziness they do not have the necessary information to know the future implications of passing such a bad law for their children and society as a whole.

Socially the right thing to do at this time to redress the concerns of same sex couples would be to emulate nationally the civil union concept as used in Vermont. This step can have the beneficial granting of rights while at the same time not putting asunder law limiting the more radical and predatory among us.

Issue separate from debate if the Judges allow,
(I would like the Audience, Moderators and Judges to realize this debate where I�ve had to argue negatively to a very controversial preposition, as a naturally competitive person I do this with gusto. However the views expressed here are not my own personal opinion.)[b/]

Well done guys. I'll reel in the nets, untangle the judges, and get them to work.

Ok guys the votes are in.

The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-4 is John Bull 1, well done also to Phoenix for an excellent debate.

Some of the judges comments:

In all my time as being a judge, this debate between John bull 1 and Phoenix was one that I almost determined to be a draw. I am awed at how both of these debaters handled this topic and in how they presented their arguments. Utter amazement at the level and quality of this debate! I equally applaud both members for their esteemed efforts. As such, I found John bull 1's argument to be slightly more persuasive.
Both should be equally proud in what they have accomplished and shown. A hearty congratulation to both!

Ahh...this was good. John Bull 1, your closing was powerfully direct. Your comments made me realize some of my own personal feelings were possibly out of alignment with what is actually correct. If you put morality of the issue aside...
Phoenix, you choice of words are very eloquent and well thought. But the final sentence caused me to question the seriousness from your side of the issue.
Both debators contributed valiantly! It was a pleasure to read.

Though I personally agree with JB's position more (and think he did well), Phoenix fulfilled his charge in the debate more fully.

The debate boiled down to the same litmus test applied to all things legal - mutual consideration. In this case, have the same hetrosexual practices occurred as those projected as negative practices potentially with same sex marriage? And has the hetro variant decimated the institution of marriage or had societal negative consequences? Once yes & no were tagged to the above, it gave the decision to the affirmative argument.

A fantastic debate! I enjoyed this one a lot; two capable debaters respectfully addressing an issue.
In my opinion, Phoenix made a better case in this one, even though, like him, I disagree with the stand.
Well done!

It was a great debate to read and Phoenix did an admiral job, but unfortunately he caught JB1 in white hot form and didn't stand a chance unfortunately. When someone's debating that good there's not much you can do except try your best they did, but JB1 run away with it.

Pretty good cat fight. Neither one held back. I think Phoenix kept his composure,and JB1 started to lose it a little at the end. Great job to both debators. You guys are not making our jobs easy.

Both sides argued so well that I couldn't judge by merits and counterpoints, but only by inconsistency. While JB1 fell apart (imho) with his closing statement, he was more logically consistent than Phoenix. And so JB1 wins the day.

Top job fellas, and good luck to John Bull 1 in the final.