Is it wrong to ban or make illegal same sex marriage?

Basically before I turn it over to the opposing side, I am going to highlight somethings.

When we talk about what is wrong, let's get a clear cut understanding of what makes something wrong for the life of any person.

What is wrong for human people ultimately is what society and government deem to be deleterious to function a society or have a functioning society.

I say deem because of politics. Government is politics. What are politics?

The constant running working processes between people in communication or media that affects one another's contact . These processes undergo regulations, instructions, rules, policies, laws, agreements/contracts.

So regulations, instructions or directions, rules, policies=/politics=/polite=/police,laws, agreements/contracts.

All this makes up a functioning society and if it's functioning, it's surviving and if it's surviving, it's thriving.

Within these running processes, there are changes, updates, rescinding, amending, altering,etc.

Why is this?

Much of society is only deeming verses actuating. But the goal is to keep a sustaining society. So the society continues to make adjustments, goes through politics, to try to hold sustenance.

First, they wanted plantation slavery to sustain society. Then they wanted to change it to no plantation slavery.

After that, they wanted segregation so called...... to sustain that way. Then, they wanted, no segregation to sustain that way and then, well allowing a "black wall street". Then that was tore down.

Then , passing some laws to do this, do that, work here, live there. That sustained until , well, redlining them.

Well so and so on and now, they killed folks on the plantation according to testimony. That was sustaining. No more of that. Now , kill them in the clinics.

It was sustaining to ban certain substances. Now , legalize to kill them slowly . An organ transplant, medical procedure will slow down the progression to make it appear we still have societal sustaining laws and making it through loopholes and justifying pharmaceuticals, drugs, toxic chemicals, additives, etc.

With all that, this is a rigamarole, although, erratic, the alibye or guise is still , what is supposed to be not wrong for the lives of people, but right.

So hopefully we have an understanding of where we're going with this topic.

I went longer than intended but it just naturally flowed out.

I turn it over.

"Con’s opening does not define any part of the resolution in a meaningful way, or at all. Instead of clarifying “wrong,” Con moves into a broad discussion of politics and society without settling on a clear standard. That makes the claim difficult if not impossible to evaluate."

Ok, let me help you out. This is where reading comprehension comes in.

"When we talk about what is wrong, let's get a clear cut understanding of what makes something wrong for the life of any person.

What is wrong for human people ultimately is what society and government deem to be deleterious to function a society or have a functioning society."

See where it says "What is wrong for human people ultimately is what ". After the last "what" is defining what the "what".....IS.

Do you want to read back over this being that you missed it?

See, take the statements I make and question them like I do with yours. Don't gloss or skim over statements just because they don't give you what you expect. You're not debating yourself. You're debating me.

"So, I will define the terms directly and as clearly as possible. By “wrong,” I define that as unjustified under the principles of liberal constitutional democracies, specifically violations of equal protection and individual liberty without sufficient state interest. "

Well now. Even with you saying " I define", there's still something unclear.

Where you say "state interest", what exactly does that mean in terms of wrong?

Also it is suspected that you're speaking passed me and I did say "what makes something wrong for the life of any person".

So I'll ask this question. Does "state interest" have to do with what makes something wrong for the life of any person?

If it doesn't, why wouldn't it?

"There is no clear showing that allowing same sex couples to marry harms individuals, societal stability, or the function of marriage. Without that, the exclusion is simply unjustified differential treatment."

This appears subjective. When you say "no clear showing". Somebody that smokes cigarettes, may appear to be in good health or the person's health is unharmed. You have to demonstrate either innately that same sex marriage would be neutral or could not constitute harm to society, particularly to children that came from a married man and woman.

"Con’s rambling appeal to what societies have considered “sustaining” does not solve this. Societies have justified unequal treatment under that idea before and later reversed course. That pattern shows this standard is unreliable, not that the restrictions were correct."

Here again the opposite side is talking pass me. Instead of skimming over what I say and not undermining it as so called rambling, the opposing side can improve from these constant erroneous mis-characterizations.

I specifically said society , much of it is deeming and not actuating. But the goal is to sustain life which is done with minimizing or eliminating harm. If you're going to debate, actually comprehend what somebody says.

"So under a rights-based framework, the ban fails and is wrong. It denies access to a legal institution without a sufficient reason. If Con wants to defend it, Con needs to identify a clear standard and show real harm caused by inclusion. Otherwise, the argument does not move beyond preference."

You have to demonstrate how it's wrong to ban that which has not been demonstrated to be beneficial or at least innately neutral for the capacity to sustain society.

Take some time, come back with an argument.

"On “state interest,” this is not unclear, but I'll define it. A state interest is a legitimate reason the government uses to justify restricting a liberty, typically tied to preventing harm, protecting rights, or maintaining essential public functions. If Con believes restriction is justified, they should be able to identify that interest and explain the harm being prevented by a ban."

Ok so this is basically what I'm saying and have said in the first round. You take a long way around because you constantly talk pass me instead of getting understanding.

So you mentioned preventing harm and that's what we're going to circumvent your position with.

Getting passed all your needless jargon to get to the meat of the subject. I'm not responding to anything that requires no arguing over. Not going in circles with you.

"Now, Negative Rights are freedoms from interference, meaning individuals are allowed to act as they choose unless there is a justified reason for the state to restrict them. "

Such as harm. Which same sex marriage was restricted at one point in time. Like alcohol and marijuana. So these things were categorized as deleterious.

"The burden is not on individuals to prove their actions are beneficial or harmless in advance, but on the state to demonstrate a legitimate reason, usually tied to preventing concrete harm or protecting the rights of others, before limiting those actions. "

The burden absolutely is on them. Anybody proposing anything to be legal has the burden. The "state" is a "state" of individuals. This is why we have for instance the FDA.

"Applied here, access to civil marriage falls under equal liberty once the state offers it. Same sex couples do not need to prove their marriages are beneficial. The burden is on Con to show that allowing same sex marriage creates sufficient harm to justify exclusion."

I actually have no burden. I'm not the affirmative. You affirm it is wrong to ban same sex marriage so demonstrate that.

Same sex marriage proponents did have to prove or demonstrate their case. Otherwise, nothing would have changed.

"If Con wants to defend the ban or disprove my position, the path is simple. Identify a legitimate state interest and demonstrate actual harm that justifies exclusion. If Con chooses not to defend the ban, then Con still needs to show why my argument fails under the framework provided.

If no justification is required to restrict a right, then any right could be removed without reason. If Con accepts that, it abandons the basis of a rights based system. If Con rejects that, then Con needs to provide the justification that has been missing this entire time."

When you take these challenges, read the doggone descriptions please.

The onus is on the affirmative side. Also I didn't see an answer to my question.

Stuck ducking your burden or concede.

I'm going to ask you again and if you duck these questions again, you forfeit.

So I'll ask this question. Does "state interest" have to do with what makes something wrong for the life of any person?

If it doesn't, why wouldn't it?

Answer these questions or forfeit.

Plain and simple.

I rest my case. Even better than talking to a wall .

Case closed.

To the audience......debate me and make arguments. Don't make excuses and cower .

I don't want to read about your criticisms of me personally because we disagree. Also no justification to block people because they disagree. That's that liberal ban agenda of free speech.

We debate because we disagree so because I can't agree with you and hold fast to my stances, "oh it's no fair".

You hold to your stances , I don't expect you to relinquish. Grow up or get out this kitchen because you folks can't stand the debate heat.