The Instigator
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,560 times Debate No: 42453
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (51)
Votes (3)

 

bsh1

Pro

Thanks to everyone who expressed interest!
Preface:

I have seen many, many debates on Gay Marriage here on DDO--most of them are poorly constructed and not well thought-out. As someone who is gay, I also feel a need to set the record straight (pun intended) on many of the homophobic comments present in many of those debates. Therefore, to get this frustration out of my system,I would like to have a formal, polite, and high-quality debate on the permissibility of gay marriage.

Acceptance:
This debate is impossible to accept. Post a comment if you wish to debate. I will selected the most qualified opponent.

Topic:

Gay Marriage should be permitted in the United States.

Rules:

1. No hate speech or personal attacks
2. No religion
3. Both sides stipulate that homosexuality is--in part or in whole--a product of genetics
4. No forfiets
5. No trolling
6. BOP is shared

Structure:

R1: Acceptance
R2: Core Case (no rebuttals)
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals
R5: Rebuttals (no new arguments/responses)

Note:

The violation of any of these rules by any party constitutes a 7-point loss by the offender. Acceptance constitutes agreement of these rules.

Thanks:

In advance to InVinoVeritas for a cordial, well-done debate!
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
bsh1

Pro

Thanks again to InVinoVeritas! I will present my case at this time--I apologize if it is a bit rushed.

"The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans." - Peter Singer

FRAMEWORK

Gay Marriage - a marriage between two people of the same biological gender

Should - expresses desirability or rightness

Permit - to allow, to make legal

Note 1: This resolution is specifically concerning the U.S. and what should be occuring therein.

Note 2: This resolution is not concerned about how the U.S. should go about making gay marriage legal; rather, it is concerned with the more abstrct question of "should" it be legal.

PRO's CASE

-- Polling --

The government, as a representative body of the people, should reflect in legislation the views of the American populace. Multiple credible polls all concur that more American support gay marriage than oppose it. [1, 2, 3] The consistancy of these polls' findings only further serve to emphasize the fact that our elected officials should be moving to support the legality and permissibility of gay marriage in the U.S., because it is their duty as our representative to do so.

In some studies, as much as 58% of Americans have bee found to support gay marriage rights. [3, 4]

-- Libertarian Paradigm --

It is also important to point out here that gay marriage poses no active harm to any one else. Gay individuals getting married does not endanger you or your neighbors, nor does it serve any government benefit to deny gay couples marriage rights. It seems like an inappropriate use of government coercion, therefore, to prevent these loving couples from exercising their autonomy and getting married.

-- Equality --

1. Civil Unions are an unequal substitute for marriage

"The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable." [4] We can also look to the Supreme Court's striking down of DOMA as unduly descriminatory and unequal to see that the highest Court in the U.S. conquers that there should be a more equal footing here. [4, 5] Hollingsowrht v. Perry further bolstered this legal precedent, finding also that there was no legally relevant difference between a gay and straight couple. [6]

2. Legal Right and Equality

Moreover, the legally-binding ICCPR guarantees all citizens of parties to the treaty equal rights (Article 5.) Article 23 guarantees the right of mean and women to marry--it says nothing about whether they must marry the opposite gender, only that both parties must consent. [7]

-- History --

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." [4]

SOURCES








I thank Con, and must again apologize for my rushed response. I am at a debate tournament out of state, and am paying my hotel some usurious fee for interent access so as to avoid a forfeit of this round. I would appreciate it if Con would keep his arguments equally brief to even things out--though I acknowledge that Con is by no means obligated to do so.

Thanks!
InVinoVeritas

Con

Many thanks to bsh1 for inviting me to debate this important issue with him. I look forward to what I strongly believe will be a great debate!

As per the rules established in the first round, I will not directly rebut my opponent's arguments this round. Rather, I will be just proposing the framework for my case. Moreover, I will try to be somewhat brief, keeping in mind that my opponent was facing serious time constraints when typing up his arguments for this round.

Now, on to my case...

THE EXCLUSIVITY OF MARRIAGE

Before discussing the issue of whether or not same-sex marriage, we have to ask a big question: What is "marriage"? I will tackle this question by describing its functions and implications in our society; hopefully, through my discussion, we can have a clearer idea of what "marriage" means in our society's social and legal realm.

Well, when people enter a marriage contract, they are granted an exclusive legal status. Federal law grants 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections on the basis of one's marital status [1]. Indeed, marriage is not a "natural right," as many "equality" advocates have often suggested [see: 2]; marriage is a privilege that enables people to have the government invest in their legal status. And based on intuition, marriage must remain exclusive in order to be meaningful. Even the most devout same-sex marriage proponent would not say that the government should recognize a marital union between a man and a revolving desk chair, for example. Whether same-sex marriage should be legalized or not is not relevant to the principle of "equality"; rather, it is a question of whom we ought to exclude from the exclusive legal doctrine of marriage. In other words, where do we draw the line for marriage, when a line must be drawn?

DRAWING THE LINE FOR MARRIAGE

Why does the government recognize heterosexual marital unions--and why does the government invest in them with a multitude of social and fiscal benefis (e.g., tax exemptions)? Why doesn't the government grant the same exclusive status to people who consider themselves "friends"?

Marriage is unique in that it is a bodily union that promotes a stable institution of childbearing and rearing. A heterosexual marital contract, at its core, upholds a union that can internally reproduce and raise its own biological offspring. A homosexual union cannot bear children internally, and when a child is raised, it is not the child of one or both of the parents in such a union--and this creates a demand for children whose biological parents do not want them; homosexual unions do not meet the standard that makes stable heterosexual unions a current staple of the United States' legal realm. The heterosexual union of marriage provides an essential function that a society depends on: an internally stable and efficient family-based system that creates and raises future citizens of the society... and, further, this essential function cannot--on a fundamental level--be carried out by a homosexual union.

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF "EQUALITY"

As I stated earlier, marriage is a privilege, not a right. It comes with government-granted "positive rights" (or entitlements) that can only be justified by some sort of utilitarian function of the marital union. Therefore, marriage is inherently imposed on some people (through necessarily exclusive governmental benefits), and a standard needs to be set. Without a standard, we create an all-inclusive institution, and it becomes absurd for the government to subsidize (and thereby incentivize) it. With complete (hypothetical) "marriage equality," after all, there is nothing wrong with a man to marry a dog... or a hockey team... or a table. Of course, there must be a standard; a man should not be given tax exemptions for "marrying" the sun. A standard needs to be set; a line needs to be drawn. Complete marriage "equality" is a slippery slope to a continual redefinition of marriage until it is all-inclusive, and an all-inclusive definition of marriage cannot justify the (utilitarian) exclusive legal status and benefits that the government currently grants in order to subsidize/incentivize marriage.

CONCLUSION

With these central claims and the axiomatic tenets they carry, I will be looking to refute the resolution and defend the institution of tradition marriage in the United States.

In the next round, I will defend my arguments and refute those of my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's future arguments/rebuttals.

Thank you.

---

[1] https://www.hrc.org...
[2] http://www.marriageequality.org...






Debate Round No. 2
bsh1

Pro

Many thanks to InVinoVeritas for keeping his initial remarks brief and for embarking upon this exploration with me. At this time I will rebut Con's case.

OVERVIEW

Con's case is, essentially, teleological in nature--it attempts to understand and divine the purpose of marriage, and to extrapolate from that an answer to the resolution. There are several problems with taking this approach to the topic:

1. Purpose is nebulous. (1A) Purpose is not always something that can be determined--take, for example, life. What is its purpose? existentialists and theologians have been struggling with this question for millennia. (1B) There is also a more concrete reason for Purpose's ambiguity. Take for example the nuclear bomb. Some would say it was created to kill; others would say it was created to deter; still others might say it was created as an exercise in vanity and egotism present within the military-industrial complex. For almost every object, from forks to atom bombs, we can identify more than one possible purpose for that item. How then can we narrow down marriage's purposes to a single root? It's impossible.
2. Purpose =/= Should. Let us say--for the sake of argument--that a gun's purpose is to murder people. Does that necessarily imply it should be used to murder people? No, of course not. It is neither desirable or right to murder people, and therefore it should not be done. Even though an object's purpose is X, than does not mean it should be used for X. In this way, Con's whole argument is a non-sequitur.
3. Purpose is not exclusive. Let's use the same example of the gun whose purpose is to murder people. Is that the only thing it can do? No--it can be used to hunt, to defend, to scare, and so on. Should it be used to do those things? Yes, in many cases. Therefore, even if an object's purpose is X, that does not mean it can only do X. It may also do Y. So, even if we accept that marriage's purpose is to promote stable procreation, that does not mean that it cannot also do other things, which might allow it to include gay marriage under it's umbrella.

CON's ARGUMENTS

I will italicize Con's statements as I conduct my line-by-line rebuttal.

-- The Exclusivity of Marriage --

"Marriage is not a 'natural right,' as many 'equality' advocates have often suggested; marriage is a privilege that enables people to have the government invest in their legal status."

Marriage is, however, a legally recognized right in the United States. We only have to look to the ICCPR to see this evidenced. In Article 23, the ICCPR guarantees the "right of men and women of marriageable age to marry." [1]

"Whether same-sex marriage should be legalized or not is not relevant to the principle of 'equality'; rather, it is a question of whom we ought to exclude from the exclusive legal doctrine of marriage."

Con says that equality is irrelevant, and posits that the appropriate question is one of exclusion. I would think this question could be better reframed to this: "Who should have equality when it comes to marriage?" Clearly, a chair does not, but people, as equally human entities, should.

I daresay that equality is not irrelevant either. Consider the following, real-life example. Two lesbians lived together for 15 years. There homophobic neighbor had trained his dog to bark whenever they passed his house to scare them. One day, the dog got loose an savaged one of the ladies in front of her partner. Her partner recieved no death benefits from the state and her wrongful death suit was dismissed for lack of standing. I think there is an obvious lack of justicein this situation--by depriving one group of people marriage, you do descriminate against them. This formed the basis of the DOMA ruling leveled by the Supreme Court. [2]

Moreover, Con has failed to explain why marriage should be exclusive. Gay people are unlikely to reproduce anyway, so there is no real harm in permitting them to marry. Heterosexuals can still marry and reproduce even in a world where gay marriage is legal--so why can't we have both? Con never provides justification for this.

-- Drawing the Line for Marriage --

"Marriage is unique in that it is a bodily union that promotes a stable institution of childbearing and rearing. A heterosexual marital contract, at its core, upholds a union that can internally reproduce and raise its own biological offspring. "

An here we come to the crux of Con's claims. But, why is biology necessarily the line we should be drawing. Consider that infertile heterosexual couples are still allowed to marry. If marriage were truly solely about reproduction, then would it not have evolved to exclude barren individuals from being able to marry? Clearly marriage has had other purposes through out history: binding families together, protecting property, etc. [3]More recently, marriage has become (and in some cases was always)an institution of love. [3, 4]

"A homosexual union cannot bear children internally, and when a child is raised, it is not the child of one or both of the parents in such a union--and this creates a demand for children whose biological parents do not want them"

This assertion is fallacious. Look at celebrities like Cat Cora who had children with a sperm donor. [5] Now she and her partner are raising a family where the kids are biologically related to at least one of the parent. So, in a sense, homosexual couples can reproduce and form stable family units internally/with minimal external assistance. Furthermore, I am interpreting the latter half of that sentence as imply that gay couples would cause an increase in people giving their children away to orphanages. This is also ridiculous.

There are 153 million orphans in the world--in the U.S. alone there are 115,000 available for adoption. [6] It is unlikely that every gay family would adopt, but they could put a serious dent in this number. I know I want kids and a husband sometime in the future.There are enough children right now that could use a loving family that they would likely sate the demand you mention. "Supply and demand" also doesn't really apply to birth and child rearing. In places like Japan, where demand is increase, supply is decreasing (the population is shrinking.)

-- The Slippery Slope --

"A standard needs to be set. Without a standard, we create an all-inclusive institution."

Sure--that standard is informed consent, as set down by international law. [1] A chair cannot consent anymore than a goat can or an 8 year old can. But two grown adults--they most definitely can consent to marriage. Insofar as we have a reasonable, clear-cut standard in the consent doctrine, there is no slippery slope.

So, if we return to the question I posed earlier (Who should have equality when it comes to marriage), the answer is consenting adults.

Thanks again. I look forward to Con's arguments!

SOURCES
InVinoVeritas

Con

The Purpose of Marriage

Marriage is a socially (and legally) constructed institution, so it must have some kind of meaningful purpose. Not only that, but it is also socially and fiscally incentivized by the state, under which the legal contract of marriage takes place. Why does the state incentivize marriage, but not "friendship" or just "dating," for example? In order to understand the purpose of marriage, we have to understand what makes it unique for more "mundane" relationships between people that have not been deemed worthy of exclusive legal status.

The Exclusivity of Marriage

1. I said that marriage is not a natural right. While no one has a natural right to be granted money for our inability to work due to disability (i.e., we do not have a natural capacity to engage in such an activity without infringing on others' natural capacities), some people are granted a right by the state to receive benefits for disability; surely, this does not mean that this "right" must be extended to the non-disabled. In the same way, marriage is an exclusive right for men and women, as I have argued.

2. Now, on to my opponent's misunderstanding about the notion of "equality." He states that a chair should not be granted equal status under marriage; however, I never contested this, and I have no idea why he would want to bring this up. The man who wants to marry the chair is who I am concerned about; he may seek equality under my opponent's absurd, borderless idea of marriage. The state must be selective about who receives marriage benefits; otherwise, marital status will become meaningless and the benefits granted with it may as well be granted to everybody, regardless of marital status.

I appreciate my opponent's story about the lesbians, but it has little to do with the matter at hand. Policies regarding death benefits and whatnot can be adjusted without involving changes in the definition of marriage. Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, I don't see how this is directly relevant to the matter at hand.

Redrawing the Line for Marriage

My opponent brings up the all-too-common infertility argument, which is still as ineffective as it has always been in the same-sex marriage debate.

Infertile couples are fertile in type; they are not automatically exempt due to basic biological incompatibility, like homosexual couples are. By mandating fertility tests for infertile couples, the state would counterbalancing any actual incentive that marriage carries by expecting couples to undergo long, expensive, and thorough examinations. There are many reasons that infertility occurs, and couples usually find out about it after baby-making doesn't go as smoothly as they had thought--and this takes weeks or even months after the point at which they start looking to conceive. State-prescribed fertility testing would simply be impractical (especially fiscally)--and arguably invasive on individual rights.

Homosexual couples are, by their very nature, unable to be internally self-sufficient when it comes to bearing and rearing their own children. They are always externally dependent for this process and therefore lack the foundational stability necessary to create a fundamentally cohesive unit--i.e., a family. Homosexual couples raise children that cannot be entirely their own and they depend on systemic inefficiency... surrogate mothers who could have had their own partners, for example. Homosexual couples lack the foundational essence of internal stability that forms the nature of a heterosexual union.

The Slippery Slope

My opponent has established his own standard, but he has decided to justify it in any reasonable way, instead choosing to appeal to "international law" (but at least he gets an extra source out of it!). So, bsh1 ought to do us a huge favor and explain why your standard is reasonable. For someone who is such a champion of "equality," he sure likes to exclude those who want to marry their horses and tables. But polygamy and homosexual marriage is fine. Why is this standard the right one to make?

---

Now, on to my opponent's original arguments:

Polling

This argument fails right off the bat. Take this analogy: Most countries in the world oppose the USA's expansive doctrine of freedom of speech. Does that necessarily mean it ought to be changed to fit the whim of the other countries? Individual rights/autonomy matter over majority rule; the right to marry is, in my mind, one of the consenting man or woman--and not one to be dominated by the tyranny of the majority.

Libertarian Paradigm

Marriage comes with benefits that are paid for by tax payers. If marriage is to have no significance, then its net worth would be harmful, since it takes money away from tax payers. Marriage, as I have said, must have a positive utilitarian value in order to be deemed positive... or even neutral, in our society.

Equality

I think this has been covered extensively above.

History

My stance in the debate is not that we ought to ban "same-sex partnerships" or families. And I have not argued that they cannot contribute to stability... Relative to certain circumstances (such as having no families, for example), same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability. The statements being made here by the opponent have not been contested, and if they are reiterated, they are to be deemed strawman arguments.

---

This argument was typed up very quickly, so I apologize for any typos or misspellings. I have... social stuff to do, and I didn't have time to carefully edit.

The resolution has been deemed null.

Thanks!



Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Pro

Thanks once again to InVinoVeritas. I will use this round to rebut Con's case and to defend my own.

OVERVIEW

All three of my points in my overview are dropped. I will briefly summarize and impact these arguments.

1. Purpose is Nebulous

1A. Purpose cannot always be determined

1B. Objects often have multiple purposes so it is a fruitless task to attempt to synthesize an object's/institution's purpose into one thing as Con attempts to do

2. Purpose =/= should. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean that is how it should be used.

3. Purpose is not exclusive. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean it cannot be used for other things (hunting, deterrence, self-defense, sport, etc.)

Impact: If you buy ANY SINGLE ONE of these points, you must also accept that Con's analysis is an enitrely invalid non-sequitur. Con is attempting to show that the purpose of marriage gives us insight into how it should be used--but that is a fallacious line of reasoning. Therefore, the impact is that these drops void Con's case.

CON's CASE

As before, I shall italicize Con's remarks.

-- Purpose of Marriage --

"[Marriage] must have some kind of meaningful purpose."

I have contested what the exact purpose of marriage is. But, even if we believe Con's biologically-based argument, we can refer back to my overview and see that purpose is largely irrelevant to this debate.

"Why does the state incentivize marriage, but not 'friendship' or just 'dating,' for example?"

There are three plausible explanations for this: (1) tradition, (2) marriage is a human right, (3) marriage is important for social stability. One key thing to note here is that Con recognizes that gay marriage also promotes stability.

-- Exclusivity of Marriage --

"I said that marriage is not a natural right."

Even so, then it is a natural right for niether straight nor gay couples. Since we cannot find this right in nature, we must look to the law. Under the legally-bind ICCPR, marriage is a legal right for all people. Therefore, it is a right, and the U.S. has a legal and ethical obligation to uphold it.

"He may seek equality under my opponent's absurd, borderless idea of marriage. The state must be selective about who receives marriage benefits; otherwise, marital status will become meaningless and the benefits granted with it may as well be granted to everybody, regardless of marital status."

My opponent is employing a slippery slope fallacy here. [1] He says that marriage benefits will devolve to everyone, yet provides no logical reason WHY this will happen. He is assuming that X will lead to Y, but X might lead to Z instead. In other words, Con is supposing, without justification, that no middle ground might be found. Con is simply making a bold assertion here in an attempt to garner impacts he cannot otherwise access.

In addendum, Con asserts that my idea of marriage is "bordless." Yet, in the last round, I clearly provided the border of "consent." I will justify this border further in this round--but it is simply wrong to say that my idea of marriage is without any limits.

"But [the story re: the lesbian couple] has little to do with the matter at hand. Policies regarding death benefits and whatnot can be adjusted without involving changes in the definition of marriage."

I disagree. The story is important in this round inasmuch as it emphasizes what I pointed out in Point 1 of my case's Equality Contention. Civil Unions and other partnerships between gay people are not substitutes for marriage. Marriage conveys certain rights that Civil Unions just don't.

Moreover, if you are willing to give that couple leeway regarding death benefits, would you give them leeway regarding adoption benefits, hospital visitation benefits, etc. At what point do you stop giving them benefits and say "the rest of the benefits are only for married couples?"

-- Redrawing the Line --

"By mandating fertility tests for infertile couples, the state would counterbalancing any actual incentive that marriage carries by expecting couples to undergo long, expensive, and thorough examinations."

So what about a person who knows that they are infertile before they get married? Should they be obliged to reveal that information to the state? Simple declaring your known infertility does not seem like that much of an imposition. Why not do that? Why not also require all marriages that do not produce children to be officially dissolved--so that people are free ot form more fertile couplings?

Con also spends much of his time addressing the infertility argument. In so doing, he DROPS the following:

1. Gay couples would be a boon to the adoption market. Literally thousands of kids are in need of loving families, and allowing gay marriages would increase the number of available families to adopt.

2. Marriage has other purposes besides procreation. As I said before, "marriage has become...an institution of love." Not all couples married because they wanted to procreate; they married because it was a way to express the affection and love.

"[Homosexuals] are always externally dependent for this process and therefore lack the foundational stability necessary to create a fundamentally cohesive unit--i.e., a family. Homosexual couples raise children that cannot be entirely their own and they depend on systemic inefficiency... surrogate mothers who could have had their own partners, for example."

Being biologically related to both parents is not necessary for creating a stable family unit. For instance, a divorced lady who remarries might live in a household where children are related to only 1 adult. That doesn't mean that this couple cannot raise a healthy family.

Look also at couples who adopt--in those case the child is related to neither parent. Yet, many adopted children grow up in a stable and loving environment. It is therefore incorrect to say that because gay people cannot produce children related to both parents that they cannot create a "fundamentall cohesive unit."

As for "systemic inefficiency," many surrogate mothers may not want children of their own or have decided to raise no more children. Moreover, if surrogacy is systematically inefficient, so too are in vitro and sperm/egg donations. By your own logic, we would have to deny straight couples access to these services because they are "inefficient."

You're saying that the purpose of marriage is to procreate safely. In a sense, you want to maximize the number of children who can be cared for by responsible parents. Therefore, if a surrogate can give a gay couple several children after having several children of her own, then we have maximized the number of children in good families. Thus, society has benefited.

-- Slippery Slope --

"My opponent has established his own standard, but he has decided to justify it in any reasonable way, instead choosing to appeal to 'international law' (but at least he gets an extra source out of it!). So, bsh1 ought to do us a huge favor and explain why your standard is reasonable."

I find it rather offensive that Con would claim I said this solely because I wanted a source. In fact, I had already used this source earlier, so I did not get an extra source out of it.

I would be happy to explain my rationale here for Con:

1. International Law: this is, in fact, legally-binding. Con says it is unreasonable to use this source, but yet Con fails to explain WHY it is unreasonable. I think that legislation that carries legal weight here in the U.S. is pertenant to the resolution, insofar as we should not violate the law.

2. Marriage is, legally, a contract. [2] Non-consenting parties cannot enter freely into a contract, and so should no be able to marry.

3. Consent is important to make sure other rights--like the right against enslavement--are not violated. Insofar as someone is forced into a marriage, a slew of natural and legal rights have been breached. Consent acts as a check against this by ensuring all parties willingly enter the contract.

"For someone who is such a champion of 'equality,' [bsh1] sure likes to exclude those who want to marry their horses and tables."

I have provided reasoning in support of my stance. Just like the State can descriminate against blind people by denying them driver's licenses, I can descriminate against goats by denying the marriage licenses. Equality is for equals--when their is a relevant distinction, it should be called to light. Unfortunately, procreation is not such a distinction, as I have argued.

PRO's CASE

-- Polling --

"Most countries in the world oppose the USA's expansive doctrine of freedom of speech."

My studies do not refer to "most countries;" they are U.S.-specific. Insofar as the government represents the will of the people, it should legalize gay marriage. Con says marriage is a "right," but legalizing gay marriage does not prevent heterosexuals from marrying. Therefore, no one loses rights, people only gain rights.

Moreover, I've already discussed at lenght that the right to marry is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

-- Libertarianism --

This is a cost-benefit calculus. No one loses rights, but people gain them. Why not permit gay marriage then? Con misses the point here.

-- Equality --

Con says this has been "covered." In fact, they've not been.

1. Civil Unions are a poor substitute for marriage. Con DROPS that this assertion is true--it is conceded. Con also DROPS my Supreme Court cases backing this up. Extend these points.

2. Con never refutes, thus DROPPING, the fact that the ICCPR grants all people a right to marry.

-- History --

Con never contests that "marriage" was not, historically, solely the purview of heterosexual couples. It is DROPPED.

Also, Con makes the following BIG concession: "same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability." This point will become important in the final round impact analysis.

SOURCES



Thanks! VOTE PRO!
InVinoVeritas

Con

InVinoVeritas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
bsh1

Pro

Unfortunately, InVinoVeritas has forfieted, which is a violation of the rules as established in Round One.

THIS ROUND...

Since Con has not provided any arguments to rebut, I will simply do a final, brief analysis of the round. Firstly, extend all of my last round arguments. They were all DROPPED.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

The resolution asks a question of what the U.S. should do. Should has been defined as indicating "desirability or rightness;" therefore, I shall show in this round that legalizing gay marriage should happen within the U.S. I will do this by reviewing and impacting my arguments back to the "should" question.

1. Marriage's purpose is not necessarily biological; it is instead to rexpress love and commitment between to people. This was argued in Rounds 3 and 4. It was dropped in both rounds.

2. Marriage is a legal right granted to all humans, even gay couples. This is evidenced by the ICCPR evidence dropped by Con.

3. It is wrong to descriminate between consenting individuals. It is illegal to descriminate between a consenting homosexual couple and a consenting heterosexual couple acording to the DOMA Supreme Court ruling and Hollingsworth v. Perry. This was all dropped. Also dropped were the facts that Civil Unions are more separate than they are equal; i.e. Civiual Unions do not give gay people equal rights.

4. Gay couples would help reduce the large number of orphans in need of adoption. This argument was raised in rounds 3 and 4, and Con dropped it both times.

5. Being biologically related to both parents is not needed to form a stable family unit. This was dropped last round.

6. Consent is a reasonable place to draw the line for mariage. It also prevents the sillpery slope Con was attempting to construct. This was dropped last round by Con.

7. Gay marriage is popular here in the U.S. This was never contested by Con.

8. Granting homosexuals the right to marry does not deprive straight people of their right to marry. Therefore, no one loses rights, but people gain rights. This was dropped by Con when he misunderstood my Libertarian argument.

9. Marriage, historically, was never solely restricted for heterosexual couples. Con concede this.

10. Con stated: "same-sex households are very beneficial and pro-stability." Therefore, if you buy none of the previous 9 points, and if you accept Con's framework (that the government must have a reason to incentivize marriage), then you can still vote Pro based off of this concession. Inasmuch as gay marriage has any tangible benefit to society (Con has never said the it harms society, but he has said it helps society), the government does have a reason to incentivize gay marriage: it helps stability.

Consequently, because gay marriage is right granted to all people--with a purpose and goal more than simply procreation--and because the government has no reason not to allow it (it's popular and harms no one), gay marriage should be permitted in the U.S. The resolution is affirmed.

OTHER REASONS TO VOTE PRO

My three-pronged Overview gay three dropped reasons why Con's case was based on a non-sequitur. It was constructed on a logical fallacy, and therefore should be summarily rejected. Thus, only Pro has a viable case, meriting a Pro vote. I have also presented far more sources in this round than Con, and have included sources of reputable quality (e.g. the UN, Reuters, Washington Post, Pew Research Institute, etc.) Thus, I would request the points for sources.

ROUND 5 NOTE

Con, as per Round One Rules, is prohibted from making new arguments or responses in this last speech. This means he may not craft new rebuttals to things I said last round, nor may he try to expand on his core case by making new arguments. He may only summarize, impact, and extend things he has already said.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I would like to thank InVinoVeritas for accepting this debate, and for engaging in this disucussion with me. I feel like I have gotten the frustration about this topic out of my system, and I am glad I had an opportunity to do so. Thank you.

Judges, thank you for reading this debate! I know you may have your own opinions on this controversial topic. However, for fairness's sake, I ask that you set those feelings aside as you judge. Please vote on the technical facets and arguments presented in this debate. Please only consider things that have been mentioned in this debate as you fill out you ballots. Thank you very much--I ask you for your vote.

A sincere thank you to everyone! Please, VOTE PRO!
InVinoVeritas

Con

I violated the rules. Therefore, I looz. :(

Thanks to bsh1 for discussing the issues with me.
Debate Round No. 5
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Veritas,

Okay. Anyway, Happy New Years. I hope your exams went well. Thanks for a good debate!
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Skipping that round and then having the last word seemed unfair, so I just called it quits.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Veritas,

You didn't auto-lose; you still could've made some args.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Yeah, no worries.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Veritas:

Oh, sorry! I didn't know--you should've asked me to delay.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Lol, I had a final paper to do. Your instant response screwed me over. :P Oh, well.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
All right. No worries.
Posted by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
@Veritas,

I delay as long as I can but I will have to post tonight b/c I won't have internet access tomorrow.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
bsh1,

If you could delay posting your argument until the last second, that would be great... I have finals going on at this time.

Thanks!
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Arguments founded on religion tend to just be appeals to authority. "X is valid....... BECAUSE JESUS."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 2 years ago
KingDebater
bsh1InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits and therefore loses. Pro also had more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
bsh1InVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Loss by forfeit.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
bsh1InVinoVeritasTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: WOW I was so disappointed once I got to the round where Con forfeited.