The Instigator
TheHitchslap
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Losing
34 Points

Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 20 votes the winner is...
TheHitchslap
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,599 times Debate No: 34953
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (20)

 

TheHitchslap

Pro

Title says it all, the question here is on Gay Marriage and should it be legalized or not!


Standard DDO Conduct Rules Apply

Uhrah!
xXCryptoXx

Con

I assume first round is for acceptance. ^^
Debate Round No. 1
TheHitchslap

Pro

Good luck Crypto!

Making the Case:

C1: Homosexuality in History

This is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the ancient Greeks, Romans, and the Apes from which we evolved from all engaged in homosexual acts. What a lot of people do not realize is that the origins of marriage for people who were homosexual. Ancient Rome, ancient China, and ancient Greece all had records of homosexual marriages. They were considered part of a representation to the commitment to one another via society. It isn't until Constantine converts to Christianity that suddenly religion plays a role in marriage. Therefore, I assert to my opponent, and to the audience today, that the following can be concluded from this fact:
1) If religion is forced legally to marry homosexuals, it is not an infringement of religious liberties, it's society reclaiming an ancient practice it once possessed until religion hi-jacked it.
2) This is not a new phenomenon, it is an old practice that has been around for centuries, thus when the impacts of homosexuality are considered, the "inconclusive" argument, most often presented by the anti-LGBT side, for homosexuals being able to raise children is null-and-void.
3) This does not weaken the family unit, but strengthens it as noted by the Romans and Greeks for justifying gay marriage. A man in ancient Greece was known to marry boys to be responsible for their care and transition into adulthood.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

C2: Legality

In the United States, as was noted by legal expert and Republican lawyer Theodore Olson who fought against Proposition 8 noted several interesting facts about gay marriage in the US: 1) this is not a new right, the Supreme court has ruled several times on marriage being a fundamental right to all and 2) that there is simply no evidence that any harm to the institution of marriage would occur if Gay marriage was legalized in the US.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com...

Furthermore, the US is one of the few developed countries who has not unilaterally established the legality of gay marriage. Canada, Sweden, Spain, Brazil, France, etc, all have legalized gay marriage. To which no study has ever found that the nucleus of the family was effected in a harmful way as a result of gay marriage being enabled. On the contrary, they were strengthened and even saved those countries money.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://www.academia.edu...

C3: So What? ... At this rate why don't you just marry a DOG?!

What we will be discussing isn't the justifications for a man to marry an animal, or some inanimate object, or anything else. We are simply discussing if homosexuals have the same right as a heterosexual to marry the person they love. That is it. To claim we're on the path of beastiality is a slippery slope fallacy. And while most people make the false claim that they cannot marry another man themselves, that argument lacks the emotional fact of the individual, and who they associate with as their partner. A common argument I hear is that somehow we're all equal because no person can marry another of the same sex. However, this fails to take into account the emotions homosexuals feel towards other homosexuals, which are similar if not the same as heterosexuals towards their partners.

C4: Marriage for Procreation

The final point to my case I would like to raise, is the common misconception that marriage was originally designed for procreation and that is it. It was not. It was to ensure a man would care for his wife, or to the group of individuals they were married too as well as freedom of association. So if polygamy occurred, or a group marriage occurred, everyone in the tribe was responsible for the well-being of one another. This didn't always mean procreation was necessary. In fact Roman Emperor Nero was said to have married two other men as well, and he took them in under his care as a result.

Now, even if it were true that marriage was intended for procreation, then I ask the following though experiment to expose the inconsistency of denying same-sex marriage:

A woman had cancer, and loses her fallopian tubes. In essence she can no longer reproduce. However, luckily she survives the cancer, falls in love, and gets married.

Does the fact that this woman cannot give birth make her marriage somehow suddenly illegitimate? I think we all agree it does not. So I ask my opponent what is the difference between two men who can also not reproduce? Or two women? Thus, if my opponent does try to take this route, I contest it's consistency.

Source: http://www.britannica.com...


Conclusion:
------------

I therefore conclude to my opponent, that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the US. In summary, this is an ancient social practice, not a religious one, it commits no harm against the heterosexual population, it enables the liberty of the homosexual, and it's reclaiming what religion hi-jacked in earlier times from the collective societies of their times.

Other countries have legalized it, and nothing has happened that has outright caused them to get rid of it due to some unintended consequences that occurred, and furthermore, the legality and previous rulings of the supreme court compel the supreme court to find that laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. Marriage is a fundamental right to all, and what is in question here isn't if a new right is being created, but if an old right can be taken away.

It is of my opinion, that it cannot. The constitution and US justice system does not allow it.

Thank you!

Hitchslapped!
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your response.


My opponent seems to misunderstand the reasons that marriage is a recognized as a union between man and woman.


Obviously the government recognizes marriage for a reason. This is because marriage can benefit society. The government dispenses marital benefits to urge couples to get married in order to continue to benefit society.


Only a society that produces children and raises them properly survives. This is a given fact.


The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because they provide both of these things to the society. In return, the government gives them benefits not only as a “thank you” for what the couple is doing but to also urge other heterosexual couples to get married.


To promote any marital relationship that does not have a special link to children is not in the government’s best interest because it blurs the reason why the government recognizes marriage in the first place.


For example, “According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39% to 50% and Sweden's rose from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and approximately 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents.”(1)


This is not in the government’s interest because they want to promote a good family unit, not one as broken as my example. It is simply not in the interest of the society.


If my opponent has any contentions with what I have stated I will respond accordingly. For now I believe this will do.


We can now see that religion plays absolutely no role in marriage and that the government simply has a preference to define marriage in a way that best benefits society.


Now that I have explained this we can see that my opponent’s entire point on homosexuality throughout history is quite irrelevant to this debate.


Now my opponent mentions the legality of gay marriage. Whether or not gay marriage can be legal has no relevance to whether gay marriage should be legal. In addition, the question is really whether the Supreme Court was talking about gay marriage at all.


"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place."


You see, in order to say marriage is a right we must first look at why the government recognizes marriage in the first place. For homosexuals to have a right to marriage, the government must first define what marriage is and why they recognize it. You will find through my arguments that marriage is a right to heterosexuals because the government recognizes marriage for the relationship heterosexuals pursue.


My opponent assumes I will be debating the slippery slope arguments that gay marriage will lead to the legalization of other types of relationships such as bestiality and pedophilia. I will not be going down that route for my arguments so there will be no need to respond.


My opponent talks about how marriage isn’t strictly about procreation. I some-what agree.


You see the government recognizes heterosexual unions for the relationships they pursue, not necessarily the outcome. Heterosexual relationships have a natural tendency to bring children into the world to be raised by a father and a mother. However, this is not absolutely crucial. If the government strictly recognized marriage for children then they would have to justly abolish every relationship that does not produce a child.


Why the government recognizes the marriage of infertile couples: “They are still of a procreative type even if not all members of that kind can act on its characteristic effects. Their union is still ordered toward procreation as an end in the same way that a blind eye remains an eye in virtue of the kind of thing it is. The state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end.”


Can’t Homosexuals Benefit Society Too?


A common argument is that homosexuals can benefit society through adoption or artificial insemination. The government is only interested in a relationship that has a natural tendency to produce children through the relationship the couple pursue. A homosexuals couple does not have this kind of link to children so the government still has no interest in recognizing a homosexual union.


In addition, although there is much controversy over it, studies have shown that homosexuals are naturally more prone to violence, drug abuse, and suicide. (2) The kind of environment they put children is not deemed as suitable. In response to studies that show no difference between heterosexual parenting and homosexuals parenting: studies that have a large amount of participants that were selected randomly tended to conclude that heterosexual parenting was better, whereas studies that showed there was no difference tended to have a small amount of non-random participants. (3)



Conclusion


I have shown why many of my opponent’s arguments are irrelevant or illegitimate and I have provided adequate responses to everything.


“Hitchslapped!”


I think not. ^^


I look forward to my opponent’s response.


Sources


(1) http://gaymarriage.procon.org...


(2)http://catholiceducation.org...


(3) http://www.adfmedia.org...


Debate Round No. 2
TheHitchslap

Pro

Thank you Crypto for your rebuttals!

Re 1: Purpose of Marriage
My opponents argument in summary is marriage is important, that it is between a man and woman because marriage is beneficial to society, and only a society that produces kids (properly) survives.

Rebuttals: If marriage actually is beneficial for society, then why not allow gay to get married? Homosexuality is no longer criminalized, and thus it would benefit them along with us to enable them the liberty to marry freely as well. Let's not forget, that with what comes with marriage as a benefit to the state is beneficial to the individual as well! But as much as I agree with my opponent that marriage can be beneficial, I ask my opponent the following hypothetical:

A woman from Cuba meets a man from America, they get married, the woman gets her green card, and leaves her husband. The husband is devastated.

This puts my opponent in a weird place; first, it demonstrates that marriage isn't always beneficial to the state. Secondly, it shows the intent of the marriage to not be one for procreation, or of any benefit to anyone other than the woman in question. As for the rest of my opponents argument, to which he asserts that without kids, marriage is not in the best interest of the state, does not make any sense, for two reasons:
1) Marriage predates written history, and as such almost every culture has a differing theory for the intent, rites, obligations, and reasons for marriage.
2) Even if marriage was regulated only on the basis of benefits to the state then it makes more sense to legalize gay marriage, not criminalize it, because it still doesn't harm heterosexuals, and brings pleasure to the homosexuals.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Finally, the source my opponent uses is the following written by Stanley Kurtz: http://www.weeklystandard.com... ... not peer-reviewed, and commits a causation fallacy. Correlation is not causation, and the claim that homosexual marriage causes out of wed-lock births, and divorce rates to increase fails to account for one simple fact: gays/lesbians cannot reproduce. They have nothing to do with any of that crap! How can they give birth to out of wed-lock children? That's heterosexuals destroying the value of marriage, not homosexuals.

Re2: History's Relevance
My opponent claims he disproved the relevance of marriages history due to the above argument

Rebuttal: The history of gay marriage is not irrelevant, as you simply claimed that the basis of marriage was on a man and a woman due to the intention of giving birth. But historically this isn't true, and in fact the quasi-cultures which do have marriage and the differing theories as to the intention of marriage only demonstrate one common characteristic: it was a bond between two people. Not a man or woman (though it could be) but it could be between several people, or two men, or two women, etc... Again, gay marriage is nothing new it's been around since the ancient Greeks.

Re3: Legality
My opponent claims I argued gay marriage can be legal, when it should be "ought" to be legal and is the supreme court ruling on gay marriage at all?

Rebut: First, I never claimed that gay marriage was previously legal in the US, only that the US Supreme Court has ruled 11 times that marriage is a right to ALL people as Ted Olson noted. Because the US -- to the best of my knowledge -- has never had gay marriage universally legalized. My opponent should know I was arguing to affirm the resolution that gay marriage ought to be legalized due to the precedence already set fourth by the Supreme Court in previous rulings that interracial marriages were legitimate on the basis of it being a fundamental right to all. Not that it actually is legal, which would be silly.

As for the define marriage argument, as I already noted, that depends on the culture and history of where-ever you are at that given time. However, the government has ruled that it is a right to all, and that indirectly resulted in government upholding this right by (at that time) striking down all laws stopping interracial marriage. It set it's own scope on the issue, I'm simply reminding my opponent that he's arguing that the government ought to do something it already has done.

Re4: Procreation
My opponent claims infertile couples are still treated the same because it is ordered to be procreative due to it's kind

Rebut: That simply is not true, they're not a procreative type because they're an infertile couple. Furthermore, if the kind of marriage in question determines it's legitimacy or not, then my opponent inadvertently argues in favor for gay marriage. Consider the following: gays can adopt today if they so desired and laws allow them to do so. They may also have a baby now as well by getting a surrogate mother. Thus, homosexuals can --in a way-- be procreative too, but even if this was NOT true, the kind of thing an infertile couple is, is the inability to give birth, the same characteristic the LGBT community shares (with exception to the surrogates), if by justification the kind of thing determines legitimacy, then because both have a procreative body type, and just cannot capitalize on it's effects due to sexual orientation, my opponent actually justified gay marriage not tried to disprove it. The hypothetical provided assumed it was known before marriage there was no possible way of giving birth, and if that effect is lacking, then there is no difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one.

Re5: Studies
My opponent claims gays are more prone to violence, and that they're worse for caring for children

Rebut: My opponent cited Rekers, who treated a child at the age of 4 years old exhibiting "deviant sexual behaviors" and tried to "cure" him. The child's name was Kirk Murphy. Kirk eventually committed suicide as a direct result of the repression Rekers imposed upon him, and his struggle with "homosexuality". Even worse, Rekers himself has been accused of sexual misconduct, by hiring a male prostitute, and resigned amid sex allegations against him. Case-and-point, this study lacks all legitimacy, and Rekers has long since resigned from being a psychologist. Not the best source in the world.

The second study was from the case Perry V Schwarzenegger on the famous proposition 8. The judge (Walker) in his findings of truth found the following: http://adellefrank.com...

I shall summarize in short: the judge found that the studies along with the witnesses my opponent brought up were questionable at best and in fact, the studies he produces to justify his claims were in Walker's opinion "junk science" That no evidence for gays being more violent exists, that they're just as capable of raising children and preventing them the right to marry is harmful, not the other way around. https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov...


"Their simply wasn't any evidence, any of those empirical studies. Those were MADE UP! It was junk science! And it's easy to say that on TV but the witness stand is a lonely place to lie, and when you come to court you can't do that, and that's what we proved; we put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost!" - David Boies (Prop 8 Lawyer)

Conclusion:
--------------

My opponent doesn't really contest the legitimacy of gay marriage per se, but more the role and intention of the state on gay marriage. That's fine and dandy, and I do admire his writing style, however, the resolution is upheld, and thus gay marriage ought to be legalized.

Thank you!

Hitchslapped!
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your response.



Marriage can benefit society but only when it is defined in a certain way.


Only societies that produce children and raise them properly survive.


Defining marriage between man and woman fits this criterion.


To allow any kind of relationship that does not fit this criterion is not in the best interest of the society because confuses the government’s role in marriage to be strictly about the relationship of two people.


My opponent gives me a rare case of how the current marital system can be abused.


This does not represent why the government recognizes marriage though. It only points out a flaw in the system. The government is looking for the relationship heterosexual pursue, because those relationships naturally have a special link to children.


Yes my opponent is correct that different societies have defined marriage in different ways. However, this is irrelevant to the debate because my job is to defend that marriage between man and woman best benefits the society.


My opponent talks about how allowing same-sex marriage has no affect on our of wed-lock births because gay couples cannot produce children.


Allowing same-sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage because it turns marriage purely about the emotional commitment between two adults, and turns marriage into something more about the adult’s desire, and less about the children’s needs and the needs of the society.


The government has no interest in legalizing gay marriage because it simply harms the society.


As you can see, marriage in both Norway and Scandinavia began to mean so little that out-of-wed-lock Birth rates soared and few couples were getting married.


It is simply not in the best interest of the society to take a risk like this. The society has an interest in promoting family units that naturally bear children to be raised and loved by their mother and father. No other type of relationship can have this result.


History has no relevance to this debate because the government’s role in marriage has drastically changed and so has the institution of marriage since then. You’re logic is “Oh the ancient Greeks and Romans did it so we should too.” If what those two empires did does not best benefit the society in modern times then we have no interest in doing what they did.


Legality


"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, non-marital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition.So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place."


This was a direct response to what Ted Olson said and the logic in it is clear and easy to understand. If marriage in a society is specifically defined in a certain way (In this case for the relationship heterosexuals pursue) then when the Supreme Court speaks of marriage is is pre-defined as what the government has already defined in.


In addition, marriage is a privilege, not a right. If it was a right then full scale legalization of marriage to anyone and everyone would be going on and it would be unconstitutional to not allow it. However, because the government has already defined marriage as between a man and a woman it is only logical to see that that is the marriage they are talking about.


Interracial marriage was already constitutional because they fit the criteria of pursuing a heterosexual relationship.


Interracial marriage cannot be compared to gay marriage because gay marriage directly affects the criteria of needing to have a special link to children in the relationship a couple pursues.


Infertile Couples


They are procreative in type because they have a heterosexual relationship.


“The state still takes an interest in infertile/childless marriages because it wants to promote a view of marriage as it really is, not just as a means to an end.”


The government has an interest in promoting a heterosexual relationship because of its special link to children, not by means of the end. Infertile couples promote this stance because it shows that the government is purely interested in the relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not necessarily the children themselves. So even though infertile couples cannot procreate, they still promote the government’s interests in marriage. In a way, infertile couples play a different role in marriage than heterosexual couples that can produce. However, the role they play benefits the government’s stance so they take interest in this type of relationship.


By no means am I indirectly supporting gay marriage because a homosexual relationship does not promote the government’s stance towards marriage nor does the relationship they pursue have a special link to children.


Studies


My opponent completely dropped my entire argument on the government’s interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. You see, this argument is far more important than any study showing that homosexuals cannot raise children properly. This is because even if homosexuals can raise children properly that still doesn’t justify allowing them to marry because the government only has an interest in a relationship that has a direct link to children naturally through the relationship they pursue. Homosexuals do not have this special link to children because they cannot procreate with each other.



Now we can go back and forth arguing of studies and whether or not they are wrong or biased all day, but my above argument completely refutes any reason to even have to argue this.


Considering there is so much controversy of the matter and it would take thousands of characters to argue this I will drop it all together because there is simply no need to argue over it.


Conclusion


The government recognizes marriage for a reason. He must first look at the reason before we can go saying that this and that should be legalized. Gay marriage should not be legalized because it is simply not in the society’s best interest.


This resolution is negated.


“Hitchslapped!”


Do you do this in all of your debates? o.o’


I await my opponent’s response.


Debate Round No. 3
TheHitchslap

Pro

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me explain why I have won:

My opponent commits an appeal to consequences; that somehow gay marriage is undesirable on the basis of reproduction, and then hints at the notion that it's bad because societies that cannot reproduce cannot survive. But then proceeds to use kettle logic by citing a study that somehow gay marriage causes out-of-wedlock birth rates to increase. As I previously noted with the study, it was 1) not peer-reviewed and 2) correlation is not causation, thus the study lacks legitimacy. Even as my opponent noted gays cannot reproduce, and even admits in the second round that reproduction is not enough to meet his BOP against gay marriage (he “somewhat agreed marriage isn't just about procreation”, that's a concession)

My opponent then proceeds to claim that to have governments change the role of marriage is not in the best interest of society, but he dropped my two arguments: 1) marriage may have had differing reasons or justifications dependant on the culture in question, however, one common characteristic is it is about the two people not reproduction (see Emperor Nero of Rome in Round 2 argument) and 2) that if governments role in society is for the best interest of it's people, homosexual marriage is not harmful to heterosexual marriages, however as noted previously it is harmful (as found in P. V Hollingsworth) to prevent gays from marriage, thus it actually IS in the best interest of the state, to maximize morale. There was absolutely no rebuttal from my opponent about this! Other than he thought my historical purpose of gay marriage was irrelevant (but I showed it actually was relevant).

My opponent seems to have misunderstood why I put that hypothetical in position there, perhaps I should explain better. He failed to recognize, that even though this marriage by his own definition was legitimate due to it's birthing of offspring, he outright admits it was abuse of the system. This is a huge issue for him to try and counter, because he contradicts himself that governments only acknowledge marriage for birthing (which it can also be used for individual rights, because the wife can leave at any given point and time) and other examples of individual benefits exist. If gay marriage is legalized, it's not just recognizing their marriage, it's giving then liberty over their lively-hood to make decisions about their S/O's in critical situations as noted in the hypothetical. My opponent just took down his own argument here, because if governments only duty was to get kids out of you, my opponent wouldn't have claimed this was an abuse of the system. It was always more about the two people getting married than it was about kids. The divorce would in essence be irrelevant.

My opponent claims that marriage is best between a man and a woman, and that's all he has to do to meet his BOP. But this simply isn't true, because I never attacked the institution of heterosexual marriage at all, all I'm arguing for is that homosexual marriage ought to be allowed as well, and he has to prevent it.

Again kettle logic, if my opponent is correct and we assume marriage is about procreation, then logically, it would make sense that the focus of marriage be on their desires, because ultimately it's the desire of having a baby that leads to the act of procreation, if it is not and it's about the love of one another, then this is an argument for gay marriage not against it, because love between two men is just as legitimate as a man and a woman as noted in 11 supreme court cases (fundamental right to all argument by Ted Olson) and historically it's been about the commitment to a person or a group, not the commitment to a child (see group marriages and Emperor Nero)

Bare assertion fallacy; the studies were illegitimate and the court case he cites them from the Judge noted they were “junk science” and in fact not allowing homosexuals to marry is more harmful.

Marriage does not go down the drain simply because homosexuals got married. They cannot have kids. Anything could have caused those birth-rates to increase; a government bursary for instance, or a rise in women's rights, but one thing is certain my opponent s argument rests on the notion that gays cannot have children and thus should not be allowed to get married. Then proceeds to say by using this study, that they cause out of wed-lock birth-rates without talking about it's significance, or for that matter why the study wasn't peer-reviewed; it was junk science, correlation is not causation and gays cannot have kids. That was heterosexuals doing that, not homosexuals.

http://www.bu.edu...

Finally on the historical notions of marriage, there is a very strong basis of Western Civilization and it's connections to Rome and Greece, in fact their influence can be seen in thought, art, foods, and what our societies have become today because of their lasting influence. They are significant and my opponent makes an appeal to novelty to try and justify his position; simply put if marriage is continuously changing, then it can withstand to change something that already has been tried and showed no damage. There was nothing wrong with homosexuals marrying in Ancient Greece and same as Rome, it made them a tighter-knit community with a commitment to one another. That was it. Also, this has been done in Canada, Sweden, Spain, etc... And nothing wrong has happened to those countries as previously noted, and my opponent dropped this argument.

Finally this is silly, I never dropped his argument, I actually did respond to it, I stated very clearly, that Judge Walker found that they can raise kids just fine, that harm comes from not allowing them to marry, and that even if it was about raising kids, you conceded it wasn't just about kids in earlier rounds, and furthermore, gays can raise kids just as well as anyone else. Finally, I also noted, that my infertile hypothetical and gay couple hypothetical have a distinct characteristic, the inability to give birth. Heterosexual couples in essence represent more for the gay side then, as gays can at least get surrogate mothers to birth for them, and in a strange way have that ability to birth, but even if this was not true, that characteristic is still there with one another, and is clearly lacking for an infertile heterosexual versus just a heterosexual marriage. My opponent never made a compelling argument here, and actually just re-asserts his position while never countering my argument. He dropped my argument here. And what marriage really is historically is a commitment to one another as I have previously noted ergo it is logically sound for gays to marry legally, for morale, and historically. Especially the role that marriage plays and has played.

Riddled with fallacies of definition, bare assertions, and cherry-picking, I have shown my case as to why gay marriage ought to be legalized. My opponent drops several arguments, he never questions the legality of gay marriage, or the fact that the supreme court ruled 11 times it's a fundamental right to all! He drops my argument of it's historical importance, and uses kettle logic only when it suits him, but ideologically he rests on shaky grounds, and relies on junk science to score partisan points rather than using objectivity and solid studies to make a case.

My opponent just re-asserts his case over and over again, he never makes a compelling point. He never went against marriage as a fundamental right to all. He claims it's not a right, but clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Finally he uses kettle logic, he has numerous contradictions, and unlogically sound conclusions.

I thank my opponent for this debate. Best of luck in future endeavors.

Hitchslapped!

Vote for gay marriage
vote to kill prop 8! :D YAY!
Vote for me! (Pro baby!)


xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for your response.


“Riddled with fallacies of definition, bare assertions, and cherry-picking, I have shown my case as to why gay marriage ought to be legalized. My opponent drops several arguments, he never questions the legality of gay marriage, or the fact that the supreme court ruled 11 times it's a fundamental right to all! He drops my argument of it's historical importance, and uses kettle logic only when it suits him, but ideologically he rests on shaky grounds, and relies on junk science to score partisan points rather than using objectivity and solid studies to make a case.”

“He never went against marriage as a fundamental right to all. He claims it's not a right, but clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with him. Finally he uses kettle logic, he has numerous contradictions, and unlogically sound conclusions.”

Anyone who even read my arguments will know that numerous things my opponent said are untrue and seem like a cheap shot at trying to win.

Things I do not explain now I will explain in my arguments later.

All arguments I dropped were not dropped at all. If you look back you will see that I either already gave an argument that refuted that point or that the entire point was irrelevant to the debate according to the arguments presented.

My entire argument stands on the fact that gay marriage should not be legalized because it is not part of a definition of marriage that has the society’s best interest in mind.

I have responded numerous times why the Supreme Court isn’t talking about gay marriage at all and my opponent drops that argument in his final round.

I have shown history has no relevance to this debate because it doesn’t matter what people did in the past; it matters that marriage is defined in the interest of the society now.

My entire argument is a loop where I must keep on repeating myself because every part of my argument supports another part of it. By no means am I dropping your arguments by having to repeat myself.

None of my arguments contradict each other; it is simply a misunderstanding by my opponent.

My arguments are all completely sound because each one supports the other; anyways, why would the government recognize marriage in the first place if it wasn’t for the benefits that marriage can bring?

There is no need for the government to recognize gay marriage at all regardless of whether it will have consequences or not because the government has no interest in recognizing a relationship that is purely based of emotion.

My opponent makes a claim that I made a concession to my opponent because I said that marriage isn’t strictly about procreation.

No. I’m not arguing that marriage is strictly about procreation. I am arguing that the government only has an interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. By no means is this a concession at all.

My opponent brings up history again; I have already explained that history has no relevance to this debate because we are arguing about how marriage should be defined now. The past has no bearing on our arguments.

As explained earlier, allowing gay marriage changes marriage from being something that is about the interests of children and the interests of the society, and into something purely based off emotion. The government has no interest in the private relationships of people; the government only has interest in the benefits marriage can bring.

My opponent brings up the hypothetical question:

A woman from Cuba meets a man from America, they get married, the woman gets her green card, and leaves her husband. The husband is devastated.

An abuse of the system does not equal the government changing its position on marriage.

It’s just what it is, an abuse of the system. The government still strictly has an interest in the relationship heterosexuals pursue. In fact, the question really has nothing to do with the government’s interest in marriage. It just has to do with an abuse in the system of the government allowing a couple to pull their partner into the country.

“If gay marriage is legalized, it's not just recognizing their marriage, it's giving then liberty over their lively-hood to make decisions about their S/O's in critical situations as noted in the hypothetical.”

Perhaps this liberty should be given regardless of marriage. However, just because married couples have certain benefits gay couples cannot have doesn’t mean we can justify gay marriage. Remember that the government dispenses benefits to promote heterosexuals to marry and to reward couples for doing society a “favor”.

My opponent talks about how I have only been defending heterosexual marriage and that I have given no reason to not allow gay marriage.

  1. The government has no interest in private relationships.
  2. Allowing gay marriage turns marriage into something about private relationships.
  3. The government now has no reason to recognize marriage at all if it is to strictly promote private relationships.

Allowing gay marriage changes marriage from being something that is about the interests of children and the interests of the society, and into something purely based off a private relationship.

My opponent seems to be trying to twist my words when it comes to the government’s role in recognizing marriage. It’s very simple, the government is interested in any relationship that has a special link to children and promotes a family unit.

As for the study on out-of-wed-lock births, earlier I did show that that could simply be a possible consequence to allowing gay marriage, but like every single study in existence that leans toward some kind of political stance there is controversy over it. Is the judge wrong? I don’t know. Is the study right? I don’t know. However, the information was out there so I used it. Regardless of whether it is true or not I have still shown other reasons why gay marriage should not be recognized.

“Also, this has been done in Canada, Sweden, Spain, etc... And nothing wrong has happened to those countries as previously noted, and my opponent dropped this argument.”

First off, this “argument” was presented 2 rounds ago and it was in your conclusion. Conclusions are used to summarize your arguments, and are not actually used for presenting arguments in themselves. I already read your arguments so I generally skim over conclusions.

Anyways, this does not refute the point that marriage turns into something about the private relationship of a couple. Gay marriage is something that has negative affects after a certain period of time. For example, Scandinavia and Norway have both had gay marriage legalized for quite a while and they are now starting to experience out-of-wed-lock births and the decline of marriage. However, in the first 5-10 years of having gay marriage legalized no negative affects had been seen.

My opponent claims he didn’t drop my argument on how the government is only interested in a relationship with a special link to children then states what he had previously said in response, but his response is irrelevant to the entire point.

His response was that homosexuals can raise children just as well as heterosexuals but that wasn’t what I was arguing. Like I said before, even if homosexuals could raise children just as well as heterosexuals it would still be irrelevant because the relationship they pursue has no special link to children.

My opponent’s argument on infertile couples vs. gay couples does not refute the arguments I previously gave, which states that infertile couples promote the view that the government isn’t interested in the children themselves in necessity, but it interested in the relationship heterosexuals pursue.

Conclusion

My opponent makes false assertions that my arguments are not valid but gives absolutely no reason why, almost none of his arguments actually gave a proper response to my own because I had to repeat myself, and all arguments that I supposedly “dropped” I had either already responded to earlier, or were already refuted with my arguments.

Vote Con.

Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LevelWithMe 4 years ago
LevelWithMe
"Con's arguments were more organized, and logically consistent."

This should have read Pro instead. I'm still not aware of how to delete/change/edit votes, though based on user comments and votes I've seen here and elsewhere, this is possible. The just haven't been able to find any information on it.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Lol.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
sounds like your phobia is acting up again.. take a deep breath.. trust me they can't hurt you. They are more afraid of you than you are of them... Believe me!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Still wrong.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
lol fear/ hatred
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Not at all.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
Here is the essence of the opposing gay marriage keep your chocolate away from my peanut butter! Or even better.. "we don't take kindly to you folks round here!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Lol. Case/Point.
Posted by Finalfan 4 years ago
Finalfan
You might want to pick a different avenue to explore instead of opposing gay marriage. The case you have made quite clear over and over is that you are homophobic.. That is why you think your arguments even closely resemble reasons for banning gay marriage!
Posted by xXCryptoXx 4 years ago
xXCryptoXx
It's frustrating when people vote against when they don't don't even understand you're case. Especially when you made your case quite clear.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LevelWithMe 4 years ago
LevelWithMe
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes that procreation is not crucial in the second round of the debate, which was the basis of most of his arguement. Con failed to show that the government's interest in marriage was the promotion of procreating(he even points out, again, as early as the first round, that the government has an interest in promoting healthy family units on it's own merits). Con's arguments were more organized, and logically consistent. Con generally proposed criteria and definitions without examining or proposing why these definitions and criteria should be accepted. Pro provided more sources for his arguments, and provided compelling evidence that Con's sources wre unreliable(to include sources that aspoused support for many of his claims about comparisons between family units). Conduct would have gone to Con had he not responded to Pro's poor conduct in kind(for example, he brings up arguments made in the last round, and then does the same, instead of askinfg for dismissal of them).
Vote Placed by Bullish 4 years ago
Bullish
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: I don't think Con has made any arguments as to why gay marriage should be illegal. Just how some marriages are some how harmful to society.
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 4 years ago
PatriotPerson
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: First 2 to Con for agreement. Others I wasn't so sure about.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: had to delete my vote to counter sweetbreeze who is a notorious votebomber...
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 4 years ago
sweetbreeze
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Good work, Con. Doing very well. All votes to Con!!!
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's entire argument seemed to hinge upon the idea that since homosexual relationships cannot produce children, they are not beneficial to society, and therefore, have no reason to be recognized under the institution of marriage. This is, of course, a nonsense point, and one Pro readily pointed out. In addition to simply maximizing human freedom, allowing marriage between homosexuals would also assist children seeking adoption. Homosexuals are also entirely capable of reproducing; just not with one another. Homosexual relationships are therefore entirely comparable to infertile relationships, and to deny one verges upon the hypocritical. Con of course defends himself by saying "well, they possess the spirit (heterosexuality) of a beneficial marriage", but all this does is destroy his earlier point about marriage being about what is ACTUALLY beneficial. So, arguments to Pro. I'm giving sources to Pro also, simply because they were more numerous and more reliable.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The irony is, imabench's RFD was weaker than jzonda's. To avoid me being tha as$hole here, I'm making this a tie, because like Cobo said, it should be.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 4 years ago
calculatedr1sk
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
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: I don't understand what con means by "no special link to children" since adoption is, by definition, a special link. "Best interest" is therefore nonsense, because orphans are better adopted than not adopted. Pro successfully demonstrated that procreation is not a prerequisite to marriage, so then I don't really see what argument Con has left with which to counter the motion. Resolution affirmed.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar in this debate were good for both sides. As for Conduct, it was a tie until the fourth round where Pro came across as disrespectful and childish (Ex: "Hitchslapped" "I have won", "Vote for gay marriage vote to kill prop 8! :D YAY! Vote for me! (Pro baby!)"). As for convincing arguments, many of Pro's arguments (especially in the first round) relied on quite poor reasoning and many absolutes (Ex: "Marriage is a fundamental right to all"..." no study has ever found that the nucleus of the family was effected in a harmful way as a result of gay marriage being enabled") which was easily refuted. Con was able to refute the history, legality and most of Pro's arguments besides studies which Pro won. To summarize, Pro had many fallacies with his arguments which Con was able to refute and demonstrate his central argument which Pro couldn't seem to refute properly. As for sources, to put it bluntly, Pro had more and better sources than Con.
Vote Placed by Cobo 4 years ago
Cobo
TheHitchslapxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, I feel this debate should be a tie. Pro had the chance to capitalize off of con's weak opening arguments but did not. Pro was being very cocky and making false accusations about the con. So lucky for me the way I voted also leads to a tie. Pro had better arguments but that is not saying much, while con conducting themselves in a professional manner. Seriously...Hitchslapped?