The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Pogosama
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (7)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 18032
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

Resolution

Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Burden of Proof

Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

NO VIDEO LINKS !!!

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.

Round 5

Round 5 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 5. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.

Definitions:

Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."

Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.

Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!

We will begin arguments in round 2.
Pogosama

Pro

Although it's certainly been a long while since I've enjoyed a debate in a more professional setting, I believe that this should suffice in getting me back up to snuff, as it where, with any semblance of skill I have left in me.

I would be more then happy to debate the affirmative side of this argument, and am looking forward to clashing ideas with you in the near future.

Best of luck, and I'll see you in round two.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

Opening Comments

I thank Pogo for accepting this debate. Pogo has decided to come back to DDO, as such I hope I can give them something of interest to debate on this subject, lest they decidee to leave DDO once again.

Human history is filled with one group oppressing, denying, treating the "other" group differently. Humans history isn't a shining beacon of tolerance and liberty, as such when some one or some group is some how restricted in doing something, the merits and justification of such a restriction must be held to the highest standard.

Freedom & good reason argument

P1) Freedom is our default
P2) You need a good reason to make something Illegal
C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

What I mean by saying that freedom is our default is that there is and should be a presumption in favour of liberty when considering what should and should not be illegal. The presumption in favour of liberty is the cornerstone of Western societies.

"This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle(Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. " [1]

The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default. If freedom was not our default then you couldn't even go to the bathroom or make a sandwich until it had been justified that you should be allowed to do so.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

I suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition" [1]

The alternative would be that you DON'T need a good reason to make something illegal.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

The State & the Harm Principle

"The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[2]"

According to the harm principle, if gay marriage doesn't cause harm to others, then there is no grounds to restict it, such as by making it illegal.

I think I should also address something about the harm principle, its not enough to ban something just because its not beneficial to the state. The state allows lots of things which are not beneficial to the state even when applying the harm principle for example smoking, obesity etc. Arguable these things are even harmful, but ultimately they harm the individual more and not the general public as such the state is not justified in banning it according to the harm principle. Like wise it may be the case that gay marriage is not beneficial to the state but that still isn't enough to justify the banning of gay marriage.

Closing Remarks

If Pro agrees freedom is our default when considering these matters, and you need a good reason to make something illegal then Pro will have to provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal. Until then the resolution is not affirmed.

I look foward to Pros opening argument.

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pogosama

Pro

Pogosama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Pogosama

Pro

Pogosama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Illegalcombatant forfeited this round.
Pogosama

Pro

Pogosama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

I ask the vote go to Con, as I have a picture of a squirrel.
Pogosama

Pro

Pogosama forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by XiaoFei98 5 years ago
XiaoFei98
IllegalcombatantPogosamaTied
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: Forfeit. This could have, though, been an interesting debate.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
IllegalcombatantPogosamaTied
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: Con has a picture of a squirrel WITH coffee.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
IllegalcombatantPogosamaTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited two rounds. Pro forfeited four.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
IllegalcombatantPogosamaTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has a picture of a squirrel.