The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
195 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Losing
193 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 3/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,171 times Debate No: 7229
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (106)
Votes (65)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

ON GUARD!

I affirm the resolution: Gary Marriage should be legalized. For the sake of clarity and being terse, the term "gay" will be an umbrella term for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community.

I am not arguing in what way gay marriage should be legalized (federal or states), but I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage.

Do note that since this is in context of being legalized, saying that God is against gay marriage is obviously a moot point. Hopefully this debate won't turn into a debate about God, but rather about the points of gay marriage.

=====
Gays deserve the same marital rights
=====

My argument is simple and brief: gays deserve the same marital rights as a heterosexual. For a long time, marriage was only a traditional and religious thing. And it was fine for the heterosexuals to hog it for themselves (though if marriage was still purely traditional, I doubt there would be laws concerning it). However, this is the 21st century. Marriages have rights and financial security alongside; things that are vital to living in this society. Gays are being deprived of these rights because they aren't allowed to marry for arbitrary reasons.

This is all for now. I realize that my opponent will probably add some other arguments, like the slippery slope or the nature of homosexuality. I realize these possible counterarguments, but there is no guarantee my opponent will use such arguments. It's pointless to type out rebuttals to arguments that could potentially never be used.

So with that said, I will await my opponent's rebuttals and refute his arguments accordingly.
InquireTruth

Con

==========================
Introduction:
==========================

I would like to thank TheSkeptic for his challenge and I would like to formerly apologize for my delay in accepting it. As for this turning into a debate about God, I am interested, have I ever done that in the past? Though I firmly believe in the existence of God AND the transcendence of moral values, I am quite content with using terms we both can accept.

==========================
Contention 1: The Definition of Marriage
==========================

I am assuming my opponent does not wish to use the federal definition of marriage or the definition of 42 of the states (30 of which have added "one man one woman" provisos to their constitutions). Since words themselves are given meaning by people, and the majority of people confirm that marriage means a union between one man and one woman, I wonder then, does my opponent believe that marriage is a human concept? If it is a human concept, its meaning is defined by humans and therefore cannot mean what my opponent wishes it to mean. If I say that skepticism actually means "very gullible and accepting of all things," would that become an actual definition? At what point WOULD it become a definition? My opponent must show why marriage is not defined by the humans who created it. Of course, if it is not a human concept, my opponent must show the source of the definition he appeals to.

Since the resolution is akin to saying black should be allowed to be white (which is impossible given definition of black and white), perhaps my opponent was trying to say that union between homosexuals should have conferred rights exactly equal to marriage. Civil unions or domestic partnership would make more sense.

As it stands, the very resolution is nonsense, for the definition of marriage itself does not permit my opponent's use of it.

==========================
Contention 2: The Nature of Laws and Morality
==========================

If homosexuality is viewed as wrong by not only the majority of the US population, but also the entire world's population, one may rightly wonder, what is the nature of law? Are laws designed to uphold what is right or what is wrong? For instance, are illicit drugs illegal because of some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong? How about murder, incest, polygamy or pedophiliac behavior – are these illegal for some other reason other than they are thought to be wrong?

Of course, one may rightly suggest that some things are wrong because they infringe on the rights of others. But wait a minute, what are these so called rights and where do they originate? Are rights a transcendental concept or are they also another human convention? If rights are an idea formed by humans for the sake of humans, it stands to reason that humans are the ones who define rights. If the majority of people agree that homosexual behavior is not a right, on what grounds does my opponent disagree?

If my opponent cannot show that homosexual "marriage" (I say this only for clarities sake) is a right, then he cannot show that it is either immoral or unlawful to regulate against it. Moreover, if he cannot show that it is lawful, moral or a right, he has no grounds to argue that it should be legal.

==========================
Contention 3: The Legal Reasons
==========================

"I'm arguing that it SHOULD be legalized because there is no valid legal argument against gay marriage."

The following is from Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. � 7 (1997):

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act was legally passed and thus legally binding and legally valid. The other 42 states have legally passed laws against the union of homosexuals, making them legally binding and legally valid.

If my opponent appeals to the law in order to trump the law, he must show why the law he refers to is trumping. If his legal reasons against the FDMA and other state ratifications are predicated on rights, he must show where these rights originated, how they are quantified, and why they are binding.

==========================
Contention 4: Should the Government be involved at all?
==========================

If the meaning of marriage is really about the joy and love that consenting couples share, why should the government be involved at all? If we remove the artificial "right" to marry, there would be no bickering. Elimination of marriage would stop the problem all together. Could not the meaning of marriage be achievable without conferred rights? I would not have to divorce my wife, we would just cease being legally recognized – it would not change my relationship with my wife in the slightest. If this is an adequate solution then my opponent cannot win.

==========================
Conclusion:
==========================

A quick summary of some of the important points that need to be addressed:

1. My opponent must show that humans do not define marriage in order for his use of the word to be permitted. If he admits that humans are the ones who give words meaning, he must admit that marriage does not mean what he intends it to mean.
2. My Opponent must show that rights, morals, and laws are not human ideas. If they are human ideas than it stands to reason that they are defined by humans.
3. My opponent must show how same-sex "marriage" is a "right" and where this "right" originated?
4. My opponent must show how the listed laws are not validly legal.
5. My opponent must show why his legal reasons are trumping of the majority supported legal reasons.
6. My opponent must show why the government has the "right" to get involved in relationships in the first place.

I reserve the right to add additional contentions in my following round. I look forward to my opponent's response.

InquireTruth

Sources:

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. � 7 (1997)
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my esteemed opponent for taking this challenge, and I'm sure it'll turn out great. Please bear no attention to my side note of me wishing this debate not turn into religion. It wasn't because I was challenging you in particular, but because I do realize that a "last turn argument" for opponents of gay marriage is to argue that the government should be a Christian theocracy (Dominion Theology), something quite off the intended topic.

On a personal note, I want to remind the audience that my argument for moral realism, which you will find to be the main focus of this round, is not something I believe in. In other words, I'm playing devil's advocate. Why, you ask? Because it's fun to try new ideas :)

==========
Definition of Marriage
==========

My opponent's argument concerning the definition of marriage is seemingly convincing, but a red herring. Yes, the definitions of words are determined by the majority of the public. This is why we can see words that get different definitions as the decades past (attic used to mean vagina), and why we see new words pop into the English dictionary (to 'Google' is in the dictionary now). Simply put, definitions are determined by the consensus of the people. If my opponent wished to define skepticism as meaning "very gullible and accepting all things", then he possibly could if he somehow got most of society to agree with him. Because that's all what words are - vehicles for human communication.

But when does the definition of a word or phrase become more important than simple communication? When the law is involved, especially when involving rights. Because of how marriage is defined by many states and the federal government, gays have less rights than heterosexual couples. This is when the definition of marriage, under the context of law, becomes VERY important. Anyone who is a lawyer or a political scientist should know that simple definitions can change an entire court case, even an entire debate (abortion - the definition of a human). So it basically boils down to whether gays deserve equal rights under marriage, and we have to ask, has my opponent's argument concerning the definition of marriage relevant or constructive at all? No. At the core, this argument ties in with the issue of rights - which can be argued in the following argument.

[quote]"...perhaps my opponent was trying to say that union between homosexuals should have conferred rights exactly equal to marriage. Civil unions or domestic partnership would make more sense...As it stands, the very resolution is nonsense, for the definition of marriage itself does not permit my opponent's use of it."[quote]

Or the legal definition of marriage can be changed. This is, at best, a play on semantics.

==========
Nature of Laws and Morality
==========

This particular argument somewhat deviates from the focus of the debate (pushing into meta-ethics), but I will gladly trod on with my opponent's case. He basically asks of me to provide evidence for the nature of rights (obviously in the pretext of a naturalistic worldview). If I can show that rights exist, then I do have the ground to argue that gay marriage should be legalized. So in accordance with this burden, I will argue in favor for moral realism:

It seems quite evident that there are a few moral statements that are prima facie true. For example, "Hitler was evil" or "intentionally kicking pregnant ladies in the tummy" look obviously true. Given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously "good", and given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously "bad", it must follow that we have a continuum - picture a line segment with two ends. Therefore, it must follow that there are in-between scenarios or cases of which things are "good" or "bad", such as gay marriage (as discussed here) that we don't know the answer so far.

Thus, rights can be grounded.

==========
Legal Reasons
==========

[quote]"If my opponent appeals to the law in order to trump the law, he must show why the law he refers to is trumping. If his legal reasons against the FDMA and other state ratifications are predicated on rights, he must show where these rights originated, how they are quantified, and why they are binding."[quote]

This quote sums up my entire argument - making null the entirety of my opponent's argument. Of course I'm not saying something illegal has happened during the signing of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). No one tricked the system, and there wasn't any filthy scandals. However, laws are inextricably tied in with rights, and if a law were to violate a right, then should it stay? Of course not. My opponent asks of me where these rights come from, and all I simply need to do is to redirect him to the previous argument concerning the nature of laws and rights.

==========
Should the Government be involved at all?
==========

An interesting fall back my opponent has proposed, perhaps marriage should just be discarded? Or as my opponent puts it, "why should the government be involved at all"? I'm certainly not arguing that everyone be married if they want to live together until death do they part. I'm certainly not arguing that they are morally bound to being married if they are in a relationship. However, I am certain that the government shouldn't simply ditch the concept of a legal marriage.

Marriage brings many benefits to couples who decide to go through with it. One of the most important benefits is the obtainment of rights. As stated before, being married grants you slightly more than 1,000 federal rights, and many state rights (around 600 from California, for example). Thing such as tax rights, hospital visitation rights, the list goes on. Marrying can be a benefit for both heterosexuals AND homosexuals.

You don't have to get married, but this doesn't mean others should be barred from marriage.

==========
Conclusion
==========

My opponent's main, and arguably only, argument is whether or not objective moral values can exist in a naturalistic worldview. Seeing as how I have put that to rest, the rest should be clear.
InquireTruth

Con

==========================
Introduction:
==========================

I am glad to see my opponent is responding in a way uncharacteristic of a moral nihilist (one may wonder if it was for fun or a desperate attempt to salvage an argument in light of a damning evaluation of morality and rights). Needless to say, this is turning out to be an interesting debate.

==========================
Contention 1: The Definition of Marriage
==========================

My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. His reasoning behind it being a red herring is because the definition involves the conferring of rights. This is no play on semantics, If marriage is humanly understood to mean the union between a man and a woman, then my opponent ought to be arguing that homosexuals should have the same conferred rights as heterosexuals. Why did my opponent not want to argue for civil unions? Whatever the case, it stands that the definition of marriage does not permit my opponent's use of it.

"Because of how marriage is defined by many states and the federal government, gays have less rights than heterosexual couples."

My opponent has not shown that gays have inherently less rights than heterosexual couples – insofar as both parties have equal right to the legal definition of marriage. My opponent would have to argue for an entirely different right, that is, that people of the same-sex have the right to form legal unions. However, it is not clear that this is a right. My opponent would have to prove the transcendental nature of rights because, if rights are defined by humans, no such "right" exists.

==========================
Nature of Laws and Morality
==========================

"If I can show that rights exist, then I do have the ground to argue that gay marriage should be legalized."

You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right. Neither of which you have proved.

"It seems quite evident that there are a few moral statements that are prima facie true."

If it is quite evident that some moral statements are prima facie true, my opponent would do well in actually listing some that are considered as such. The actions of Hitler were not seen as in moral error by the Nazi's. Hitler's actions, as we speak, are categorically supported by a very prominent minority in the Islamic community (though they also deny the Holocaust's very occurrence). Infanticide is happening as we speak: gendercide takes the lives of hundreds of female babies each day (they are often left outside to die). The rule of Tiglath-Pileser III, is marked by his ripping open the wombs of his enemies. One may rightly wonder, if these actions are prima facie wrong, why in the world did they happen and are still happening in great magnitude?

"Given that all moral theories agree that some things are totally and obviously ‘good'"

This is completely untrue. Complete moral relativism holds that no thing is completely and obviously true, inasmuch as it can very from subject to subject. Furthermore, moral nihilism, a position you are fond of, holds that there are neither good nor wrong actions.

"Thus, rights can be grounded."

Certainly rights CAN be grounded (though not in the way my opponent has explained), but that is not his burden. He must not show that it is POSSIBLE that same-sex unions are a right, it is my opponent's burden to PROVE it as such. Furthermore, by admitting that we have no idea whether or not it is a right at this point, should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong?

==========================
Legal Reasons
==========================

My opponent is not leaving me much to refute here, I am not entirely sure that he as even adequately presented a positive case of his own. Nevertheless, my opponent has not refuted the point.

Since he believes that there is no VALID legal reason as to why gay marriage should be illegal, then what does he do with the federal Defense of Marriage Act? If it is a legally valid act, insofar as it was legally passed, how is it not a valid legal reason?

"laws are inextricably tied in with rights, and if a law were to violate a right, then should it stay? Of course not."

It has never been made clear that a right is being violated. It is my opponent's burden to prove that same-sex marriage is a right. But by his own admission, if his moral realism can be shown as true, he has only shown that it is possibly a right. Since, however, his moral realism is sorely wanting, it stands to reason that rights are defined by humans, and if such is the case, same-sex union is not a right.

==========================
Should the government be involved at all?
==========================

I understand the certain rights that are conferred when one gets married – I am, in fact, married. My contention is that the government has no right to legally recognize relationships – insofar as a relationship is more about love and companionship than tax benefits.

Such things as hospital visitation rights can be achieved by different means – a legally recognized marriage is simply unnecessary.

My opponent says that he is "certain that the government shouldn't simply ditch the concept of a legal marriage."

But that was not my contention. The heart of my contention was whether or not the government has the RIGHT to be involved in relationships in the first place. If so, where is this right derived – is this too, a prima facie truth?

==========================
Conclusion
==========================

My opponent thinks that my only argument is whether or not objective moral values can exist in a naturalistic system. But this was neither my only argument, nor an accurate representation of the one he seeks to characterize. It is not whether or not they CAN exist, but his burden to show whether or not they DO.

I hope my opponent will be able to adequately refute that which he has yet to, and begin to construct a positive case of his own.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

==========
The Definition of Marriage
==========

[quote]My opponent calls this argument valid, though a red herring. [quote]

Actually, I said it was seemingly valid (in the end it isn't). Arguing that the definition of marriage bars gays from becoming married is, again, a red herring. The entire point of the gay marriage debate is to CHANGE the definition of marriage to accepting gays. Only several decades ago, to many people the definition of marriage meant that only a man and a woman OF THE SAME RACE could marry. Obviously however, interracial marriage was soon legalized and now it's becoming much more commonplace. How does my opponent reconcile this change? I can, and it's simple. The definition of marriage was changed for the better.

That said, my opponent brings up another point. He asks me why "not...argue for civil unions?". Obviously, because gays get less rights. As my opponent has mentioned, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act[1], known as DOMA, was passed by Bill Clinton. In doing so, the federal government has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. So even IF states were to legalize gay marriage, gays would STILL get around 1000-plus less rights than heterosexual couples. These rights stem from the federal rights one gets when they get married - but DOMA restricts this! Because of the distinction between state and federal rights, there is an imbalance of rights at play here.

==========
Nature of Laws and Morality
==========

[quote]You must not only show that rights necessarily exist but that same-sex marriage is a necessary right.[quote]

Showing that rights exist is the point of the meta-ethical argument I made in favor for realism. Showing that same-sex marriage is a right was the point of every argument you have made, and I have refuted. Therefore, the evaluation of whether I have successfully shown gay marriage to be a right should hinge on the arguments OTHER than this one.

[quote]One may rightly wonder, if these actions are prima facie wrong, why in the world did they happen and are still happening in great magnitude?[quote]

My opponent seems to have missed the point of my argument. It doesn't hinge on the fact of everyone agreeing on certain moral judgements (which as my opponent has shown, isn't true), but on the fact that every MORAL THEORY agrees certain moral judgements.

Not only that, but my opponent makes additional errors. He seems to describe situations of people who are acting immorally. However, the people who are acting such have their own reasons, whether it be valid or not, for doing so! So while they are committing immoral acts, they themselves are not evil. However, if they were to realize that the actions they are doing are evil, and yet still go on to commit it, then that's another story.

But again, that's not the point. The point is that every moral theory obviously agrees on a collective of moral statements. To evaluate such theories, we must examine the theoretical claim (TC) each one makes. For example, the difference between Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism when it comes to killing innocents to save the many follows from the TC that moral rules are universal and don't allow exceptions. Therefore, for any theory, we must set all TC's on the table and evaluate.

[quote]Complete moral relativism holds that no thing is completely and obviously true, inasmuch as it can very from subject to subject. Furthermore, moral nihilism, a position you are fond of, holds that there are neither good nor wrong actions.[quote]

This is completely false. Moral nihilism and moral relativism are meta-ethical theories, quite different from moral/ethical theories. In reality, there aren't that many moral theories. Virtue ethics formulated by Aristotle. Utilitarian theories with variations by the likes of Bentham and Mill. Deontological theories, of which there are two - Kantian ethics and Contractualism. Objectivism is another, and it's debatable whether or not Divine Command Theory is also one. In the end, however, we end up with only 7-8 theories.

[quote]He must not show that it is POSSIBLE that same-sex unions are a right, it is my opponent's burden to PROVE it as such.[quote]

Which is the point of the other arguments! My opponent has made a categorical mistake of confusing meta-ethics and ethics. This part of the debate, the nature of laws and morality, is the meta-ethical aspect of the gay marriage debate, and really of all ethical debates. Every other argument my opponent has used such as the definition of marriage can at best be seen as an argument against the ethical aspect of gay marriage. Thus far, he has been unsuccessful on either account.

[quote]Furthermore, by admitting that we have no idea whether or not it is a right at this point, should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong?[quote]

I never stated that I don't know whether or not gay marriage is wrong. The part of my argument, that my opponent most likely dissected to formulate this quote, was in reference to the fact that the claim "gay marriage is wrong" is not absolutely agreed on by everyone, or (arguably) every moral theory.

==========
Legal Reasons
==========

My opponent merely states that it hasn't been made clear whether or not a right is being violated, but that is the entire point of this debate! Again, I am repeating myself. My opponent's objective is to show that gays don't have a right to marry, and it's my objective to argue that they do. Such arguments like the definition of marriage evaluate whether or not they have rights! Until it's resolved, my opponent can't go around claiming I have not shown a right is being violated. To do so is to use circular reasoning.

In the end of it all, to say whether it is a legal reason or a reason is trivial. Laws such abide by rights, and if it violates rights then it should be done away with. However, if my opponent were to adamantly press for some "legal aspect" that is being violated, then he can simply direct his attention towards the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

==========
Should the government be involved at all?
==========

My opponent claims that the government has no RIGHT to be involved in relationships, but he gives no reason for it! I, on the other hand, have.

The reasoning process is quite simple. The government CAN allow you to get married, but you don't HAVE to. If you want tax benefits, then you can have the option of getting a legal marriage. If you don't want the government to be involved, then you DON'T have to get a legal marriage but a private Vermont, or what have you. Getting a legal marriage can simply be made to be a choice, therefore the government isn't intruding on anyone's relationship.

==========
Conclusion
==========

My opponent has only given, at best, a refutation of the meta-ethical aspect of this debate. His other arguments are almost completely devoid of any ethical arguments. It's quite ironic when he states that I have yet to shown that gay marriage is a right, when in fact most of his arguments don't even touch the aspect. His argument pertaining to the definition of marriage is a complete red herring, and has nothing to do with ethics. His argument pertaining to the legality of it misses the point as well, since he fails to develop pass the point of "it's been legalized, therefore it's valid". Finally, his last argument that has somewhat to do with rights, is an empty argument that he has yet to supply a reason with.

To end this debate, I shall reinforce my argument pertaining to moral realism, as I suspect it will be the focus of attention. An analogy of it can be in math. If 2+2=4 and 7+2=11 is obviously true, then we can extrapolate that Goldbach's conjecture must have a truth-value.

As such, I urge a vote for PRO!

---References---
1. http://www.domawatch.org...
InquireTruth

Con

==========================
The Definition of Marriage
==========================

"The entire point of the gay marriage debate is to CHANGE the definition of marriage to accepting gays."

If the entire point was to that we ought to CHANGE the definition of marriage, perhaps my opponent should have made that the resolution. But even still, my point stands that definitions only change when we, and I'll quote my opponent here, "somehow g[et] most of society to agree." Since most of society does NOT agree that the definition of marriage permits my opponent's use of it, it stands to reason that the definition of marriage should indeed NOT change.

If the definition of skepticism, as my opponent asserts, can only change if most of society agrees, why should the definition of marriage change when most of society agrees that it should not? There would have to at least be some relevant difference between the forming of the two definitions, skepticism and marriage, which ensures that one is defined by humans and that the other is not – my opponent, has not done this. Since both words are defined by humans, it stands to reason that both words must meet the same criteria before being changed. Since my opponent admits that words should only change when most of society agrees, it stands to reason that marriage should NOT be redefined to include the union of same-sex couples.

This point has not been refuted.

==========================
Nature of Laws and Morality
==========================

My opponent quotes Christopher Hitchens in his profile. Since my opponent asserts Moral realism without evidence, it stands that it can be disregarded without evidence. My opponent expects us to accept that some intangible (nonmaterial) moral facts simply exist, though they are completely inaccessible via the scientific method. Lets take for example Justice. How can justice exist independent of humans? Are we really to believe that, absent of people, justice still simply exists (a theist has an answer this). Can abstractions such as justice really exist independent of people, or are they actually things defined by humans? My opponent has given absolutely no reason to believe the former.

"Showing that rights exist is the point of the meta-ethical argument I made in favor for realism."

See my opponent has missed my point! He has not shown that rights exist at all! He has only shown that they POSSIBLY exist. Given that there is no evidence that they actually do, it was my opponent's burden to show that the probability that rights objectively exist is at least over 50%. Since it seems entirely more probable that since justice is actually a property of persons, that it should be defined by people. Since people uniformly agree that same-sex marriage is not a right, than it is not a right.

"He seems to describe situations of people who are acting immorally. However, the people who are acting such have their own reasons, whether it be valid or not, for doing so! So while they are committing immoral acts, they themselves are not evil. However, if they were to realize that the actions they are doing are evil, and yet still go on to commit it, then that's another story."

If moral realism asserts that some things are prima facie wrong, then they must be self-evidently wrong. There should not be ANY people who believe that infanticide, gendercide, sororicide, fratricide, genocide, homicide, or anything that we consider wrong are right. But the fact of the matter is that anthropology tells us there is no one moral code that is deeply entrenched within the human mind as to be universal and unquestionable. We find that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who try to redefine moral terms.

My opponent has not given even ONE example of something that is prima facie wrong in every culture – that would, as it seems, be a requirement of something being self-evident.

1. My opponent has not shown that Moral Realism is a correct moral theory or that rights objectively exist.
2. My opponent has not shown that, if rights DO exist, that same-sex union is among them.

"This is completely false. Moral nihilism and moral relativism are meta-ethical theories"

There is no relevant difference here. The fact of the matter is that wide disagreement exists, and that is a HUGE problem for a moral realist. I have presented the evidential argument against moral realism – insofar has the evidence against it far outweighs the evidence for it (if we can even say there is any for it). So the question should not be is it possible (though even here I would say it is not), but rather is it PLAUSIBLE that moral realism is true? And as it seems, it is not.

"I never stated that I don't know whether or not gay marriage is wrong."

Compare this to:

"Therefore, it must follow that there are in-between scenarios or cases of which things are ‘good' or ‘bad', such as gay marriage (as discussed here) that we don't know the answer so far."

My opponent contradicts himself. Since he admits that same-sex unions are an in-between scenario in which we have thus far not answered, he admits that we do not know whether such unions are good or bad. Therefore he is subject again to my criticism: should laws be passed in favor of things that are, by my opponent's own admission, possibly wrong?

==========================
Legal Reasons
==========================

"My opponent's objective is to show that gays don't have a right to marry"

And I have.

(P1) Rights, like all definitions, are defined by humans
(P2) the Majority of humans say that legal union of homosexuals is not a right
(C) Therefore, from (P1) and (P2), the legal union of homosexuals is not a right.

This adequately refutes the resolution.

"Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."

There is no right that heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have. All persons are receiving equally distributed rights – insofar has both parties may marry ONE persons of the opposite sex.

==========================
Should the government be involved at all?
==========================

My opponent states that I have given no reason to show that legal marriage is NOT a right. Why would I need to? It is my opponent's burden to prove that the government has the right to regulate human relationships. My opponent has given no reason aside from saying that we do not HAVE to let the government regulate our relationships – but we really ought to if we want 1000 other arbitrarily conferred rights… It is no consolation to say that the government has the "right" to regulate relationships if we want more "rights," when the whole issue hinges on whether or not these "rights" really exist at all.

==========================
Conclusion
==========================

A valorous attempt by my opponent, but his case has been shown empty and void. Now do what is prima facie right and good, vote CON.

Thanks,
InquireTruth
Debate Round No. 3
106 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrHaz3 1 year ago
DrHaz3
I always thought these rights were self evident under the the constitution 2nd 10th and 14th. freedom of religious practice, rights not described therein are left to the people, and equal rights. A good follow up would be if States have the right to infringe upon religious marrage practices. How do religious definitions and rights apply? Is marriage itself a right? what makes it so?
Posted by BigSky 1 year ago
BigSky
Gary marriage :D
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
I will probably go over it again and fix any issues with syntax, fluidity, spelling, grammar etc., but my argument will remain almost entirely the same.
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
The ball is in your court, InquireTruth: http://www.debate.org...

If this debate interests you, then let me know.
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
God damn the appeals court of California.
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
Mongeese, I'm about 70% done with my opening round:

The resolution will be: "Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." This way it will be something relevant.
Posted by mongeese 3 years ago
mongeese
Debate between Freeman and InquireTruth: "Gay marriage should be legalized." Go.
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
"Are you trying to tell me that their opinions don't matter to you?"

Yes

Do you think that they just pull their opinions out of thin air like religious leaders do? Their opinions are informed by the scientific research that they perform. And vast quantities of empirical research support those opinions.

"Also, in what way are the detrimental effects different than those inflicted upon the pedophile and bigamist?"

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia? And if the answer is yes, what body of social science has informed that opinion.
Posted by Freeman 3 years ago
Freeman
"Are you trying to tell me that their opinions don't matter to you?"

Yes

Do you think that they just pull their opinions out of thin air like religious leaders do? Their opinions are informed by the scientific research that they perform. And vast quantities of empirical research support those opinions.

"Also, in what way are the detrimental effects different than those inflicted upon the pedophile and bigamist?"

Are you suggesting that homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia? And if the answer is yes, what body of social science has informed that opinion.
Posted by TheSkeptic 3 years ago
TheSkeptic
"So we are to imagine that there are significant detrimental effects caused by the lack of legal recognition of a particular human relationship?"

That would be in context of approving heterosexual marriage and not homosexual. Freeman, remember that neither IT or I (perhaps) find much reason to approve of the existence of legal marriage.
65 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 1 month ago
bsh1
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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:60 
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 1 month ago
EndarkenedRationalist
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by BigSky 1 year ago
BigSky
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Its a bad thing to do
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 3 years ago
MrCarroll
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con would have won this with the BoP, strong argument.
Vote Placed by CarmenAnu 3 years ago
CarmenAnu
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by Weave77 3 years ago
Weave77
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Vote Placed by tarpshack 3 years ago
tarpshack
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 3 years ago
1gambittheman1
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Atheism 3 years ago
Atheism
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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 
Research this debate: United States