Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized
Debate Rounds (5)
As pleasant-sounding as it is to say that marriage is just about happiness, that is not the case. In reality, it plays a justifiable legal role in our society that should be upheld.
First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them.
Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well.
My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.
"Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love."
Marriage is a legal institution. And why does the opponent believe that being in love qualifies marriage? If the basis for marriage is based on arbitrary emotions, then friendships should also have special legal benefits associated with them, as well as pet-owner relationships. Why would the government invest in people's emotional bonds? How would that benefit the government? The government invests in contractual marriages as opposed to mere friendships because of the higher likelihood of procreation, due to male-female reproductive compatibility.
"...I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high."
There are people who have emotional and sexual interests in animals, objects, etc. An example: . By redefining marriage and making it based solely on arbitrary emotional value, the institution essentially loses all semantic and legal significance.
"If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example."
This diverges into the topic of whether or not marriage should entail certain exclusive rights and benefits. This argument is blatant nitpicking. The issue we are discussing isn't whether or not marriage should entail certain rights, such as hospital visitation ability, but rather whether or not same-sex marriage is allowable.
"It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same."
A "tradition" is typically something of strictly sociocultural value. Procreation, however, is a means of existence for a society, regardless of cultural context. The government has no vested interest in a couple who cannot create future citizens for society, and therefore same-sex couples should not be included in the legal union of marriage.
"Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock."
People can, indeed, procreate outside of a marital contract, but in that scenario, governmental influence is not put into the picture. Marriage is a means of steady, organized procreative trends, and the government encourages it through the handing down of rights and benefits to parties involved. Unless a contract is produced, procreation has little significance in the eyes of the law.
"If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically."
This is a Strawman argument. I never stated that the country's economy would slow down as a result of gay marriage being legalized. What I am saying is that it would be of no benefit to the government to include same-sex couples into the institution of marriage and provide them with the same rights and benefits of heterosexual married couples due to the absence of procreative compatibility.
In my defense, I also want to add that I validly included that gays do not receive any benefits through not being married. Through marriage in a heterosexual marriage, both people are entitled to have specific benefits. Therefore, if gays were given the right to get married, a question of whether they deserve the same marital rights isn't even in question because it comes with the package deal of being allowed to get married in the first place. Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent states that my statement isn't pertaining to the debate. However, he also remarks on the issue of economics and how marriage helps with the progression of the economy. This all relates to monetary benefits and money supply which comes out of marriage. Therefore, my remark cohesively relates to the discussion at hand.
My opponents comment on stating "The government has no vested interest in a couple who cannot create future citizens for society, and therefore same-sex couples should not be included in the legal union of marriage," is one that lacks any evidence. It is but a mere biased opinion that he feels that the government has no interest in same-sex couples.
Though gays have no procreative ability, they too pay taxes and adopt children that heterosexual couples leave on doorsteps of hospitals or don't care to raise. Just because they cannot procreate children on their own does not mean it is not in government's interest to instill the ability for gays to get married. It would actually gain more support in government if they did acknowledge and show support to the gay community since the population of them has increased drastically over time and many more of them are coming out of the closet as the days go by.
"If we are pledging such a vow to another person, how could marriage be something implemented to help out the government[?]"
Indeed, a party pledges a vow to the other, but marriage is a legal contract and being so, it is upheld by the law. This contract entails the rights and benefits handed down to parties from the government. Therefore, the government DOES partake in the institution of marriage and DOES have a vested interest in it.
"[G]ays couples should too be allowed to receive this emotional and financial support that is given to those who are married[.]"
It was never stated that the government provides "emotional support" to parties in a marriage. In regards to financial support, though, as I have stated prior, the government has no reason to be interested in a legal relationship of a non-procreational nature and should therefore not enable such contracts to be made.
"However, it is not the foundation of why one "pops the question" to another[.]"
People choose to enter a marriage for a wide range of reasons, but that is irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowable. This debate is not over relationships between the parties within a marriage but rather the relationship between the government and a marital contract; therefore, the opponent's point is not germane to the resolution.
"Homosexuals aren't dogs, cats, or cars. They are people too."
Men who are interested in marrying their cars are people, too. And so are polygamists. Why does my opponent believe that marriage should be restricted to only people? If it no longer has to pertain to heterosexual people, why must it be restricted to couples, or to people? An inflexible definition of marriage due to the overemphasis of arbitrary emotional factors of "love," as the opponent has previously brought up, would lead to the destruction of the justifiable legal concept of marriage, resulting from a plummet toward semantic insignificance.
"Therefore, if gays were given the right to get married, a question of whether they deserve the same marital rights isn't even in question because it comes with the package deal of being allowed to get married in the first place."
The opponent has yet to prove that gays should be given the right to get married, so this point is moot.
"This all relates to monetary benefits and money supply which comes out of marriage."
As I've stated prior, married parties receive rights and benefits due to the state's investment in them, based on procreational compatibility. The state has no interest in funding the contracts of same-sex marriage parties, since they are incapable of producing future citizens.
"Though gays have no procreative ability, they too pay taxes and adopt children that heterosexual couples leave on doorsteps of hospitals or don't care to raise."
Paying taxes does not guarantee one's eligibility to enter a contract. Veterans receive governmental benefits; is that fair to those who are ineligible to enter the armed forces? The government has a vested interest in supporting veterans because it encourages other citizens to join the armed forces. In the same way the government provides parties in a marriage with benefits while not providing benefits for those not in a marriage; the government is investing in this contract.
"It would actually gain more support in government if they did acknowledge and show support to the gay community since the population of them has increased drastically over time..."
There is no concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time. A more likely explanation is that more people are open about it due to greater acceptance toward gays than there had been in the past. Anyway, this is leaning toward an ad populum fallacy, except for the fact that it is not even established by the opponent that there is, in fact, a majority.
I never said that the government provides emotional support. I said that in a marriage you will gain emotional and financial support from your partner. That is guaranteed through this union. Also, my opponent fails to realize that marriage is not meant for procreation. Sex is meant for procreation. Marriage is simply meant for kinship. You can have a family of two with just a couple of married people. There is no need for children. Some people adopt. Many gay couples have adopted children and made loving, nurturing families. Therefore, to say that just because they cannot physically procreate they shouldn't't get married is unethical.
Also, I opened this debate questioning why people feel gay marriage should not be legalized. Therefore, that can be argued from any stand point I choose. The government is only but a mere portion of this matter. For the reasons that people do not want gay marriage to be legal in this country is not because it is a "contract" as my opponent continues to exhaust upon. They argue that it is not traditional and that it is simply unethical.
Yes, the man who wanted to marry his car is a man. However, his car is not. Therefore, it is not a human with human relationship. So, there is no need to further question the matter because it does not fall under what I previously stated. If a man wants to marry his car, that is not a man with man or man with woman relationship, therefore, even if he brought up his case, it would not be heard. I'd like to point out that such situations are not common. Therefore, it holds no equal value to the debate at hand over gay couples because this is a humane problem.
There absolutely is concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time. On page 4 of the following link, you will find a chart of the United States and it shows the increase from 1990 to now. Part of this increase is because now over 50% of the U.S. is in support of the gay community.
My opponent should give further evidence or supporting research regarding his position.
"The government issues this "invisible" contract that my opponent chooses to use as the only basis of his argument."
Invisible contract, as opposed to a "visible contract? The opponent fails to make a point here.
"...there is much more to a marriage then it just being a contract in which people are handed benefits"
The opponent has yet to prove this. If the government found value in relationships of an positive emotional nature, it would hand benefits and rights to people engaged in friendships.
"Through issuing marriages, the government loses money by having to give out such benefits to the widowed partner if one of them should pass away during their marriage."
The government chooses to invest in the institution of marriage because of the procreational aspect of it; future citizens keep a society in existence.
"My opponent needs to give more than his one simple, repetitive response as to why gay couples should not be allowed to get married."
My argument still stands.
"I said that in a marriage you will gain emotional and financial support from your partner. That is guaranteed through this union."
This simply is not true. You are certainly not guaranteed a happy marriage in which the other party provides you with financial and emotional support. There are many marriages in which this is not the case. Otherwise, this is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
"You can have a family of two with just a couple of married people."
Indeed, the married people can remain abstinent, but the government is not investing in whether or not they choose to have children; rather, the government is investing in the procreative compatibility of the couple, which has the potential of producing future citizens. It makes sense for the government to support formal, organized institutions that have strong potential of producing offspring.
"There is no need for children. Some people adopt."
Adopting existing people is not the same as producing new people. A society survives through procreation, not simply parental custody responsibilities that same-sex couples choose to take on. Hence, the government invests in procreation-type contractual unions rather than others.
"Therefore, that can be argued from any stand point I choose. The government is only but a mere portion of this matter."
Regardless of what "standpoint the opponent chooses," the fact of the matter is that marriage (in the United States), by definition, is a contractual institution that is recognized by the law. This is a legal institution that the government chooses to invest in, so my case is extremely relevant. If the opponent would like to share a belief that there are other objective purposes for marriage, she may do so. Before, she tried to explain the value of marriage through arbitrary emotional traits; I argued that 1) if emotional value is the only significant aspect of marriage, the government would be funding other relationships, such as friendship. 2) such a loose definition of marriage would lead to the destruction of the legal and semantic significance of marriage.
" For the reasons that people do not want gay marriage to be legal in this country is not because it is a 'contract' as my opponent continues to exhaust upon."
The opponent is attacking a Straw Man here.
"Yes, the man who wanted to marry his car is a man. However, his car is not. Therefore, it is not a human with human relationship. So, there is no need to further question the matter because it does not fall under what I previously stated."
Man + Woman --> Man + Man OR Woman + Woman--> Man + Car
Why must marriage be, by definition, between two humans? Marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman, and the opponent seeks to change this definition. Why can't we change the definition again to include human-nonhuman relationships? What allows us to change the definition to include one group but not another?
"There absolutely is concrete evidence that the population of homosexuals has increased over time."
All the study the opponent provided suggests is that more homosexual people had reported themselves as homosexual in the census. This indicates an increase in reports of homosexuals, not an increase in homosexuals themselves.
"My opponent should give further evidence or supporting research regarding his position."
My argument remains unrefuted by the opponent.
"The government chooses to invest in the institution of marriage because of the procreational aspect of it; future citizens keep a society in existence."
No, the government does not invest in marriage because of procreation. They invest because they will be able to save money.
"This simply is not true. You are certainly not guaranteed a happy marriage in which the other party provides you with financial and emotional support."
No one is guaranteed a long, happy, healthy marriage. However, the government also is not guaranteed that through marriage procreation will occur which will keep society in existence. Though the couple may have "potential" to produce offspring does not mean that they will. However, our country has no problem with procreation at all with or without gays being married.
"Man + Woman --> Man + Man OR Woman + Woman--> Man + Car
Why must marriage be, by definition, between two humans? Marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman, and the opponent seeks to change this definition. Why can't we change the definition again to include human-nonhuman relationships? What allows us to change the definition to include one group but not another?"
My opponent feels that simply because I am referring to change the definition to marriage being between a man and woman that by changing to something highly irrational like between a human and a non-human. I am simply requesting an alteration to its wording by stating that it should be between a human and another human. It's easy for people who are straight and feel that this is the norm and we should just continuously live in past tradition. However, change can be made any day. Since the issue has been brought up now, then it should be addressed now and leave future debating of humans marrying cars or other inhuman objects to the side until it actually comes up. For this subject, it is key that we take it one step at a time.
"All the study the opponent provided suggests is that more homosexual people had reported themselves as homosexual in the census. This indicates an increase in reports of homosexuals, not an increase in homosexuals themselves."
My article clearly states how large the population of homosexuals has increased. It is highly odd to me to assume or think that all of these people have been sitting around since 1990 as being gay and just didn't report the matter. Obviously, the gay community has been increasing as more people have been born and more people have become more sexually aware with their preference.
My final remark that I'd like to make is that my opponent mentions throughout his argument how the government has a personal interest in marriage due to the fact that they will most likely procreate if it's between a man and a woman. However, from reading the first article below, a new interest is brought up concerning saving government dollars by cutting back on governmental spending. By imposing legal "contracted" marriages, the government is assuming that the couple will be financial secure and stable enough that they will not need to seek public assistance through welfare, WIC, or any other governmental money. By increasing the number of marriages, the amount of spending is thought to decrease. Therefore, if we allow gays to get married, that number should become even greater and government spending should decrease even more saving a lot more of our tax dollars because now we won't have as many people on public assistance. They can support one another like heterosexual couples do, adopt children whom heterosexual couples have abandoned or passed away, and live a happy life together. Everyone in America deserves to live like this whether they are gay, straight, transgender, bisexual, etc. We are all U.S. citizens and we should all be treated with equal respect and given equal opportunity, for that is what we tell foreigners to get them to migrate to America.
"And [marriage] is done by linking men and women into lifelong, exclusive and duty-bound domestic and sexual unions. No other social union does this." (from opponent's article)  Indeed, marriage is a sexual union that is upheld by the government and by the law. "And babies raised by stable, married parents become the tax-payers, inventors, health-care providers, educators, industry leaders, problem-solvers and community leaders that every society needs."  Indeed, marriage improves the quality of future citizens by procreation, serving as another reason why marriage is subsidized and casual sexual relationships are not. The opponent's source, all in all, supports my argument more than her's.
Onto the opponent's next point: happiness is irrelevant to marriage. Marriage is government-recognized institution that is subsidized, while happy friendships and chocolate (which surely invokes happiness) are not subsidized. Why does the government have a vested interest in marriage rather than in friendships and chocolate?  Happiness surely isn't the core of the issue.
And onto the next point (about marrying cars): My opponent describes a marriage between a human and a non-human as "highly irrational," while she maintains that her same-sex definition should stand. There is no underlying logic behind this claim. The opponent is not the arbitrator of what is "rational" and what is "irrational," so her acceptance of same-sex marriage but rejection of other types of marriages has no basis.
"It is highly odd to me to assume or think that all of these people have been sitting around since 1990 as being gay and just didn't report the matter."
Actually, due to societal stigmas, many people chose to repress their homosexuality or hide it from formal surveys. The study the opponent used only indicates a larger number of reports, not an actual increase in population. 
And in response to the opponent's final argument: People can support each other fiscally whether they are married or not. A girlfriend and a boyfriend (or two boyfriends/two girlfriends) can support each other without being married, and this is often the case. What the opponent fails to recognize is that marriage is a subsidized institution, meaning that it is supported and incentivized by the government, which provides exclusive rights and benefits to married couples. In theory, two friends/roommates who live together can support each other; the government does not subsidize this sort of relationship, however.
In conclusion, since marriage is a legal institution that is driven by government interest and contractual law, instating the institution of same-sex marriage would not be in the best interest in the United States government and, hence, it would not be the interest of the US public (whom the government works for.) Therefore, the resolution stands: Same-sex marriage should not be legalized in the United States.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jhate 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: more sources, better arguments, good job
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.