Gay Marriage and Tax Benefits
Debate Rounds (3)
INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS.
"Gay marriage and tax benefits." 'Marriage' defined as "any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities..." 'Gay' defined as "of, pertaining to, or exhibiting sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex." 'Tax' defined as "In a general sense, a tax is any contribution imposed by government upon individuals..." 'Benefits' defined as "Advantage; profit; privilege." Based upon the definitions, in addition to my opponent's opening argument for the con, my interpretation of the resolution is as follows: Legally married same-sex couples should receive the same treatment for taxation purposes in cases where they would benefit from such. I will be affirming this resolution through the following contentions.
Contention 1: Constitutional guarantee and safeguards.
Sub-point A: Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The section of which I will be specifically focusing on is the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection clause of the Amendment affirms that people shall not be denied equality in laws, protection, etc. regardless of race, creed, sexuality, etc.
Sub-point B: Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is the same justification the Supreme Court used in the case United States v. Windsor in which it ruled that SAME-SEX COUPLES OUGHT TO BE TREATED EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW WHEN THEY ARE MARRIED LEGALLY.
In this first contention, I am essentially stating what has already been said in courts across the country multiple times in cases similar to this resolution. Law is on the side of the affirmation.
Contention 2: Morally just.
Normative morality, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "...a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons." As of July 2013, the public opinion towards marriage equality has been overwhelming majority in support and the trend has been increasing. In this contention, I will be focusing on a purely theoretical argument to support the affirmation of the resolution (and, as pointed out in contention 1, law is on the side of the affirmation as well though). Laws aside, normative morality favors the side of the affirmation as well.
Contention 3: Bettering society.
Sub-point A: Family.
The capital-C Conservatives who like to argue that marriage should not be equal say that that is because family is the cornerstone of society. And they're right. Family is the lowest common denominator in a stable, developed society. Same-sex relationships deserve to have the same financial support from society as any other legally recognized society. As a developed nation, we owe it to ourselves to support society in any way we can and that is shown through financial support; specifically tax benefits. If what we want is a more stable society with stronger family ties, the answer is not to alienate those who identify as gay or otherwise, the answer is to give them the same support that we do with anyone else.
Sub-point B: Monetary aide and reason.
Same-sex couples, in the world of the negation, would not receive monetary assistance from the government as an opposite-sex couple would. For lack of a better phrase, this would come back to bite the negation in the butt. Just like how important tax and financial assistance from the government is to heterosexual couples, it is for the same reasons to homosexual couples. Medical bills, cost of living, mortgages, raising a family are all costly ventures and in a civilized society such as the United States, we are to provide for our citizens the best we can in supporting their right to the best life they can achieve.
The negation to the resolution is horrifically inflammatory and for the simple reason that is in unjust, unreasonable, and terribly bigoted. Through my 3 contentions I have shown that in pure law, the affirmation is upheld and the negation is defeated. In pure theory, the same conclusion is reached and in a combination of the two, the expected outcome is reflected--the side of the affirmation is upheld. Defeat is the only reasonable outcome for the negation as clearly shown in the text above. For the reasons stated above and umpteen more, I do stand firmly in the affirmation of this resolution and I can only hope and urge that all reading this do the same. Thank you.
Interpretations and Definitions:
Marriage: (1) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractural relationship recognized by law. (2) The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. (Note: The 2nd definition was added after the first, it is fair to conclude that at one point in time the 2nd definition did not exist, but for argument purposes, I will base my debate on the entire definition.) Gay: Sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex. Tax: Require someone to pay a tax. Benefit: A good or helpful result or effect.
1. Tax benefits should be geared to those who have the ability to procreate.
2. Many women choose to stay at home to care for their children. Husbands in these households are usually the only source of income. Much of that income is diverted to caring and providing for the spouse and children who are not part of the work force.
3. Women who give birth have every right to chose to stay home and care for their children. This pulls them away from the workforce, and can create a financial burden on a family.
4. The government understands that a great way to provide financial aid to these procreating families is through tax credits and benefits. The government allows for deductions in marriages, and provides tax credits for families with children.
Logic and Deductive Reasoning:
It is logical to assume that the government encourages a union between a man and a women. The government invests in itself by encouraging men and women to partake in a relationship recognized by law. This investment is fulfilled when married couples have children. Children will eventually join the workforce and also contribute to the government through taxation.
I concur with the definition you provided of the 14th Amendment.
"The Equal Protection clause of the Amendment affirms that people shall not be denied equality in laws, protection, etc, regardless of race, creed, sexuality, etc."
You are taking the definition out of context. The 14th Amendment states: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You flipped around the words and created your own definition. If its alright with you, I would like to use the verbiage from the 14th Amendment.
The 5th Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The 5th Amendment covers the constitutional rights of a criminal.
As for the United States V. Windsor supreme court ruling:
I hope you understand this happened under the Administration of President Obama. The president appoints Supreme Court Judges. Under this notion it is fair to conclude he will appoint like minded individuals that will share his point of view. The president agrees with same-sex unions. Just because a panel of supreme court judges ruled in the favor of Windsor, it does not properly justify why Gay Married couples should receive any type of tax benefit. If conservatives held office during the United States V. Windsor, the ruling would have likely been different. I hope you can understand the process of a supreme court ruling, and how an individual bias can change a ruling. Would you agree that the ruling may have been different during the Bush Administration?
"Same-sex relationships deserve to have the same financial support from society as any other legally recognized society".
There is major differences between same-sex marriages and traditional marriages which is the ability to procreate. Children born out of wedlock are at a higher risk to; commit a crime, drop out from high school, not go to college, and also birth children out of wedlock. The government understands that children born within a traditional family are more likely to succeed and be a positive contribution to the workforce.
NatetheGreat365 forfeited this round.
All due respect,
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.