The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
van114
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage should be Illegal (5)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,527 times Debate No: 17835
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

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 4

Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. 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.

Opening Argument

Here is my first argument, lets call it the you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal 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 make it illegal.

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...

van114

Pro

Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation.
Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create (although some might see an increase in gay adoptions as an argument against same-sex marriages).
It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro seems confused. Pro is meant to affirm/support the resolution.

As such I am hardly going to contest any of their argument.
van114

Pro

Why not, my point on right on point.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I offer no challenge to Pros arguments.
van114

Pro

van114 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Lets accept Pros arguments, as such the resolution that gay marriage should be illegal has not been affirmed.

Vote Con.
van114

Pro

My opponent didn't make sense when proving his point.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
Pro seems confused indeed. Should be an easy win with both of you arguing the same side :)
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Maybe I would like to have an area of specialty ?
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Haven't you done this debate enough recently?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Illegalcombatantvan114Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: van114 loses points for conduct since Pro never bothered to argue that Gay Marriage WAS legal (being Pro means that he was to argue that gay marriage should be legal) and for also writing, 'My opponent didn't make sense when proving his point'. Con actually provided sources. Pro's arguments, while good, were not backed by sources.
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 6 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
Illegalcombatantvan114Tied
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: Pro was arguing for the wrong side.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
Illegalcombatantvan114Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Debates are supposed to be arguing opposing viewpoints. Pro handed con the win by disagreeing with the resolution and arguing against it.