The Instigator
abard124
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Gay Marriage should be legal

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 19 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,667 times Debate No: 9950
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (19)

 

abard124

Pro

I know I debated this recently (like, yesterday), but it was really light and barely touched on the complexity and depth of the issue, so I decided that I wanted to do it again.

I am extremely disappointed with this week's results in Maine. Voters have said yes to hate, intolerance, fear and discrimination. A vote is a vote, and I'll respect that, but they voted the wrong way.

I will alow my opponent to begin.
mongeese

Con

Legal - deriving authority from or founded on law
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

My argument is that no marriage should be legal, because all that government does with the legalization of marriage is discriminate between those who are married and those who are not. Tax cuts for the married [1] are really tax hikes for the non-married, or reverse, in some bizzare scenarios. Bonus rights to the married can easily be afforded to everybody.

1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever.

Thank you, and good luck, abard.
Debate Round No. 1
abard124

Pro

You raise a very interesting point. I have actually considered that at some point, but there are a few problems.

1. Family?: So, you get married in a religious ceremony. You soon find out that your wife needs brain surgery. So she's recovering, and you ask if you can visit her. The hospital says no. You have no legal protection to see her. Don't like it? Okay, so you are sterile, but you and your "wife" decide that she will go to a sperm bank so you can have children. Under your proposition, you are not legally the father of that child, and that comes with a whole plethora of problems. You could not sign as a legal guardian. You could not visit them in the hospital. If you decide to get a religious divorce, yu can forget about joint custody, because the baby is all hers. Even if you are clearly the better parent, because in the law's eyes, you're just a guy who lives in the same house as the child/mother. So, in a way, your proposition could actually be considered sexist against men. Incidentally, it's the exact same problems with gay marriage. They can't make hospital visits. If they decide to adopt a child, or if a lesbian woman goes to a sperm bank, sorry to the other mother.

2. Change from the status quo: Even if your plan could be made to work somehow, it is far too radical of a change. What would you do with those already married? I'm not one to use the argument that nobody supports it, because that argument is lame, but I will say that it would be extremely inconvenient for most of the population. We've been legally marrying people for as long as we've been civilized, and it's just not a change we're ready to take. It would be much easier to make marriage equal, because nobody will be affected for the worse. I would not necessarily oppose making some of the tax breaks smaller, but being married is much more than just tax breaks.

3. Counterproductiveness: Our current marriage laws are not hurting anybody, and are mostly for the better. They are very discriminatory because they are sexist, but it would be so much better to equalize marriage than to get rid of it altogether. Not to mention, marriage promotes monogamy, and therefore hinders the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD's. So it seems a good idea to promote such a practice than to let it die. Especially as the nation is beginning to become less religious, marriage will die in the U.S. if we don't keep it as a legal thing. I am atheist, but I am a member of a synagogue. However, many people are completely nonreligious, and so they would have nothing other than their own morals to promote monogamy. And I am not bashing nonreligious people, I'm saying that they would have no marriage to speak of. And, as I said, I don't really feel one way or the other on the morality of monogamous relationships, but they do prevent the spread of STD's. In fact, I think that that is one of the main reasons that AIDS is so prevalent among the homosexual community. They can't get married legally, so they aren't obligated by marriage to keep a monogamous relationship.

I don't want to bore you all to death, so I'll stop there for now. I am looking forward to your response, and I think that this will be a very interesting debate!
mongeese

Con

Thank you for your quick response.

A. Contention 1+: Family

My opponent assumes that because marriages are no longer recognized, husbands won't be able to visit their wives in the hospital. However, I have a win-win proposition to solve this. People write "living wills" of sorts to be kept in the hospital records, so that a person can choose who they want to be let in to visit them in the hospital, should they be knocked unconscious. A person could let in co-workers, wives, neighbors, etc. while not allowing family members they find creepy. This means less government, and more liberty.

My opponent also suggests that a husband would not be a legal parent if his wife goes to a sperm bank. However, this could be easily handled. When a child is born/adopted, the husband and wife would agree to be the legal guardians of the child, and the government would merely record the parents' names as the legal guardians of the child. This would result in the potential for joint custody.

B. Contention 2+: Change from Status Quo

My opponent calls my proposition "too radical." However, that is the way it SHOULD be. As long as government simply transfers the rights from being reserved to married people to being avaliable to everybody, there'd be no problems. It would be very convenient. Those who are married would still have their rights, but their rights would be derived from elsewhere. My opponent says that "nobody will be affected for the worse," but people would. Non-married taxpayers would have to pay more taxes due to the increase in tax breaks.

C. Contention 3+: Counterproductiveness

"Our current marriage laws are not hurting anybody, and are mostly for the better."
They hurt people that don't get the rights that are being reserved for the married.

My opponent speaks of equalizing marriage, but then immediately discriminates against polygamists. Why should polygamists be denied anything? This would violate the Equal Protection Clause [1]. In fact, any marriage recogniztion would violate the EPC, as the non-married would be denied rights given to the married.

Just because some polygamists spread STDs, doesn't mean that all polygamists should be punished. That would be a huge infringement on rights.

My opponent assumes that just because people are married, they would keep a monogamous relationship. People cheat on their spouses all the time, and government doesn't say anything about that. And STDs are not a reason to infringe people's liberties. Nobody gets an STD that doesn't make the choice to expose themselves to it!

Additionally, my opponent assumes that if government stops recognizing marriages, atheists will completely stop dating each other, living together, loving each other, and having children together. This is obviously false. The government is not the cause of marriage. People's natural tendencies are.

D. Contention 1-: Discrimination

My opponent's example of the hospital visiting rights is just one of the many rights given to the married, but given to the non-married. This violates the EPC [1]. Any tax cuts would violate the EPC. Unless my opponent can give a valid reason as to why the married must be given rights over the non-married, it is blatant discrimination.

E. Conclusion:

Rights reserved to married peoples should be avaliable to everybody. The question of parenting is completely irrelevant until children come into play, in which case knowing who a child's legal guardians are, but this can be decided when the children come. The switch from the status quo would be quite simple, as nobody would lose a single right that they actually deserved in the first place. Atheistic marriage will not collapse, as my opponent suggests, as social unions predate both government and religion. Any encouragement of monogamy is just more discrimination against polygamists.

That will be all for now. Good luck.

1. http://topics.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
abard124

Pro

Thank you for your response. It definitely made me think.

A. Hospitals: You make a good point, but what would happen if they hadn't crafted their "living will" yet? There would have to be a way to deliberate who is family. So maybe your mom can come and visit you, but your spouse could not. And since I specified gay marriage in the title of the debate, I will tie it in by saying that, according to the HRC, most states have similar things for gay couples. They will only accept family and those who are permitted by a certain document. But most people do not expect to fall unconscious, so they might not bother to go through the paperwork.

B. "My opponent says that "nobody will be affected for the worse," but people would. Non-married taxpayers would have to pay more taxes due to the increase in tax breaks." As long as all adults have the opportunity to marry, WHICH THEY DON'T AT THE CURRENT MOMENT, nobody is being denied of those rights. The status quo is that only heterosexuals can benefit from those rights, but if we equalized those rights, than everyone would have the opportunity.

C. "They hurt people that don't get the rights that are being reserved for the married."
You are absolutely correct. Gay people are exploited.

"Just because some polygamists spread STDs, doesn't mean that all polygamists should be punished. That would be a huge infringement on rights."
They aren't being punished. And honestly I could care less if someone wants to marry 12 other people. Make that legal for all I care. I was mostly referring to the guys who go to parties and have sex with a different woman each time (or vice versa, I suppose).

"My opponent assumes that just because people are married, they would keep a monogamous relationship."
You assumed my assumption wrong. I said that marriage PROMOTES monogamy. I never said that it guarantees a monogamous relationship.

"Additionally, my opponent assumes that if government stops recognizing marriages, atheists will completely stop dating each other, living together, loving each other, and having children together."
No, I said that non-religious people would not have a way to get married.

D. Look, you could make the argument that almost anything violates the EPC. But the story with this debate is that, as long as all adults are allowed to marry, everyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with it.

E. Conclusion: My opponent has made a great argument explaining why marriages shouldn't be recognized by the state. He's dead wrong, but I think we can all agree that his arguments were very good, and I'd like to commend him for that. I would also like to congratulate my opponent on winning the sources portion of that. I can use as much logic and common sense as I want, but my opponent absolutely has better sources than I. Unfortunately for my opponent, the subject of the debate was that GAY marriage should be legal. The only time my opponent mentioned anything along the lines of homosexuality was when he said, "I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever." While his point indirectly attempts to negate the resolution, it does so in a weak fashion. For example, if I told you that I hated bananas, it would be much more beneficial to your cause to tell me about the health benefits of the banana instead of talking to me about all the benefits of eating fruit. Or if a child writes a paper for school and the teacher fails it not because it was poorly written, but because she didn't like the student. I would agree with the statement, "Marriage for all or marriage for none," but marriage for all is the much better alternative. I've made it clear in previous debates that I don't really care whether I win or lose the debate as long as my argument provokes the thoughts of someone, and so I'll be honest. Our spelling and grammar was equal, so vote neither for that. As I said earlier, vote con for sources. I feel that I deserve the rest, and I hope that the rest of you do as well. And with that, I will allow my opponent to give his final argument, and then we will see how the voters feel. Thank you for your time, and thank you to my opponent.
mongeese

Con

A. Contention 1+: Family
My opponent contends that some people don't have time to write their "living will," and wouldn't bother with the paperwork. However, if people are willing to go through the extremely formal legal process of marriage, then most certainly they'd be willing to write out who they'd want to visit them. It's just a simple matter of writing some names on a piece of paper and sending it to the hospital.

B. Contention 2+: Change from Status Quo

My opponent claims that if all people could get married, then nobody is being denied the right to marry. However, what's really the point of reserving rights to the married? Why should somebody have to get married to receive these rights? What if a person's too ugly to get anybody to marry him? Everybody has the opportunity to be rich, but that doesn't justify the law favoring the rich over the poor in issues where it should be neutral.

Contention 3+: Counterproductiveness

My opponent says that gays are exploited. However, under my proposal, gays would not be exploited, and neither would the non-married.

My opponent contradicts himself, saying that polygamy should be legalized while saying that marriage promotes polygamy.

"No, I said that non-religious people would not have a way to get married."
They can be married in their heads. Why should they need government to tell them if they're married?

D. Contention 1-: Discrimination

My opponent claims that because the EPC is repeatedly violated, it becomes okay. Discrimination does not justify discrimination.

"[A]s long as all adults are allowed to marry, everyone has equal opportunity to take advantage of the benefits that come with it."
Nope. The handsome have advantage over the ugly. The rich have advantage over the poor. The kind have an advantage over the rude.

E. Conclusion:

I would like to thank my opponent for his commendations.

He calls my argument indirect. However, if there is no reason for marriage in general to be legal, then gay marriage would most definitely not be legal.

In conclusion, there would be less government, more liberty, and less discrimination if marriage were not legal. Vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Or you could say, "Congratulations, Mongeese. I'm glad you won, and I was supporting you the whole way. And good job, Abard, although I disagree."

Jeez... What's a guy gotta do to get some respect around here...

Oh well... I'm not too upset. 1 point shows a good debate, and I don't care if you think it was vote bombed, because I thought it was a good debate. I shall say no more.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
This got vote bombed so much.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
lol 1 point, yay!
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
lol 1 point, yay!
Posted by abard124 6 years ago
abard124
Wow! I didn't realize it was that close. I thought i was getting killed...

Still, congratulations to Mongeese... You argued well, my friend.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Yes, many have. However, they haven't yet countered the argument of everybody being equal at zero.
Posted by sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
Given the religious tangles with the definition of marriage has anyone ever argued on this site that homosexual civil unions should have the same rights as a marriage based on the 14th ammendment therefore providing a different title and institution that sanctioned the joint relationship? I know the argument of separate but equal will come up but I haven't been able to find a discussion debating this aspect of gay rights.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
The stereotypes aren't always true, but they are reasons to not attribute all inequalities to raschists.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
abard124
"which has clear correlation with race"
That's bold... I wouldn't be so ignorant to say that sometimes stereotypes can be true, but my hypothesis is that that exists because we expect them to, and so they follow how they think they're supposed to be. But it's not always the case. For example, look at our president. He's African American, but he's not like snoop dog or anything. And as I said, I think that the vast majority of us act how society thinks we should act, and that can get us into trouble, and it encourages discrimination. So maybe we can all work together to end that correlation.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Now there, Cody, I agree with you. Discriminating based on color is bad, but based on athletic ability or intellect, which has clear correlation with race, is smart.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by comoncents 6 years ago
comoncents
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
abard124mongeeseTied
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 sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
abard124mongeeseTied
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 mrkkid17 7 years ago
mrkkid17
abard124mongeeseTied
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 mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
abard124mongeeseTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by heidirose12 7 years ago
heidirose12
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by rayedawg2013 7 years ago
rayedawg2013
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Projectc9 7 years ago
Projectc9
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tynews2001 7 years ago
tynews2001
abard124mongeeseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00