The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Ameliamk1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 4 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,395 times Debate No: 31923
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Resolution: Gay Marriage should be legal.
I will be arguing that Gay marriage should be legal, whilst my opponent will be arguing the opposite, that Gay marriage should be illegal. The burden of proof will be shared.

Structure
Round 1 - Acceptance
Round 2/3/4 - Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5 - Rebuttals

Definitions
Gay Marriage - The Marriage of two homosexual people of the same sex.

Rules
1. No arguments are to be made in the first round.
2. No new arguments are to be made in the fifth round, with the exception of them being logically necessary to refute previously made arguments.
3. No insults.
4. No semantics or trolling.
5. The burden of proof is shared.
6. Failure to obide by the rules shall result in a 7-point loss.

Ameliamk1

Con

I will be debating the side that gay marriage should not be legalized. I look forward to an informative and civil debate.
Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate.
Arguments

i) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegal
y argument here can be summarized as follows:

(P1) If there is not enough reason to make something illegal, it should be legal.
(P2) There is not enough reason to make Gay Marriage illegal.
(P3) When something is not illegal, it is legal.
(C) Therefore, Gay Marriage should be legal.

Justification of the first premise
This is pretty self-explanatory.

Justification of the second premise
*I point at the absence of reasons to make Gay Marriage illegal*

Justification of the third premise
Self-explanatory, as there is no alternative.

Justification of the conclusion
This is the logical conclusion following all three premises.

ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizens
My argument here can be summarized as follows:

(P1) Heterosexual marriage is legal, and heterosexuals can marry whatever human being they like.
(P2) One group not having the same rights as another makes the group with less rights second-rate citizens.
(P3) If Gay Marriage was illegal, homosexuals would not be able marry whatever human being they liked.
(C1) Therefore, homosexuals would be second-rate citizens.
(P4) But there is no reason why homosexuals should be second-rate citizens.
(C2) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal.

Justification of the first premise
Self-explanatory.

Justification of the second premise
Self-explanatory

Justification of the third premise
In that they would not be able to marry other men/women, which are who they want to marry.

Justification of the first conclusion
The logical conclusion following the previous premises.

Justification of the fourth premise
*I point at the lack of reasons why homosexuals should be second-rate citizens*

Justification of the second conclusion
This is the logical conclusion following the previous premises.

Conclusion
In order for Con to win, he must refute all of my arguments, and then make arguments that support his case, that Gay marriage should be illegal.



Ameliamk1

Con

I will begin by refuting your points:

1st Premise: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored.

3rd Premise: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal?

Part 2

I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals.

So why should gay marriage be illegal?

1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy.

2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

Rebuttals
i) Extreme lack of reason as to why it should be illegal
The first premise
Con concedes this.

The second premise
Con says: I assume here your argument is saying there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal. I disagree. Under Bill Clinton, the defense of marriage act was signed into law, clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That can be changed, but it's s a legitimate, real law, that would have to be challenged by the Supreme Court to be overturned or ignored.

Con may've misunderstood me here. The definition of marriage being between a man and a woman can be changed, as Con admits. But my point here was that there is no real reason to have Gay marriage be illegal. One president oculd decide to make forks illegal, and my point would be the same, that there would be no real reason to make forks or Gay marriage illegal.

The third premise
Con says: In this premise you assert that anything that has no real legal basis to deny it as a right should be legalized. Again, I disagree, as morality plays a big role in our laws, stemming from tradition. Polygamy, marrying multiple spouses, is illegal in the United States, but if you think about it, there is no legal basis to ban polygamy. Like gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act is the only real legislation standing in the way. There is absolutely no reason that polygamy should be illegal. So why is it? Because its immoral. That is the only basis for why it is not allowed. Along with bestiality and pedofilia, morality is the only argument against it. Not only does that disprove your point, but it provides in itself an argument against gay marriage. If it is a "right" to marry who you want, why isn't polygamy legal?

The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral.

Con may've misunderstood my argument that says that Gays should be able to marry whoever they want. I said that Gays should have this right because straight people have this right, and there is no reason why straight and gay people are inequal.

ii) Gay Marriage being illegal would mean that homosexuals are second-rate citizens
Con says: I don't remember the specific premises, so I will just address your entire argument, which is homosexuals are second class citizens since they don't appear to have the same rights. Gays and straight people have the exact same rights. Gay citizens can marry too, just not eachother, and straight people can not marry gay, either. At face value, they have the exact same rights. Why the Jim Crow laws and laws repressing woman were wrong is because they stopped a minority from being able to do what a majority could. That is not the case. Straight people have the same rights and restrictions as homosexuals.

So why should gay marriage be illegal?

1. Marriage isn't a "right". As I mentioned in my first rebuttal, polygamy, bestiality, and pedofilia are all illegal, as they should be. Excluding bestiality and pedofilia, as they violate other laws, polygamy is a marriage between a man and multiple woman, or a woman and multiple men. It requires legal age and consent, just like straight marriage. So if gay marriage is a right, why shouldn't polygamy be? I would even go as far as to say that if you support gay marriage, reasonably you also have to support legalizing polygamy.

2. Its legalization imposes its acceptance on society. By allowing it to be law, the state automatically becomes its primary promoter. Despite the United States being about half and half on the issue, if legalized, gay marriage would be taught in schools, have required acceptance by federal workers, and required acceptance by churches, despite the complaints of the parents, the disapproval of the federal workers, and the churches saying gay marriage goes against god's word.

Con's first argument here is that Gay and straight people have the same sort of restrictions and limitations. However, this is false. As a straight person can marry a straight person, and a straight person can marry a gay person of the opposite sex (however, this would contradict the homosexual's sexual orientation), but a Gay person cannot marry without the marriage contradicting the homosexual's sexual orientation. But a straight person can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation. Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same restrictions in marriage as heterosexual people do.

Next, Con gives us two reasons as to why Gay marriage should be illegal. I will rebut them now.

1. Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality.

2. The point made by Con here could've been made when the same issue was happening but with interracial marriage instead of Gay marriage. Everyone seems to be accepting of interracial marriage now, so perhaps if Gay marriage was legal, then we would be accepting of Gay marriage.

Another point that could be made in rebuttal to this point is that no matter what someone's opinion is, it shouldn't interfere with justice. I could be part of a majority that things that women are stupid and are only useful as sex tools, but I could not use my opinion to interfere with justice, meaning a law that states that women being useful and being able to do everything that men could do.

I'm intrigued to hear Con's response.


Ameliamk1

Con

I will try to organize this as best I can.

1. I agree there is not much strong legal evidence to deny gays the right to marry. However, I still believe pro's 3rd premise is flawed, that anything which has no reason to be illegal should be legal. I do not believe pro quite understood the point I was making, in the rebuttal, as pro said:

"The resolution is that Gay marriage should be legal. If they're banning gay marriage because it's immoral, there has to be a reason why it's immoral, because otherwise there is no reason to make it illegal, so it would then make as much sense to ban forks, for example. Con has provided no reason to think that Gay marriage is immoral."

That is just it on my point about polygamy, and the one I forgot, incest. Both are illegal, not because of a strong legal basis, but because they are immoral. Why? Because they just are. The state recognizes their immorality, and the Supreme Court upholds that. The point I was making is that things can be illegal simply out of morality, although their is no base for that claim of immorality. If pro wanted to respond to this point, I would request they explain why polygamy is immoral, and therefore should not be legalized, while gay marriage does not fit that definition of immorality?

2. For this point, pro says that gays are considered second-class citizens because they do not have the same rights to marry who they love as straight people. If I announced today that I loved my sister, and she loved me, and we were of legal age and consenting, we still wouldn't be allowed to marry, as it should be. Does that make us second-class citizens? Is that restricting our rights? Marriage, as both state and the history show, is not the unalienable, God-given rights that gay marriage advocates think it is. I would pose a question to pro: If there was a movement of people who wanted to marry close family members, would you support the legalization of it?

On to my points:

1. Quick note, yes I do use the same argument a lot, because it is one that is almost impossible to defeat without conceding that polygamy and the others should be legalized.

Pro's response to my original point is:

"Con makes the same argument here as he did earlier. My answer is that there is an inequality in Gay marriage being illegal because if it is, then heterosexual people can marry without the marriage contradicting his/her sexual orientation, but the homosexual can't. There is therefore an inequality when there is no reason to be an inequality."

Inequality requires there to be a right. As I was saying before, marriage is not an eternal right.

Marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

Marriage has been used for thousands of years, a formal bond between a man and a woman, created and usually carried out by a church. It was a word used to describe that official bond between two people of different genders. There has been no constitution nor binding laws that recognize marriage as a right. It is simply an institution of the church. Marriage is simply not a right of the land.

Also, it is perfectly legal for gays to follow their sexual orientation. They can have relationships with persons of the same sex, and can happily spend the rest of their life together. However, marriage is recognized as between a man and a woman, as it has always been, and upholding that is not an inequality, just a legal, accepted, tradition.

2. Responding to Pro's point, interracial marriage fit the man-and-woman definition, and was accepted in history. The fact that it was illegal was just an outreach of racism. The point I was saying is that is not only invalidates about half of the country's opinions, but it is direct blasphemy to the same people. If it were legalized, businesses could be sued for not hiring gay couples for religious reasons, churches could also be sued for not marrying a gay couple. In these cases, the people involved would be forced to commit blasphemy. Gay people can be together and live happily, but marriage, as recognized by the church, the inventor of marriage, is between a man and a woman, and to support religious freedom, the government should stay out of t.
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

I'll organize my arguments in this round to fit Con's points

1) Polygamy
Con says that anyone in favour of Gay marriage should also be in favour of making polygamy and incest legal, however, we can make an argument that supports Gay marriage being legal but does not support polygamy. Our argument can be summarized as follows:

(P1) If we have no reason not to give someone something, we should give them it.
(P2) Homosexuals want Gay marriage to be legal, and there's no reason not to give it to them.
(C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal.

There's no reason to deny same-sex couples marriage, but on the other hand, there are reasons not to allow polygamy. The reason being that it leads to poverty and the oppression of females.

2) Inequality
Con claims that there is no inequality since marriage is not a right, but he's missing the point. There is inequality because one group of people cannot do X thing, whilst another can't. The X thing here is marrying without that marriage conflicting with your sexual orientation, and the two groups are heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Con also claims that "it is perfectly legal for Gays to follow their sexual orientation. They can have relationships with persons of the same sex, and can happily spend the rest of their life together." Now, what I actually said was that Gays would not be able to marry with the marriage not conflicting their sexual orientation if Gay marriage was illegal, but let's put that to a side for a moment. I agree with Con's point, but even so, there is still inequality since with Gay marriage being illegal, Gays do not get the recognition, dignity, public approval and respect that the "married" label has.

3) Blasphemy
Con says that Gay marriage would cause people to blaspheme against their religion. Let's look at the examples he gives:
" If it were legalized, businesses could be sued for not hiring gay couples for religious reasons, churches could also be sued for not marrying a gay couple."
Businesses or churches not hiring any group of people for religious reasons is wrong, as it is discrimination. If I were to start a company that wouldn't hire black people for religious reasons, there would be outrage, and rightly so. The discrimination is no more and no less when it's a business not hiring gay people for religious reasons.

4) I love my sister!
Con responds to my point about Gays being second-rate citizens by responding with a point about him not being able to marry his sister. However, he misunderstands my point here. There is no inequality in you not being able to marry your sister because there is no group that is allowed to marry their sisters. My point about Gay marriage being illegal makes Gays second-rate citizens is that heterosexuals can marry without the marriage contradicting their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals cannot. There is therefore, an inequality when there is no reason why there should be.




Ameliamk1

Con

1. Polygamy
Pro's premises were:
(P1) If we have no reason not to give someone something, we should give them it.
(P2) Homosexuals want Gay marriage to be legal, and there's no reason not to give it to them.
(C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be legal.

P1: As the polygamy/incest argument proves, we do ban things that there is no reason not to give. The points Pro provided at the end for why polygamy is wrong are outdated reasons that would not exist in today's equal and somewhat paranoid political climate, that can also result from a normal marriage.

P2: The reason not to give homosexuals the right to marriage is marriage, created and carried through by the church, is not a governmental right, and could even be called a private institution. The church, and the government at this point, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and from a legal standpoint, that is their right to define it as such.

C: See premises

2. Inequality

Civil rights equality, as the gay marriage movement calls it, involves discrimination through public or government processes. Marriage is not governmental. Their thinking of letting gays into the Boy Scouts. The reason this hasn't happened yet despite many court challenges is that the Boy Scouts is a private organization, and may discriminate in order not to violate their religious beliefs. Marriage is an institution of the Church, and by law, the Church may discriminate. Unfair? Maybe, but definitely legal. Not allowing gays to marry is not unconstitutional because

A. Marriage is not a constitutional right
B. Private business is not held to the constitution, just the law

3. Blasphemy

If someone were to start a business banning blacks, there would be outrage, but it would be legal. What I'm saying here is that religion and gay marriage, a private institution, can not co-exist. Not only may churches forced by law to give gay marriages be, in their eyes, committing blasphemy, but the members may believe that they will be punished after their death for it. It goes against their religious freedom to ban anything they do that is not illegal.

4. I'm still not sure I understand Pro's point, which is:

"Con responds to my point about Gays being second-rate citizens by responding with a point about him not being able to marry his sister. However, he misunderstands my point here. There is no inequality in you not being able to marry your sister because there is no group that is allowed to marry their sisters. My point about Gay marriage being illegal makes Gays second-rate citizens is that heterosexuals can marry without the marriage contradicting their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals cannot. There is therefore, an inequality when there is no reason why there should be."

There is currently no group that is allowed to marry the same sex, either. Incest could include same-sex marriage to a close family member. I still see no difference between claiming there is inequality towards those who wish to marry within the same gender, and those who wish to marry within their family.
Debate Round No. 4
KingDebater

Pro

1. Polygamy
Con says: P1: As the polygamy/incest argument proves, we do ban things that there is no reason not to give. The points Pro provided at the end for why polygamy is wrong are outdated reasons that would not exist in today's equal and somewhat paranoid political climate, that can also result from a normal marriage.

P2: The reason not to give homosexuals the right to marriage is marriage, created and carried through by the church, is not a governmental right, and could even be called a private institution. The church, and the government at this point, defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and from a legal standpoint, that is their right to define it as such.

Con's argument against my first premise can be summarized as follows:
(P1) We make things illegal when there is no reason to.
(P2) There is no reason to make Gay marriage illegal.
(C) Therefore, Gay marriage should be illegal.

The problem is that even if we do make things illegal when there's no reason to, I still argue that everything that has no reason to be illegal should be legal. There is no alternative.

I think that he may be getting sidetracked from the resolution here. The resolution is "Gay marriage should be legal.", and let's imagine there's this cafe that gives out free massages to black people, but then there's outrage from white people who want 'White massages'. Should White massages be illegal? No, but the cafe here has the right to not give White massages. Since we it's not illegal, it's legal, so Gay marriage, should be legal.

2/3. Inequality and Blasphemy
I put these two in the same category as Con makes the same argument in both. He says here:
" If someone were to start a business banning blacks, there would be outrage, but it would be legal."
If this is true, then surely the church not allowing Gay marriage is legal. He also says:
" Not only may churches forced by law to give gay marriages be, in their eyes, committing blasphemy, but the members may believe that they will be punished after their death for it. It goes against their religious freedom to ban anything they do that is not illegal."
Just because it's legal, it doesn't mean it's required. If, like you've said before, the Church is a private institution, then it does have the right to do that.

4. I love my sister!
I find it very hard to believe that Con still doesn't undertsand my point, however, I will explain it. If Gay marriage is illegal, then heterosexuals can marry without that marriage conflicting with their sexual orientation, whilst Gays cannot. This is different to marrying a close family member as there is no other group that is allowed to marry their sister. Con claims that there is no group who is allowed to marry the same sex, and that is correct, but it's not the point. The point is that if gay marriage were illegal, then heterosexuals would be able to get married without that marriage conflicting with their sexual orientation, whilst homosexuals would not.

I thank Con for a thought-provoking debate.
Ameliamk1

Con

I don't know if it is allowed, but I concede the debate.

Thank you for an civil and very informative debate.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ameliamk1 2 years ago
Ameliamk1
I do. Wanted to try something different.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
what I don't understand con is why do you call yourself a libertarian, meanwhile don't support gay marriage?
Posted by Ameliamk1 3 years ago
Ameliamk1
In the second round, that first premise I refute should be the second premise.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
I accidentally made a spelling mistake in my second round at the start of my first argument. It should say 'My', not 'y'.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by LibertarianWithAVoice 3 years ago
LibertarianWithAVoice
KingDebaterAmeliamk1Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: You get all points because he conceded. But you were doing REALLY well before hand.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 3 years ago
Misterscruffles
KingDebaterAmeliamk1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
KingDebaterAmeliamk1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah, looks like Con conceded. By the way, the reason incest is illegal is because of the significantly higher chance of birth defects and genetic disorders popping up from one recessive allele present in both people, just so you know. Neither of you brought up that point.
Vote Placed by dragonb95 3 years ago
dragonb95
KingDebaterAmeliamk1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession