The Instigator
briantheliberal
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 6 votes the winner is...
briantheliberal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,965 times Debate No: 38685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (6)

 

briantheliberal

Pro

When discussing the topic of same sex marriage, the majority of those who oppose the legalization of allowing gay couples to marry do so based on religious grounds without any logical consensus as to why it should not be legalized. This led me to conclude that there are no real arguments against gay marriage. Using religion to dictate legislation is a violation of every American's constitutional rights and in this case should be considered discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

I want my opponent to present a logical, clear argument against gay marriage. If necessary provide evidence from a credible source to support your claims
xXCryptoXx

Con

Thank you for instigating this debate.

First off, not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means. In order to say what discrimination is and what isn’t we must first analyze how marriage is defined and why.


Marriage is government regulated because the government recognizes that marriage has external benefits to it rather than marriage simply being about the relationship of a couple. The government also recognizes that these benefits marriage can bring when marriage is defined in a certain way can also be inherently good for the society.


The government has absolutely no interest in the personal lives of people, the only interest they have in marriage is the direct benefits marriage brings. Allowing gay marriage degrades the government’s interest in marriage only to the personal relationships of two people, but as explained earlier the government could care less about what people do with their private lives.


The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. The government wants to promote these good family environments because these family units are good for the survival of a society.


After all, it’s a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive and the government wants to promote this.


The government promotes these relationships by dispensing benefits to married couples; this is not only a “thank you” for the couples who did get married, but it is also a way to get other heterosexual couples to get married.


Now that we’ve analyzed the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no discrimination against those who cannot fulfill the role in marriage that the government calls for. In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation.


To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against.


Now that we understand the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married.


I will await any contentions you have to these arguments.

Debate Round No. 1
briantheliberal

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge...

To initiate my rebuttal, I will first address your claim "not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means"

First, let's define the term 'discrimination'

Discrimination -
1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment

http://dictionary.reference.com...

In this particular case, the distinction being made is in reference to the both the gender and sexual orientations of the individuals involved. You are saying "You cannot get married, because you are not like me" which in this case would be classified as discrimination. If we were to look at this from a similar perspective (ie a couple with different ethnic backgrounds), this would also be classified as discrimination. Not allowing couples to marry because of their biological sex is in fact discriminatory by definition and is no less discriminatory than not allowing couples to marry because of their ethnicity. My sources regarding gender and sex discrimination laws are below, they also apply to gays and lesbians.

Gender and Sex Discrimination Laws:
http://www.eeoc.gov...

Marriage is a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond. However, in the United States, marriage is more of a legal process. Couples who commit to marriage must sign a legally binding marriage contract which then grants them certain benefits that are only given to those under said contract who have established some sort of bond or commitment to one another. Obviously the government IS interested in the personal relationships of two people, because if they weren't, there would be no need for a legally binding contract. Marriage is far from ever being a 'private' issue. No legal matters are private if the government is involved. And as far as the government is concerned, the relationship between the two people involved is essential when considering whether or not they are allowed to be married in some cases which is why American citizens who choose marry immigrants must go through a process of "legitimization" of their relationship before their spouse can become a fully recognized U.S. citizen.

Definition of Marriage:
http://dictionary.reference.com...

For Immigration purposes:
http://www.immihelp.com...

By claiming "The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. " you are implying 1. Gay people are not capable of having, loving or raising children, and 2. Having children is some sort of requirement in marriage.

Both are false. Gay couples are just as capable of raising and loving their children as any heterosexual couple. Not all heterosexual parents are 'loving' parents either. And when discussing marriage, whether or not you believe homosexuals should raise children is irrelevant. Having children is not a requirement for marriage. There are heterosexual couples who do not have children, either by choice, due to infertility or age and gay couples that do in fact raise children together.

It is not the government's job to "promote" a hetero normative environment. That, once again, is discrimination. Gay couples marrying and raising children does not somehow hinder or deteriorate the survival of a society. And by saying it is acceptable for the government to "promote" this, you thereby go against your own claim that "the government could care less about what people do with their private lives." because according to you, that is the exact opposite. Regardless, one cannot "promote" heterosexuality. Whether or not gay couples are allowed to marry, that has no impact on the sexual orientation, personal lives or traditional values of other people.

You add on by claiming "In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation."

I assume by "married" you mean to the opposite sex, correct? Allow me to show you the error in that statement. Homosexuals are romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex, not the opposite. To say it is acceptable for a gay man to marry a woman is illogical and promotes dishonesty. What purpose does that serve and how does that benefit the couple involved? A gay man is incapable of falling in love with and having a healthy sexual relationship with a woman if he is not attracted to her. So why would a person want to marry someone if it only leads to conflict, stress, possibly adultery and eventually divorce. It would be ridiculous to think that is a good idea.

You go on to claim "To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against."

And what couples would that be exactly? Please specify in detail.

"Now that we understand the government"s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married."

No disrespect intended but clearly you do not exactly know the government's role in marriage. And none of your arguments really proved that denying gay couples the right to marry is not classified as discrimination because it clearly is under legal definition. All of your major points consisted of claims which implied that marriage is some sort of "heterosexual privilege" without any real evidence or logical argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage, only biased claims.

All I really got from your argument was "Gays marrying is bad for families and society because I say so and it's not discrimination because I say so and they shouldn't marry because I say so" without any evidence or specifications, which to me is not a valid argument at all. Please present an argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage that is more direct and provide evidence to support your claims.

I await your response.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your intelligent and well thought out response.



Discrimination


Now my opponent seems to think that traditional marriage is discriminatory towards gay couples because it doesn’t allow homosexual relations into the picture.


Now, once again, before we can argue about what is discriminatory or not in the case of marriage, we must first know what marriage is and why the government recognizes it.


Since the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people, it is logical to believe that only couples that have these public means of giving to the society should be allowed to marry.


This public means of giving to society would be the direct connection heterosexual couples have to the family unit, which the government wants to promote.


This is why that we can logically say that things that polygamous relationships, relationships with animals, relationships with inanimate objects, and also of course homosexual relationships (I do realize there are other reasons for the exemption of some of the relationships listed) may be excluded from marriage without discriminatory means.


This is because no relationship except a heterosexual relationship has the means to publicly support the society through its inherent connection to the family unit.



Can’t Homosexual Couples Raise Families Just as Well as Heterosexual Couples?


What is in question in terms of marriage is whether or not the relationship has a direct link to the family unit, and not whether the relationship can raise children well. This means that it does not matter if the relationship in question can raise a family just as well as the heterosexual relationship. Arguably homosexual couples can raise families just as well as heterosexual couples; however their relationship is still an inherently private relationship.


Let me explain further into what it means to have an inherently private relationship and what it means to have a relationship that is inherently linked to the family unit.


What does it mean to be inherently linked to the family unit?


This means that your relationship, through completely natural means, produces children to be raised efficiently.


We’ll use a married heterosexual couple for example.


The marital relationship between a couple is obviously linked to love.


Love is in turn generally linked to sexual intercourse, which is the most powerfully intimate way to physically express your love for another.


Seeing that man and woman produce offspring through this natural means of expressing love physically, they also generally have a direct link to producing children to be raised by their mother and father.


When you look at this from a general standpoint, you find that the heterosexual relationship has a means of producing a family unit completely naturally, and through the love of the relationship they pursue.


The government recognizes this relationship to be beneficial to society because they want to promote the family unit, and they therefore want to promote any relationship that has this link to the family unit.


What does it mean to have a private relationship?


A private relationship is any relationship that does not have the direct means through the relationship they pursue to produce or raise children.


The most key requirement here to have this link to the family unit is that you must be able to produce offspring through sexual intercourse. Any relationship that cannot do this is therefore private because they must have outside means of creating a family.


The government does not want to promote private relationships because it deteriorates why the government recognizes marriage at all in the first place.


Let’s use our logic here, the government would have absolutely no interest in promoting marriage or dispensing benefits at all if there was not some reason for why they were doing it.


This reason is obviously to promote the family unit, which is something that promotes a healthy society.



The Family Unit


The family unit is something that almost any relationship can pursue, but only the heterosexual relationship has a direct link to it through the loving relationship they pursue.


Now my opponent argues that because having children is not a necessity to marriage, we should therefore allowing gay couples into marriage.


The reason having a family is not a necessity in marriage is because it doesn’t need to be a necessity. Since the heterosexual relationship already has a direct link to the family unit, there is no need to force couples into producing children. This also allows couples leeway and the free will to make their own decisions.


I would like to note that the government’s main interest is not necessarily in the family unit itself, but the government is interested in any relationship that has a special link to the family unit. Since only heterosexual relationships have this special link, the government only has an interest in promoting heterosexual relations.


Since the government’s interest is in the relationship itself, and not in the fruits of this relationship, this still allows infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children into marriage.


This promotes the idea that the government is interested in the relationship itself, and not necessarily in the means of the end of the relationship.



I await your response.


Debate Round No. 2
briantheliberal

Pro

"Now my opponent seems to think that traditional marriage is discriminatory towards gay couples because it doesn"t allow homosexual relations into the picture."

Actually I said denying gay couples the right to marriage is discrimination because the overall basis of distinction is in reference the the gender of the individuals involved. This, by definition, is considered discrimination and is therefore considered illegal and unconstitutional via Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are denying a couple the right to a legally binding contract and state and federal recognition because of their biological sex, gender identity and in some states, sexual orientation.

http://www.eeoc.gov...

"Since the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people, it is logical to believe that only couples that have these public means of giving to the society should be allowed to marry."

The government does NOT specifically recognize or even consider marriage as a "public benefit" but more of a private negotiation between two people under state and federal law. Exactly what "benefits" do heterosexuals who get married automatically bring to society that homosexuals who get married do not? And where is your source to support this claim?

"This public means of giving to society would be the direct connection heterosexual couples have to the family unit, which the government wants to promote."

Again, it is not the government's job to promote any form of family function. And once again, you are contradicting yourself when you claim "the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people" because if the government is "promoting the family unit" then they are in fact intervening into the personal lives of the people involved. But until you provide a source or some form of evidence to support these claims, none of them are valid. If this were true, having biological children would be a legal requirement in marriage but that is not the case.

"This is why that we can logically say that things that polygamous relationships, relationships with animals, relationships with inanimate objects, and also of course homosexual relationships"

There are several errors to this claim...

1. Animals and inanimate objects cannot consent nor are they capable of signing a legally binding contract.

2. Polygamous marriages are much more difficult to regulate and keep track of and are usually very unstable in regards to the number of people involved, how it affects immigration, and the outcome of divorce.

3. Homosexual marriage still involves TWO consenting adults who are capable of paying and filing taxes with one another.

You claim "This is because no relationship except a heterosexual relationship has the means to publicly support the society through its inherent connection to the family unit."

Again, please specify and provide evidence to support this claim.

"This means that your relationship, through completely natural means, produces children to be raised efficiently."

Again, having children (biological or otherwise) is NOT a requirement in marriage and is not a logical reason to deny gay couples the right of marriage. There are heterosexual couples who choose not to have children and those who adopt. Are their marriages somehow less legitimate and meaningful because of it? By your logic, their marriages should be illegal too.

Just because a fertile man and woman can get married and produce biological offspring through intercourse does not mean that gay couples shouldn't have the right to get married because they cannot. Especially because having biological children is NOT a legal marriage requirement. The traditional "family unit" is not a realistic expectation for everyone in society, especially gay people because homosexuals are sexually/romantically attracted to the same sex, not the opposite. And whether you like it or not, there are children out there who already need loving homes that gay men and women are already willing to provide provide for them.

You claim... "Since the government"s interest is in the relationship itself, and not in the fruits of this relationship, this still allows infertile couples and couples who choose not to have children into marriage."

This is not completely true. If the government didn't recognize the children of married individuals, there would be no benefits given to a married couple who CHOOSE to either adopt or biologically have children. It may not be a requirement, but those who have children are also recognized under state and federal law. And yes, gay couples have biological children as well which is either a result of or through surrogacy, artificial insemination or previous marriages.

As of now, I have yet to fully understand the logic behind your argument. It would be greatly appreciated if you gave me at least one clear, valid reason as to why same sex marriage should not be legalized with evidence to support it. Your current argument was simply a repetition of the same points from your previous argument which did absolutely nothing to help me understand why gay couples should not be allowed to get married. Marriage is not a reproductive or heterosexual privilege and the government is not responsible for promoting any form of family function and you still haven't provided any sources to support this claim.

I await your response, once again. Please provide evidence if necessary.
xXCryptoXx

Con

Hopefully my response to the points you make (Which are very common misunderstandings of the arguments I have presented) will be enough to give you a clearer picture of the arguments I myself have presented.


Discrimination and Gay Marriage

My opponent seems to be stuck on thinking that the reason gay couples aren’t allowed into marriage is because of their sexual orientation.

I will make this extremely clear.

The government does not want allow gay couples into marriage because this relationship does not have a direct link to the family unit (therefore making it a private relationship, which the government has no interest in). This denial of gay couples is not because of sexual orientation, rather it is because the relationship does not have the public means of benefiting the society through the family unit directly.

If any of this is confusing (such as what it means to have a direct link to the family unit), please refer back to the arguments I made last round, where I clarified my position.

If I give out License X to individual who can do Y. There is no discrimination that I do not give out license X to those who cannot do Y. This is because license X is specifically given to only those who can do Y.

In this case, license X is marriage, and license Y is the direct link to the family unit.


Rebuttals

Now, to hopefully clear up any misunderstandings my opponent has with my arguments I will directly response to his statements.

“The government does NOT specifically recognize or even consider marriage as a "public benefit" but more of a private negotiation between two people under state and federal law. Exactly what "benefits" do heterosexuals who get married automatically bring to society that homosexuals who get married do not? And where is your source to support this claim?”

The government recognizes marriage because of the public benefits it can bring. If the government saw that marriage could not potentially have public benefits, they would not recognize marriage at all and would have absolutely no restrictions on who could get married. The reason the government has been recognizing marriage and promoting only heterosexual marriage is because they recognize that heterosexual couples have a direct link to the family unit which therefore benefits the society.

It simply does not make sense that the government recognizes marriage for absolutely no reason. If the government had no need to recognize marriage they wouldn’t recognize marriage. However they do, therefore we can conclude that there is some reason for why marriage would be recognized at all. This is again, for the public benefits marriage can bring when defined correctly.

The benefits heterosexual couples bring is that they have a direct link to the family unit, simply by the very relationship heterosexual couples pursue. The family unit is overall great for the society and the government wants to promote these units.

Gay couples (and any other relationship) do not have this direct link to the family unit, because they cannot reproduce. This means that the family unit must be created through other means. The government does not promote this type of relationship because it does not, through the natural means of its relationship, create a family.


“Again, it is not the government's job to promote any form of family function. And once again, you are contradicting yourself when you claim "the government recognizes marriage for the public benefits it brings, rather than the private relationship of two people" because if the government is "promoting the family unit" then they are in fact intervening into the personal lives of the people involved. But until you provide a source or some form of evidence to support these claims, none of them are valid. If this were true, having biological children would be a legal requirement in marriage but that is not the case.”

It is the government’s job to work for the overall efficiency of the society. Promoting the family unit works for the overall efficiency of the society and the government therefore has an interest in means of promoting this family unit.

There is no contradiction, rather you are misinterpreting my use of “private” and “public”.

A private relationship is a relationship that does not work towards the government’s interest in promoting an efficient society.

For example, friendships are a private type of relationship. This is because they directly involve only the personal lives of the friends.

A public relationship is any relationship that despite it being through the private lives of others, has a public means of affecting the efficiency of the society.

Heterosexual couples have a public relationship because they have a direct link to the family unit, which helps to promote an efficient society.


I would like to note that the reason having children is not a requirement in marriage is because the government wants to promote any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, not the family unit itself. This is logical when dealing with infertile couples. They promote the idea that the government is interested in the relationship itself and not in the means to the end.


My opponent explained why other relationships are not involved in marriage specifically. I’d like to note that I understand these reasons and I wrote that I understood these reasons in the last round. I wanted to show that like gay couples, those relationships are also out of marriage because they do not have a direct link to the family unit. Although unlike gay couples, there are many other reasons other relationships are rejected also.


“You claim "This is because no relationship except a heterosexual relationship has the means to publicly support the society through its inherent connection to the family unit."

Again, please specify and provide evidence to support this claim.”

You cannot have me keep repeating myself. An inherent connection to the family unit means that heterosexual couples naturally through their own relationship have sexual intercourse with each other as means of expressing their love for each other, which naturally leads to a family unit.

No other relationship works this way.


My opponent argues about infertile couples ect. for a while. I explained in this round’s rebuttals that the government is specifically interested in the relationship that has a direct link to children (heterosexual relationships) and not the means of the end of the relationship (meaning the children itself).


My opponent argues that gay couples can adopt children and that gay couples should therefore be allowed into marriage.

This is not a direct link to the family unit because it requires outside means of acquiring children to raised. Since it is not a direct link the government has no interest in promoting this relationship.


“If the government didn't recognize the children of married individuals, there would be no benefits given to a married couple who CHOOSE to either adopt or biologically have children. It may not be a requirement, but those who have children are also recognized under state and federal law. And yes, gay couples have biological children as well which is either a result of or through surrogacy, artificial insemination or previous marriages.”

Gay couples however, do not have direct means of having children. That is the point. One of the requirements of having a direct link to the family unit is that through your own relationship only, that the couple themselves have children.


Hopefully the response I gave will clear things up for my opponent.

I await your response.

Debate Round No. 3
briantheliberal

Pro

Again, my opponent has presented an argument WITHOUT evidence to support his claims.

Again you claim, "The government does not want allow gay couples into marriage because this relationship does not have a direct link to the family unit (therefore making it a private relationship, which the government has no interest in)." WITHOUT a source to support this. Where did this point come from and where is your evidence to support it?

Again you also claim "This denial of gay couples is not because of sexual orientation, rather it is because the relationship does not have the public means of benefiting the society through the family unit directly." WITHOUT listing said "benefits" that I have asked for MULTIPLE times.

What can X do that Y cannot? And why is this relevant when allowing gay couples to marry? This "direct link to the family unit" claim is not valid UNTIL you provide evidence to support this claim because as of now you have yet to present even the smallest form of evidence to support this. This leads me to conclude that you fabricated this claim and tried to pass it off as some form of valid argument. And I think I have made it clear that having children is NOT a legal marriage requirement, so even if you could find evidence to support this claim, it is irrelevant. Every major accredited source I have read says otherwise.

Even if having children was a legal marriage requirement (which it's not), gay couples are just as capable of raising children as heterosexual couples. Children need loving PARENTS, not just a "biological mother and a father". What the parents have between their legs is irrelevant when raising children to be productive citizens in society. Children need parents, whether those parents are two men, two women, a men and a women, adoptive, biological, their grandparents, their aunts, their uncles, their older siblings or extended relatives. The "direct link to family unit" is NOT a logical, valid reason to deny gay couples the right of marriage, especially when having children is NOT a legal marriage requirement. Gender is not linked to parenting skills.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Also I must address this claim...

"It simply does not make sense that the government recognizes marriage for absolutely no reason."

The government does recognize marriage for a reason. Marriage is a LEGAL bond between two people. It allows two people to file taxes with one another, it grants them visitation rights when their spouse is hospitalized or in critical condition, it allows them to make medical decisions for their spouse when they are not able to, it gives two people the right to own property with one another, it grants rights of inheritance and control of their property when their spouse dies, and much more. Having children has nothing to do with this and is, once again, NOT a legal requirement in marriage either.

I don't think you truly understand what marriage is, because based on this entire argument so far it seems as if you feel that marriage is some sort of "breeding bond". You don't have to be married to reproduce and that isn't a valid reason to deny gay couples from marriage either. People don't just get married to pop out babies. At this point in the debate, it is clear to me that you do not fully understand the legal implications that come with marriage.

And you have yet, to present a logical argument to support your side. It just keeps getting repetitive.

For example, you claim "The family unit is overall great for the society and the government wants to promote these units."

Once again, you are speaking on behalf of the government but haven't presented any form of evidence to support this claim. You just keep saying it as if it is true, but it's not because it's not the government's responsibility to "promote the family unit". That is something you made up because that is not factual. If it is, feel free to provide sources to prove me wrong. Until then, you are wrong.

You also claim, "I would like to note that the reason having children is not a requirement in marriage is because the government wants to promote any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, not the family unit itself."

Again, this is not true, at all.

You also claim "Gay couples however, do not have direct means of having children. That is the point. One of the requirements of having a direct link to the family unit is that through your own relationship only, that the couple themselves have children."

This again, is not true. And you have yet to present evidence to support this. Not only is this not true, it's also irrelevant.

The purpose of this debate was for you to present a clear, logical argument against legalizing gay marriage with evidence to support your claims. You have not done this yet. Hopefully you would be able to do so in your next argument.

Until then, I await your response.
xXCryptoXx

Con



Alright, enough is enough.


At no point did my opponent even attempt to refute my arguments, my opponent has responded with “Nope, doesn’t count unless you provide evidence” for nearly every one of my arguments. All my arguments are arguments from logic, and what the government’s role in society should extend to. I have already clarified my position multiple times for my opponent and he still has yet to give a refutation to many of my arguments.


I would also like to note that I have already responded to many arguments my opponent has made. He keeps on insisting that children are not a requirement in marriage, therefore gays should be allowed to marry each other. I have already responded to this multiple times. The government is not interested in the reproduction of children itself, rather they are interested in any relationship that has a direct link to the family unit (I have explained what it means to have a direct link to the family unit in earlier rounds).


Since the government is only interested in a relationship that has a direct link to the family unit, even if gay couples could raise children properly, they still lack the direct link itself to the family unit.


To reiterate, the government is only interested in relationships that have a direct link it the family unit, because they naturally have children out of sexual intercourse, which is the ultimate way of physically expressing your love for an individual. These relationships have a natural tendency to create a loving family with no outside means.


Now, my opponent claims that the reason the government regulates marriage is because it allows two people to enjoy marital benefits with each other. Now this can’t be true because benefits are actually the “reward” for benefiting the society through the means of the relationship heterosexual couples pursue. This also undermines marriage, which is a comprehensive union with a special link to children(1).


The government only wants to recognize this kind of relationship specifically, because it is the most important in terms of benefiting our society. Friendships are important relationships, but friends don’t get married to enjoy benefits with each other. No, marriage calls for a specific type of relationship, and that relationship is one that can only be pursued and fulfilled by heterosexual couples.


Marriage is not to be treated as a “breeding bond” as my opponent represents my arguments for traditional marriage as. Rather, marriage is a special union dedicated to love, which when defined in a certain way has a natural link to the family unit to be raised by a mother and father who had children out of the most loving form of physical intimacy.


Marriage, when defined in this way can greatly benefit society through incentivizing heterosexual couples to get married.


After all, marriage is a dedication to true love (Whether they fulfill this dedication or not is irrelevant), and children produced through this dedication to love are going to be raised in a good, healthy environment.


It is the government’s job to take action by means of making the society more efficient.


Traditional marriage greatly benefits the efficiency of the society.


Therefore it is the government’s job to promote traditional marriage.


In the same, this doesn’t tread on the freedoms of anyone, because marriage in itself, is for the love between two people with a special link to children. That is marriage.


If gay couples want the same rights as heterosexual couples, then they should pursue a civil union and be granted the same rights.


All in all, only heterosexual relationships are geared towards the kind of relationship marriage calls for.



I await your response.



(1) John Corvino, "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage" in Gallagher and Corvino (eds), Debating Same-Sex Marriage (OUP: 2012)


Debate Round No. 4
briantheliberal

Pro

Without evidence there is NO argument to debate! You simply made up a bunch of claims and tried to pass it off as factual and logical information. You had FIVE ample opportunities to support yourself and you did NOT do that. Your arguments were flawed and repetitive. What do expect me to do? I cannot rebut an argument if there is NO argument in the first place.

"All my arguments are arguments from logic, and what the government"s role in society should extend to."

Yet there is no logic on your side at all. You keep saying "the government's role in marriage..." when you don't even know WHAT marriage is. I have made it clear MULTIPLE times that this "family unit" argument is invalid because having children is NOT a requirement in marriage. Not only that, YOU DID NOT even provide evidence to support that claim.

For example, you keep saying...

"the government is only interested in relationships that have a direct link it the family unit, because they naturally have children out of sexual intercourse, which is the ultimate way of physically expressing your love for an individual."

This is nothing but made up, biased propaganda. Because according to the most recent of scientific, psychological and sociological studies, NONE of what you said is truthful. Children raised by gay couples are no better or worse than children raised by heterosexual couples, so this "direct link to the family unit" rubbish is NOT factual, at all.

The gender of the parent is irrelevant when raising children... What does the fact that I came out of my mother's vagina have to do with the fact that she loves me? Why is the fact that my father has a penis important when raising me? Again, what about heterosexual couples who adopt children? Do they not love their children because they are not biologically theirs? There are so many flaws in your argument and you continuously contradict yourself.

Here is a good example of the obvious flaws in your argument, you claim...

"After all, marriage is a dedication to true love (Whether they fulfill this dedication or not is irrelevant), and children produced through this dedication to love are going to be raised in a good, healthy environment."

Are homosexuals not capable of loving each other? Are homosexuals not capable of dedication? Not only that, but why is it not relevant whether or not straight parents fulfill their dedication? Basically what you are saying is, "it doesn't matter if straight parents LOVE each other or their children, as long a they are straight it doesn't matter." This is a perfect example of bias in your argument.

Here is a validated study from Boston University which proves that what you say is not the truth... I will also include a video for better explanation.

http://www.bu.edu...

Would you like the opinion of a medical professional?

http://www.webmd.com...

Now where is your EVIDENCE ? Because I have provided plenty.

Regardless, having children is STILL NOT a requirement in marriage. So whatever arguments you have in regards to parenting is irrelevant because that is a completely unrelated argument. We are not debating about gay PARENTING, we are debating gay MARRIAGE which are two completely different topics.

You claim "It is the government"s job to take action by means of making the society more efficient."

What does this have to do with gay people getting married? Absolutely nothing because you made it up like everything else in your argument.

"Traditional marriage greatly benefits the efficiency of the society."

Gay marriage also benefits society. Why? Because gay couples almost always WANT their children and are almost always mentally, emotionally and financially capable of raising them. More than half of all births between heterosexual parents are accidental. And more often than not, they are not mentally, emotionally, and financially capable of raising their children which is why so many kids are given up for adoption by their biological heterosexual parents. Gay people almost always CHOOSE to be parents and are more mentally and financially prepared to raised their kids on average.

Speaking of adoption, gay parents are also more likely to adopt children who are in desperate need of loving parents. Gay parents are also more likely than heterosexual parents to adopt children over the age of 3, who according to adoption statistics, have the most difficult time getting adopted. Research suggests that gay and lesbian parents are actually a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 in foster homes headed by gays and lesbians. May I add that there are currently more than 100,000 kids in foster care in the U.S.

It's obvious that your argument is so one sided and closed minded that it completely dismisses the needs of innocent children WITHOUT families. To say that only biological parents can raise their children with love and dedication is completely biased and terribly insensitive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

And now to address this claim...

"Therefore it is the government"s job to promote traditional marriage."

For the hundredth time, IT IS NOT the government's job to promote "traditional" marriage. Again, you made this up.

And now for the best part, you claim...

"In the same, this doesn"t tread on the freedoms of anyone, because marriage in itself, is for the love between two people with a special link to children. That is marriage."

This is, yet another, LIE. Once AGAIN, marriage has NOTHING to do with having a "special link to children." at all. Marriage is a LEGAL BOND between two people who have agreed through a contract that provides certain benefits that are given to them through the LAW.

These benefits include...

Practical benefits

- Spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.
- Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension.
- Inheritance rights are provided to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.
- The right of property distribution,
- Child custody and support and spousal support during a case of absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship so parents cannot abandon the other without paying child support.

Financial benefits

- Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.
- The right to own property with one another.
- Entitlement of financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.
- The right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.
- When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes.

Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children. So their children are protected through their marriage by law. The parents are entitled to

- Joint custody.
- Visitation rights upon divorce.

As well as hundred more benefits given through marriage. A civil Union is NOT a marriage.
http://www.nolo.com...

Denying gay couples these rights without logic is discrimination. You cannot argue against same-sex marriage if you don't even know what marriage is or what it's for. You cannot make up things during a debate in attempt to pass it off as factual information WITHOUT evidence. Your argument is biased.

Thank you for debating.
xXCryptoXx

Con


Thank you for your response.



It is not of my own fault that my opponent seems to have an inability to understand my arguments and present valid refutations against them.


One again my opponent asks me to present evidence for my arguments, as if my arguments were evidential arguments. In essence, the evidence for my arguments is the “why should it be this way?” or “which I have presented. Everything I have argued has led up to a strengthened family unit in the society, which in turn provides efficiency for the society.


I will respond to anything that wasn’t my opponent continuously ranting about how my arguments are repetitive (I’ve had to reiterate them many times in hope that my opponent would understand them better, but he never seemed to get to that point) and where my opponent says I must provide evidence (which is silly, seeing they are not evidential arguments, like an argument over evolution for example).




My opponent’s first legitimate point begs the question of what marriage is.


I will first start with a basic definition, then delve deeper into it.


Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other. Marriage functions as a way of publicly acknowledging one’s love and commitment for their spouse.


Now under this definition it would seem that same-sex couples should most definitely be allowed into marriage, but once we discern what makes marriage special, and why the government is interested in this therefore making marriage public, we will understand why heterosexual couples are specified towards marriage.


“Love is essential for a marriage to flourish in the way that it should, but love alone cannot be sufficient for legal recognition. For one, not every loving relationship is afforded legal recognition. There are many different kinds of valuable social relationships that are simply not relevant to the public good in the way that marriage is. Companionships, for example, involve love, but nobody is calling for the government to legally recognize friendships. Love certainly motivates a couple to enter into marriage, but it is mistaken to think that marriage is essentially about love.”(1)


Love is a private matter. This is why relationships based around love, and love only are not afforded legal recognition. We can come to the conclusion then, that government recognizes marriage for a certain public purpose.


Now that we know this, there must be a better and more specific definition of marriage. This would then justify the government position and answer just what the public purpose of marriage is.


Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.


“Marriage is a comprehensive relationship. It is different in kind from a friendship or partnership in which the respective parties are bound together merely by a common interest. It is something much deeper than that – a relationship in which both parties are joined together by an element of their humanity. Their union is real, not imagined or constructed. But in what sense are they united? Consider the various parts of a plane – the engines, wings, and avionics. What unites all of these parts together into a single whole is their coordination toward a common end: flight. Unity is thus achieved by mutual striving toward a single goal. Similarly, on this (conjugal) view of marriage, unity is achieved when the bodies of both spouses biologically coordinate toward a common goal. This involves more than just a mere coming together of bodies, as bodies come together all the time in surgery, contact sports, large crowds, and the performing arts. Their bodies must strive together to fulfill a common goal that neither individual can fulfill on their own. This common goal is none other than procreation, the only biological function with respect to which everyone is inherently incomplete. Marriage completes this by uniting both spouses in the context of the sexual act. This union is reflected in the creation of children who bear the marks of both their mother and father. The nature of comprehensive marital union is such that it can only be achieved by one man and one woman.”(2)



My opponent’s next point accuses me of arguing that parents of homosexual children are worse off than children of homosexual couples (?).


At no point did I argue that or beg that argument. I argued that homosexual couples do not have an inherent connection to the family unit because they require outside means of having children.



When I was arguing about the dedication and love of heterosexual couples, and how it naturally fulfilled the family unit, my opponent responded with:


“Are homosexuals not capable of loving each other? Are homosexuals not capable of dedication? Not only that, but why is it not relevant whether or not straight parents fulfill their dedication? Basically what you are saying is, "it doesn't matter if straight parents LOVE each other or their children, as long a they are straight it doesn't matter." This is a perfect example of bias in your argument.”


That’s a lot of accusations rolled up into some questions. No, I am not saying any of that. Homosexual couples are capable of dedication and love, but they are not capable of naturally making a good, healthy, family unit out of that love. I also said it was irrelevant as to whether they fulfilled the dedication marriage calls for because no one can make them fulfill that dedication, essentially making that a private matter. Since no one has control over it except the couple it is therefore irrelevant. It is also irrelevant because despite there being couples who do not fulfill the dedication of marriage, heterosexual couples are still the only couples that have a direct link to the family unit.



Over and over again my opponent says that children are not a requirement for marriage. I already responded to this multiple times, and my opponent never responded to my arguments on it. He only repeated that children are not a requirement for marriage. I am not arguing that children are a requirement for marriage; I am arguing that only heterosexual couples have a direct link to the family unit.



My opponent asks why the government cannot recognize gay marriage if it is their job to make the society more efficient.


Marriage is defined to specifically be for heterosexual couples, and to respect the public means of marriage which is children, any relationship that does not have a natural link to the family unit must be excluded from marriage. This is to uphold an honest view of marriage, and to insure utmost societal efficiency from marriage.



My opponent argues that gay couples may adopt children and that they should therefore be allowed to marry.


The main requirement in marriage is that the relationship must have a special, natural, and inherent link to the family unit. Only heterosexual couples have this link. This link is required because it naturally makes the family unit out of the very relationship the couple pursues. Gay couples require outside means of creating the family unit, therefore still making their relationship private since by the very means of the relationship it is purely out of emotional connection, and nothing else.



My opponent once again argues that people marry for benefits.


I have already shown this to be false. Benefits exist to “reward” couples for marrying, therefore making a commitment to love and dedication which naturally pursues the family unit.



Notes


Near the end my opponent didn’t even try to refute my arguments. All he did was tell me to present evidence for non-evidential arguments. He repeated the same things over and over even though I had already responded to them and he failed to understand my arguments even after he forced me to reiterate them multiple times. Near the end he also lost nearly all professionalism and reduced down to an obviously frustrated person who seemingly ranted instead of presented clear arguments.


(1)&(2)Quote from Contradiction in There Are Good Secular Reasons to Disallow Same-Sex Marriage
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zmikecuber 1 year ago
zmikecuber
lol, brian's constant use of alternating between caps and lower case letters makes it SOUND, like his VOICE, is changing in VOLUME.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
"but did not address issues where the government had a valid reason to ban gay marriage because of the effects it had on children. "

Actually I did, multiple times. And I also included multiple times that it is NOT the government's job to regulate heterosexual marriage because they can have children. That was a lie. And con did not provide evidence to support that claim despite the fact I asked for it multiple times.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Im actually pro gay marriage but I believe con had the edge on this. Pros entire essential case was based on the fact, that not allowing gay marriage is a type of discrimination. In which I agree, but he failed to refute Cons claim regarding this issue. Con addressed this in R1 and R2 and provided a valid reason as to why the government would not recognize gay marriage legally. Pro still refutes this with discrimination. Pro did however provide a logical reason as to why gay marriage should not be tied in with polygamy and bestiality. I feel that Con just slightly presented a better case and it was lost because pro almost took it offensively. In that regard conduct also goes to con because of remarks made by pro. "Your argument is so close minded", etc. There are a few shots like this throughout the debate. Pro could present the same point without trying to insult cons logic. As much as I am inclined not to grade on grammar I feel I must. I noticed errors with commas and fragments from con as well. While pro had minimal errors, while I reading I felt pro had many more.

Using sentences like "Both are false"

or using commas to separate words that were not required.

Granted this was a great debate but I felt as if pro did not adequately respond to cons claim as to why the government can have a role in regulation marriage. It was almost dismissed in some cases. He either brought up points such as discrimination or children are not a requirement of marriage but did not address issues where the government had a valid reason to ban gay marriage because of the effects it had on children. Con presented this using X and Y if i recall correctly. I felt pro could have easily won this, but let personal bias kind of ruin the debate. Even reading through it with the remarks like "one sided" and "bias" or "close minded", using to refer to cons arguments lessened the power of the debate. Essentially could possibly lose him the debate because that conduct point made the dif
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Im actually pro gay marriage but I believe con had the edge on this. Pros entire essential case was based on the fact, that not allowing gay marriage is a type of discrimination. In which I agree, but he failed to refute Cons claim regarding this issue. Con addressed this in R1 and R2 and provided a valid reason as to why the government would not recognize gay marriage legally. Pro still refutes this with discrimination. Pro did however provide a logical reason as to why gay marriage should not be tied in with polygamy and bestiality. I feel that Con just slightly presented a better case and it was lost because pro almost took it offensively. In that regard conduct also goes to con because of remarks made by pro. "Your argument is so close minded", etc. There are a few shots like this throughout the debate. Pro could present the same point without trying to insult cons logic. As much as I am inclined not to grade on grammar I feel I must. I noticed errors with commas and fragments from con as well. While pro had minimal errors, while I reading I felt pro had many more.

Using sentences like "Both are false"

or using commas to separate words that were not required.

Granted this was a great debate but I felt as if pro did not adequately respond to cons claim as to why the government can have a role in regulation marriage. It was almost dismissed in some cases. He either brought up points such as discrimination or children are not a requirement of marriage but did not address issues where the government had a valid reason to ban gay marriage because of the effects it had on children. Con presented this using X and Y if i recall correctly. I felt pro could have easily won this, but let personal bias kind of ruin the debate. Even reading through it with the remarks like "one sided" and "bias" or "close minded", using to refer to cons arguments lessened the power of the debate. Essentially could possibly lose him the debate because that conduct point made the dif
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
It doesn't really matter. I am not debating, I am addressing the debate which is what the comments are for.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Stop. This debate is over. It is not good conduct to continue this in the comments.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
"Marriage is defined to specifically be for heterosexual couples,"

ANOTHER LIE.

Marriage wasn't specifically designed by ANYONE. The laws regarding marriage are made by SOCIETY, and in many societies, marriage between ONE man and MULTIPLE women is acceptable. Just like marriage between gay people is acceptable by most secular societies. Everything you have said in this debate is biased, fabricated propaganda, not FACTS.

"...and to respect the public means of marriage which is children"

This is another example of made up propaganda.

"any relationship that does not have a natural link to the family unit must be excluded from marriage."

Because you say so? Sorry no. You don't even know WHAT MARRIAGE IS.

"My opponent argues that gay couples may adopt children and that they should therefore be allowed to marry."

Stop lying. That is not what I said at all. Please read my argument again because you are completely wrong. I said there are gay unions benefit society because many gay couples adopt children who need loving homes, children who were abandoned, neglected and given away by their heterosexual parents.

"My opponent once again argues that people marry for benefits."

WHY do you think people get married? WHY do you think marriage is a LEGAL process? People who get married are given certain BENEFITS THROUGH MARRIAGE.

"I have already shown this to be false."

NO, you haven't because you don't even know what marriage is or what it's for...

You CANNOT argue against something if YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS in the first place.

"Near the end my opponent didn"t even try to refute my arguments. "

That's because there was no REAL argument to refute.

You don't know what marriage is, what it's for or WHY people get married in the first place. And yet you expect me to take your argument seriously? It's frustrating to debate with someone on a topic they know NOTHING about. You have NO evidence because there is NO argument t
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
Then you claim... "At no point did I argue that or beg that argument. I argued that homosexual couples do not have an inherent connection to the family unit because they require outside means of having children."

Yes you did. By saying "homosexual couples do not have an inherent connection to the family unit" you are implying that gay people shouldn't get married or raise children because they are not "inherently connected" to basic parenting.

You also said and I quote... "Homosexual couples are capable of dedication and love, but they are not capable of naturally making a good, healthy, family unit out of that love."

And by saying this you completely dismiss the fact that some gay couples are PARENTS, many of them adopt unwanted CHILDREN WITHOUT HOMES and have children from previous marriages, surrogacy and artificial insemination. You COMPLETELY overlooked this FACT.

There are also heterosexual couples who CANNOT have and do no want children, you overlooked this after I addressed it as well.

You then claim... "It is also irrelevant because despite there being couples who do not fulfill the dedication of marriage, heterosexual couples are still the only couples that have a direct link to the family unit."

Again, the only thing that is "irrelevant" is this claim. Why? Because it's not true at all.

You then claimed... "Over and over again my opponent says that children are not a requirement for marriage. I already responded to this multiple times, and my opponent never responded to my arguments on it. "

You did not address, you completely ignored it. Saying "I am not arguing that children are a requirement for marriage; I am arguing that only heterosexual couples have a direct link to the family unit." is NOT a valid response because your argument in reference to having children. If people do not have children, why is whether or not they get married relevant to this debate? It is not.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
First I would like to say thank you to my opponent for taking the time to debate with me. But I would like to address some of the claims you made in your previous argument...

First you claim... "One again my opponent asks me to present evidence for my arguments, as if my arguments were evidential arguments."

An argument is not considered valid unless it could be proven to some extent, which you just admitted yours cannot. Therefore there is no argument.

Then you claim... "Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other. Marriage functions as a way of publicly acknowledging one"s love and commitment for their spouse."

This is WRONG, people don't have to love each other to get married. That isn't the reason many get married either. Love, like having children, is not a legal marriage requirement. And if it was, by your logic, homosexuals should be able to get to marry as well.

You then claim... "but once we discern what makes marriage special, and why the government is interested in this therefore making marriage public, we will understand why heterosexual couples are specified towards marriage."

This is also wrong because, again you made this up.

You go on to claim... "Love is a private matter. This is why relationships based around love, and love only are not afforded legal recognition. We can come to the conclusion then, that government recognizes marriage for a certain public purpose."

If love is such a private matter, and marriage is based on love then why can't gay people get married? You keep saying "The government recognizes marriage for..." but all you are doing is making things up. The government does not recognize marriage for a "certain public purpose". This is a blatant LIE.

You claim... "Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children."

Another blatant LIE. That is not what marriage is AT ALL. Marriage has NOTHING to do with popping out babies. This shows you know nothing about wh
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
Teddy,

Arthur didn't say that anyone was suggesting to ban gay people from being gay, he was addressing the obvious flaws in my opponent's argument in regards to gay marriage. For example, you and my opponent have both repeatedly claimed...

"The State does have a compelling reason to offer contractual benefits to opposite sex couples, because it is only the Union of a man and woman that can naturally produce children, and the State (or at least 31 individual State Governments) recognize the benefit of a child having both a Mom and a Dad, both male and female role models."

but have failed to provide EVIDENCE to support this claim. Unlike my opponent, you have at least attempted to provide evidence (despite the fact that they aren't credible) to support your claims ... Denying gay couples the right to get married because they cannot produce biological offspring with one another is absurd. That reason not even logical AT ALL. HAVING BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN IS NOT A REQUIREMENT IN MARRIAGE. It doesn't matter if heterosexuals can have babies because PARENTING and MARRIAGE are TWO DIFFERENT topics.

Not only that, I have already made it clear that your claim in regards to " the benefit of a child having both a Mom and a Dad" has already been debunked by the most recent of scientific, psychological and sociological studies in regards to gay parenting. These studies have already concluded that what you say is false, period. Having a mom and a dad is no more or less beneficial than having two moms or two dads. There is no denying FACTS.

I am not trying to change your opinion on the matter, but when you blatantly ignore and dismiss EVIDENCE, I have a serious problem with people who use false information in attempt to win an argument. It's inexcusable, intolerable and makes you look like a liar. It's like fighting a losing battle.

- And just an FYI, two friends CAN get married, you don't have to be in a committed relationship with someone to marry them.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 used other sources like videos (as seen in round 5). He also seems to cite more sources than con, and used more quotes. It was extremely close though. Both sides did tremendous. :-)
Vote Placed by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll try to write a full RFD, but I'm giving sources to Pro. He had sources in about every round. They were easily verifiable, clickable links. Con had 3 sources for the entire debate, and they were cited because it was a quote. Con claims marriage is recognized by the government because a man and women can reproduce. This is an unsourced assertion. But Pro gave sources showing this definition of marriage is not used.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: rfd in comments
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
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: Con says that marriage is only regulated in the interest of society, and that allowing marriage equality, this would stop happening because the government would be recognizing marriage only to affirm personal relationships. Pro points out that married couples are not legally obligated to have children, and the LGBT people can have and raise children anyway. Also, Pro points out that the government can both recognize the legal contract, and also practice the social engineering that Con sees as important. The idea that denial of marriage is not discriminatory is odd, and significantly creates a BoP hurdle for Con. This burden was never met. Pro also should be recognized for supporting his arguments with sourcing.
Vote Placed by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con were passionate in their arguments. Both used good spelling and grammar. Although emotions were strong on both sides, Con remained civil at all times. Pro unfortunately resorted to personal attacks such as ?This is, yet another, LIE.? Calling someone a liar crosses a line so conduct goes to Con. Both presented there sides from different angles, Pro used sources while Con used logic. Pros constant call for sources on an argument based on logic was tiring, but I give this category a tie. On strength of arguments, Pro did well in some respects but failed to prove the assertion that " The gender of the parent is irrelevant when raising children" . One example of this being incorrect is only mothers can breast feed their children. Cons arguments based on logic were superior, an example"If I give out License X to individual who can do Y. There is no discrimination that I do not give out license X to those who cannot do Y." Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
briantheliberalxXCryptoXxTied
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: Pro provided a more thorough line of argumentation, particularly re: discrimination. Traditional marriage, regardless of any supposed benefit to society, is discriminatory. Moreover, by providing that gay couples can also fulfill some of the benefits Con claims, Pro can co-opt part of Con's offense, beating back that notion that only traditional couples have any government interest inherent to them. Therefore, I go Pro.