The Instigator
Ennagirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xXCryptoXx
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
xXCryptoXx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 695 times Debate No: 60036
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Ennagirl

Pro

If you take religion out of the question, I don't see how gay marriage is a bad thing?
They only want the same rights as everyone else.
Although I can point out the differences if you want, you can't argue with Polygamy, Incest, Beastiality and Pedophilia. Those are completely different cases which I would have different arguments for. For instance, it's different from pedophilia because there are no minors involved. That's what makes pedophilia wrong.
Gay couples can raise children and they pay their taxes like everyone else.
I don't see how their marriages would affect other people. I've never heard anyone complaining that somebody else's marriage was hurting their own. That just doesn't make sense.

Looking forward to this debate!
xXCryptoXx

Con


I would first like to thank Tim Hsiao for being a major influence to my arguments.


-


The state regulates marriage and dispenses benefits for a reason. By understanding this reason we can therefore infer what relationships may be justly excluded from marriage and whether or not anyone’s rights are denied.


The Common Good I


A common good is something with an objective core, which inherently serves the well being and good of humanity. Common goods cannot be changed; rather they can only be distorted from their objectively good nature. For example, friendship is a common good. Let’s say that the objective core of friendship dictates that all friendships require selflessness, love and similar interests between the two friends. If person X thought friendship was about using another individual in order to further their own motives, then that someone would be universally wrong. That person didn’t change the definition of friendship; rather they distorted friendship from its objective nature which inherently promotes the well being of others. Friendship has a distinct common good, one that makes friendship, friendship. Let’s say friendships entail no sexual attraction between the two friends. If person X called a romantic relationship, friendship, then that person has failed to make the distinction between what a romantic relationship entails, and what a friendship entails. Person X has taken two separate common goods, but has put one definition on them.



What is Marriage?


A common answer would be that “Marriage is the lifelong union of two persons who love each other.” [1] Love is essential to the marital relationship but it is not enough in order to gain legal recognition from the government. There are many kinds of social relationships that involve love. For example, friendships involve love. Why then would the government not recognize friendships? Since the government promotes marriage, then marriage must possess some kind of public good. In other words, it must inherently positively affect the well being of others. Love is a private matter, for love essentially only involves the people within the relationship. Since we have already established that the government recognizes marriage for its public means, and love is a private matter, then there must be a public part of marriage inherent to the union between those entering into the marriage.


Here we run into a wall with the accepted definition at hand. The definition does not provide us an adequate base of what the public means of marriage is, or why the government would be interested in marriage if love is essentially a private matter. Instead, I will provide a new definition of marriage. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.” [2] “It is a private union with a public purpose. Private in that comprehensive union exemplifies the love of the spouses. Public in that their comprehensive union is directed toward a purpose beyond the love of the spouses: children.”[3]


The marital relationship is comprehensive in the sense that it is unlike any other relationship. Marriage is where the individuals within the relationship are joined together by the very aspect of their humanity. “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.”[3] The unity inherent among married couples is that when they come together by nature of their sexuality, they may achieve an ends that could not have been achieved alone. This unity is the coming together in order to strive towards a common goal. This end of the means is procreation. Children produced are reflective to the union at hand. The nature of this comprehensive union is that it can only be completed by a man and a woman. No other relationship can strive towards this comprehensiveness, for there is no biological unity which strives towards and end that the individuals within the relationship could not complete on their own. Artificial reproductive technology is therefore irrelevant, because the relationship still lacks the intrinsic means to children.


The public good that government is interested in is this intrinsic link to children. “Marriage produces and cultivates the development of future citizens within a family unit held together by norms of fidelity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. The flourishing of children is directly connected with the public good.” [3] The state provides benefits to married couples because the state recognizes this public good, and therefore wants to promote it. By giving marriage legal recognition it promotes a stability among married couples. Marriage is orientated towards child well being and is linked to procreation like no other relationship.


The Common Good II


Recognizing homosexual relationships as marriage creates the same problem as mentioned in The Common Good I. Heterosexual relationships have a distinct common good that no other relationship can pursue. This common good is procreation. Heterosexual couples have an exclusive inherent link to procreation that no other relationship can pursue. The purpose of calling this relationship marriage is to recognize the distinct common good. The purpose of the government legally recognizing this relationship as marriage is due this relationship possessing an inherent link to a common good that has a socially public purpose unlike any other relationship.


Infertile Couples


Whether or not a heterosexual couple has children is irrelevant. The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Infertile couples are still able to engage into the sexual act that comprehensively unites them together. In this way infertile couples are still of a procreative type even if procreation cannot be achieved. The government still recognizes marriage between infertile heterosexual couples in order to promote what marriage actually is, and not just focus on the conclusion of that comprehensive relationship.


I await your response.


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


[2] 2. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34:1 (2010)


[3] Tim Hsiao on gay marriage


Debate Round No. 1
Ennagirl

Pro

First I would like to talk about the point you brought up about common good. I agree that government rewards marriage because of the common good it creates. A married couple creates children, which they raise and become members of the society which benefits the common good. Homosexual couples also meet this common good. There are many homosexual couples who choose to have children. Homosexual couples have children in the same way a couple would if one of them was infertile. They get a donor. Or adoption is also an option. For example, Neil Patrick Harris and his partner, David Burtka. They are a happy family with a set of twins that they got via a surrogate mother. Thus they fulfil the common good for society and make your argument obsolete.

And your last bit about infertile couples seems to be disproving yourself by saying that the government is interested in the relationship and not what it produces which is not what you said in the beginning.
xXCryptoXx

Con


“I agree that government rewards marriage because of the common good it creates. A married couple creates children, which they raise and become members of the society which benefits the common good.“


This is a concession to my argument regarding the purpose of marriage.


-


“Homosexual couples also meet this common good. “


Homosexual couples can meet this common good, in the same way that two friends can, or a group of monks can. The logic simply does not follow. If one bases marriage off what a couple can do, that is adopt and raise a child, then it too logically follows that marriage must be open to any social group that can also adopt and raise a child. However, this is simply absurd. Just because something can do something does not mean it will do something. In other words, it reasonably follows that if the government is interested in the common good of procreation, then the government should only recognize relationships that are distinctly ordered to that common good. In other words, these relationships will have a tendency to fulfill this common good unlike other relationships. Only heterosexual couples via biological complimentarily are distinctly ordered to this common good.


The heterosexual relationship could be logically written as follows:


X -> Y without Z


Heterosexual relationships have a special connection via biological complementarily to procreation without any outside means of achieving the common good (surrogates, adoption, artificial insemination, ect.)


Homosexual relationships, including all other non-heterosexual relationships could be logically written as follows:


X -> Y only with Z


That is, these relationships can only achieve procreation with outside means. However, outside means are irrelevant because this means the achievement of the procreation possesses no natural order and is simply subjective.


-


“There are many homosexual couples who choose to have children.”


This is completely subjective, because since there is no natural tendency to choose to have children, we can easily imagine a world where every homosexual couple would not have children. This obviously defeats the purpose of why the government would recognize marriage in the first place, which as my opponent conceded, is due to the common good marriage produces.


-


“Homosexual couples have children in the same way a couple would if one of them was infertile. “


Infertile couples and homosexual couples are not the same. Even though the conclusion is the same, that is that neither can achieve procreation, infertile couples are still biologically ordered towards procreation even if it cannot be achieved. The government recognizes heterosexual unions because they are ordered towards procreation, not for the achievement of procreation in of itself. This explains why heterosexual couples can choose not to have children without repercussion.


-


“And your last bit about infertile couples seems to be disproving yourself by saying that the government is interested in the relationship and not what it produces which is not what you said in the beginning.”


My entire argument focuses on the biological link to procreation, and not on the achievement of procreation itself. For if my argument focused purely on the achievement, then there would be no logical reason to deny any social union that could potentially have children. However, since such a notion is absurd it is reasonable therefore that the government is interested in what a relationship is ordered to, and not on the conclusion of procreation itself.


Debate Round No. 2
Ennagirl

Pro

Ennagirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Ennagirl

Pro

Ennagirl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by debatergorl 2 years ago
debatergorl
Thank you.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
EnnagirlxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
EnnagirlxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded, ff, and had no sources.
Vote Placed by CanWeKnow 2 years ago
CanWeKnow
EnnagirlxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I completely disagree with Con on this one. We have been over this exact argument a few times on DDO, but I still can't be convinced by the "It's about procreation between a man and a woman." argument. That being said, Crypto still wins the debate. Con at least had SOME arguments and they were fairly easy to follow. In terms of debate quality, CON wins.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
NiamC
EnnagirlxXCryptoXxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons points remain uncontested