The Instigator
RyddianDynia
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
kbub
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
kbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 63640
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

RyddianDynia

Pro

I think that no one can make a valid argument that 'gays' cannot get married. The only reasons I can think of are

A. Religiosity
B. Personal Distaste in the LGBT lifestyle
C. Saying marriage is for procreation solely (it is not)

I can easily counter any of the 3 (or all of them)
kbub

Con

I accept the debate that the State should not sponsor/recognize same-sex marriage.

Obviously we are taking about state-instituted marriage. Naturally, purely social or religious marriage is available everywhere in the United States: It is just that this marriage is not recognized by the State.

I also would prefer that the State be limited to politics within the United States, but am open to other interpretations. However, please make sure to specify that next round.

I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
RyddianDynia

Pro

I am happy to see that I have an intelligent opponent. Best of luck to you.

(Yes, I am referring to state politics within the United States...)

Argument #1
- Marriage affects a lot of things. Taxes, court cases, job acceptance, as I said, a lot of things.
- You haven't given me any reasoning as to why marriage should not be allowed between same-sex couples.
- Even though "purely social or religious marriage is available everywhere in the United States" the reasons I have listed above I think give a good reason for you to explain why LGBT couples cannot benefit from them.

I look forward to my opponents rebuttals.
kbub

Con

Thanks Pro again for the debate.

----

Counterplan: Get rid of ALL marriage.

Plaintext: The United States Federal Government will disavow all official recognition of marriage, and will no longer provide any marriage-based incentives of any kind.

Timeframe, funding, and agency will all be through normal means.

Clarification: I want to make sure that my opponent and I have successfully communicated that this debate centers around State-based marriage and not socially-instituted (that is, "unofficial") marriage, which is legal for anyone anytime in the Unoted States.

Clarification2: I also request that my opponent clarify more of the specifics and details of their plan.
----

Marriage incentivizes "normality."

Marriage is fundamentally a heteronormative power structure whereby the State apparatus issue incentives to those who have "normal" sexualities, and ultimately disincentives queer people.

Like my opponent admits, marriage affects a lot of things--taxes, court cases, and job acceptance. However, these positive potentials of marriage are only possible for those the state considers "normal." But who is normal? Traditionally, marriage has included only partnerships between one man, one woman, who committed to lifelong monogamy.

As Pro already pointed out, the government basically pays people to have normal relationships. Rather than letting individuals or communities decide for themselves whether their relationship is "appropriate," the government puts its own opinion forth about whether their relationship is "normal" enough to merit monetary compensation, tax breaks, and other benefits.

There is nothing about a married couple that warrants their receiving special, monetary compensation. But there are many disadvantages, which I will lay out shortly.

The fact remains that even if marriage included same-sex partner relationships, it would still be a method of elevating relationships that resemble heteronormative standards. In other words, gay marriage misses the: instead of removing the state's power to say who is and who isn't within acceptable relationship norms, it merely adjusts those norms. It replaces one system of inequality with another.

Here are some disadvantages that result from state-sponsored heteronormativity:

1. Economic inequality. Single persons, polyamorous persons, persons who don't like labels, persons living together, and relationships with persons who do not identify as "male" or "female" are excluded from marriage. This means that the tax breaks and other economic benefits, when instead they could be des tributes indiscriminately. The fact is, however, that these benefits under Pro's plan would go to those who least need it--some opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.

Although it is true that same-sex monogamous couples are disenfranchised, so are many others, especially those that I listed above! Marriage has created this inequality, of some "normal" groups getting benefits and some "abnormal" groups getting no benefits. Including same-sex couples as "normal" fixes essentially nothing about this system of inequality. Instead, the state should refuse to recognize marriage as a whole. Doing so would solve 100% of this state-sponsored inequality.

2. Solidifies marriage. In it's current male-female-only state, it is very easy to see marriage's unjust nature. Which means that now is the best time to get rid of it. However, gay marriage gives the illusion of social equality, which means--if it passes--that legislators will be less likely to pass a bill in the future that would eliminate state-sponsored marriage, perpetuating all of te social and economic inequalities associated with marriage.

3. Loss of identity. Marriage allows the state to define one's identity, rather than oneself. There is no reason for the state to descriminate or define one's relationship. It would be as if the President of the United States were to hack into your facebook and update your status. The state has no business knowing what your relationship status is, let alone making you define it on paper or in court (in the case of divorse, or obtaining a marriage license). They also make you define and track your gender, which may be complicated, dynamic, or simply private information. Marriage allows te state to not only find out your relationship information, but will actually replace it with their own definition.
The person who decides if you are marriages should be you and your partner(s). Not some divorse attorney or judge. Anything else would be a violation of your autonomy.

4. Dignity. Having the United States Federal Goverenment only recognize the marriages between same-sex monogamous couples is a violation of the dignity of those whom they declared unfit for state-sponsorship. There is nothing that makes monogamous same sex or opposite sex couples better or worse than persons who define themselves as neither male nor female, polygamous persons, single persons, or all of the other relationships with their own strangeness and wonder. The State isn't a beauty critic--it has no business judging who is attractive enough to be acceptable. By removing marriage, the government would give up its role as critic, legitimizing all forms of consentual relationship expression equally.

5. Perpetuates social inequality. Because the state is often seen as an entity of some authority, society get many of their cues from it. Thus, since the state descriminate a people based on their relationship identity, many Americans likely would too. On the other hand, publicly rejecting all relationship-based discrimination (I.e. Marriage) would effectively model equality to the American people, legitimizing those outside marriage's oppressive norms.

--

Thus, even gay marriage is a disguise for all sorts of relationship-based descrimination. The US government works to not descriminate favorably or unfavorably one based on one's religious identity. Why should they descriminate one based on one's relationship identity?

--

Here are some more good reasons to reject marriage.

The history of marriage was one of families selling young girls to a man in order to acquire good or familial ties. Usually the girl would not have a say in the matter. Worse, it was considered a widely duty to have sex, regardless of her wishes. Meaning that husbands more often than not raped their wives, who were expected to go with it, or "spread your legs and think of England."

The current system of marriage is still very bad. Basically, one is forced to both ask the state permission to enter into an to leave a contractual-like relationship. This means that one cannot leave the marriage on a whim--one must secure a divorse. In order to do that effectively without losing much of one's property, one must avoid "cheating" during the waiting period, and had better not have "cheated" before that.

The whole marriage system is messed up. There is no reason for a state to call a couple "married" when they do not want to be. There's no reason for a judge to allocate property to person based on who they did not didn't have sex with. This is all personal information. By having a seperated contract for shared wealth that doesn't take into account one's sexual relationship history, one is able to keep the mechanisms of marriage without its chains (forcing people apart or together).

--

Furthermore, marriage privileges persons who are from countries that value marriage. Because institutional marriage of the kind currently regulated in the United States comes from a European tradition, obviously not all communities and cultures conceptualize marriage in the way that the United States Federal Government does. This means that the United States Federal government would be privileging persons from cultures that conceptualize marriage similarly (that is, Europeans and Europe-influenced nations). This would bring:

1. Economic inequality (culture-based government funds)

2. Social inequality (establishing preferential status of certain cultures, leading to descrimination and other forms of social inequality).

3. Cultural imperialism. Marriage would be a mechanism whereby the state chooses what is and isn't acceptable from in a culture. It silences expressions of culture and replaces them with so-called "American" culture.

---

Everyone deserves the right to be heard and equal treatment under the law. Marriage stops this for persons whose culture does not conceptualize marriage in the same way that the US government has, or whose relationship does not fit "norms" or preferences of the state, or who disagrees with a state's definition of their relationship.

My counterplan solves 100% of these problems, whereas Pro's plan not only fails to solve inequality an injustice, but ensures that the same inequality and injustice will last a long, long time. Clearly, dear reader, Con has won this debate.

---

For all the many, many reasons listed above, please vote for Con. Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 2
RyddianDynia

Pro

At first I thought you were being genuine and professional, but I would never ask those who are reading this to agree with me. I think that they should make their own, unbiased decision.

Clarification: I am referring to state-based marriage.

Clarification2: Will be included below...

Look, con, even if I agreed with you, I doubt the millions of married people in the US would simply allow the government to make their state-sanctioned marriage unofficial. That would be like trying to take people's firearms away, it just will not happen. Marriage is a tradition, and I doubt that people will not want a government recognized partnership.

We live in a democracy, the government cannot do whatever it wants. The hardcore conservatives (which have a significant amount of power in the US govt,) would never allow their traditional 'biblical' marriages to be made unrecognized by the government.

As we are talking about real life here, and not a hypothetical scenario, if a solution simply cannot work on the grounds that the people will not accept it, than we may as well just forget it. I think the best we can do at this point is allow LGBT couples to jump on the marriage bandwagon as well, as it is not stopping altogether, whether we like it or not.

Here I will lay out the boundaries of what I wish to define marriage to be
- Marriage age federal (not chosen by states) maybe ages 16-18 for marriage to be legal.
- Gender is not made a factor in marriage at all
- No more state-sponsored tax-breaks or benefits for married couples
- Full adoption rights for LGBT married couples
- Polygamy and Polyandry allowed (as long as all husbanded/wives agree)

On my last ground I will refer to the fact that most anti-gay marriage activists don't even want them to get unofficially married! They just flaunt their religious right to oppress others...
kbub

Con

kbub forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RyddianDynia

Pro

This post is simply to allow con to make their next argument, as they ran out of time last round.
kbub

Con

kbub forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
RyddianDynia

Pro

RyddianDynia forfeited this round.
kbub

Con

Thanks for the debate, Pro!

Because it would obviously be unfair to make any new arguments in this last round, I ask only that judges extend my pervious analysis and measure our advocacies based on the merits we each describe in our last arguments. I think that even without making new arguments last round, I have clearly won this debate.

My opponent dropped several of my most important arguments, such as the fact that as long as there are married and unmarried adults that someone is being prioritized, and the fact that single persons are disadvantaged, despite my opponents' having several free rounds to pick them up. My opponent also dropped my argument that anything that is done to make marriage better makes it harder to get rid of long-term, which means that Pro's "improving" marriage is actually making inequality simply last longer. The impacts flow to my case, and Pro has little to no offensive arguments. S/he mentions that getting rid of marriage is unrealistic, but bear in mind that s/he also suggests legalizing marriage for any number of persons with any number of genders, while simultaneously getting rid of tax breaks, which is basically my advocacy, but more complicated and much more difficult ("corrupting" state marriage rather than privatizing it). Pro conceded most of the points, basically imitating my counterplan, and yet did so ineffectively. Thus, it is absolutely clear that Con has won this debate.

That being said, I thank my opponent for her/his patience during this debate. I had travel-based academic obligations over these past two weekends, which is largely the cause of my being unable to post previously.

Thanks also to the readers for your time and effort. Thanks to your contributions, debating online is a fun activity. Don't forget to vote Con! :)
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Sorry about that! I was about to post but ran out of time. I'll respond in round 4.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I think you've already posted...
Posted by RyddianDynia 2 years ago
RyddianDynia
I am trying to post my argument for round 3 but it is saying that it is not my turn to post an argument even though it is. I will try again in an hour or so...
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
I see I don't have your restraint, Wylted, haha
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Neither I hope!
Posted by Vox_Veritas 2 years ago
Vox_Veritas
I am confused. Is Kbub taking up an anti-homosexuality stance, or is he merely playing Devil's Advocate?
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I agree with Con. I'd prefer if the state didn't recognize any marriage. Unfortunately I think people pro gay marriage would be upset with me if I accepted their debate and started arguing for marriage privatization.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 1 year ago
Bennett91
RyddianDyniakbubTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The FF's really throw a monkey wrench into the debate and make it hard to judge. Con made a mountain out of a mole hill in attacking the idea of institutionalized marriage and Pro ended up ironically defending marriage using the same argument conservatives would us to defend marriage from gays, that of tradition. But based on Con's lengthy and multi-point attack in round 2 against Pro's short round 3 that did not refute many, points go to Con.
Vote Placed by UchihaMadara 2 years ago
UchihaMadara
RyddianDyniakbubTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won on the counter-plan to eliminate all government involvement in marriage. Pro's *only* response was something along the lines of majority rule, but he failed to actually demonstrate that a significant public opposition exists. Arguments to Con. Conduct is tied because both sides FF'd.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
RyddianDyniakbubTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: The vote is pretty straightforward - Con made a number of warranted arguments to support his case, and Pro's only response was a solvency takeout that, unfortunately for him, doesn't apply. Pro, there's something called FIAT. It's the reason why we can evaluate whether a certain outcome is good rather than focusing on whether the process can happen. It's the reason that this debate isn't about whether gay marriage can pass, but rather on the benefits of gay marriage being legal. Con has FIAT as well with his counterplan, and therefore gets the same assumption that it will pass. I buy that there would be a lot of upset people, but since all you focus on is the solvency takeout and not a political disadvantage, I can't give you much on that end, and Con's entire case remains incredibly solid. Even if I did partially buy the solvency takeout, your case has extremely limited benefits, and very few warrants for them. I vote Con on arguments, and Pro on conduct (extra forfeit).
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
RyddianDyniakbubTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff less