Debate Rounds (3)
1. Marriage is primerely about Love- If two people love eachother and want to make a life long pact to one another, so be it. It is true that perhaps homosexuals do not fall into the traditional definition of marriage, which is when a man and a woman join together to form a family. Single mothers and fathers do not necessarily fit the "mold" either, and yet the love for their children is no less, correct? But to call them anything less than a family would be wrong and unfair. What is important in a marriage is love and trust. Marriage is the of converging of two hearts and that cannot and should not be regulated by some act of government.
2. Better Life Economically- Marriage creates a firmer bond through social and legal responsibilities. The financial workings of marriage allow a couple to become more economically interdependent. Married couples may own property with less tax than ownership by two individuals. Many family law deals with these sort of financial matters.
3.United States Benefits - Without marriage, gay couples are not automatically entitled to making medical decisions or even visitation rights at hospitals, not automatically granted inheritance rights or pensions. Unmarried same sex couples do not receive protections as families of crime victims, such as confidentiality of address or the right to make a victim impact statement when their partner is harmed. Partners of police officers and fire-fighters are not entitled to service pensions if their partner is killed in the line of duty. Just because of someones sexuality does NOT make it right to deprive them of such important benefits.
4. What happened to seperation of church and state?!- In order to guarantee freedom of belief and religion, governments separate the state from religion. Laws are designed to allow people to act according to their beliefs. The benefits that a government bestows on married couples are a part of law.
That said, I would like to start out by saying my opponents arguments in general seem to be arguing for a pro-freedom to do what you want resolution, not pro-gay marriage resolution. Now you might say right way ‘No, the freedom stuff is all related pro-gay marriage' but hear me out as to why I say its not related to a pro side of this resolution.
For example if I was argue on the resolution of ‘lottery tickets' I would not make the cut of being ‘Pro-lottery ticket' just by arguing people should be allowed to by them. That's not being in favor of something, its tolerating it. It's the difference in the question ‘would you allow your friend to buy a lottery ticket?' and ‘if you friend asked you if he should buy one, would you tell him too?' So you see even though I am pro-freedom to buy lottery tickets; for the sake of the resolution that simply says ‘lottery ticket' and am Con all the way as I would tell my friend don't waist you money on that graphite covered trash.
I will get back to that later when I make my con case, but first I want to make sure I cover all 4 of your bullets. I will do #4 before #3 because that's how my rebuttals best build off of each other if that's okay.
1) marriage is about love: A) for the people who choose to go through with marriage, it may be about love for them but so is going to Pizza Hut over Ci-Ci's for dinner ‘I just love that place and there chocolate covered breadsticks', and there choice in car is also because they ‘just love it' B) You make my case for me pretty well as you mention how single mom's and dad's love for there children is no less real or in any way worse than that of a married couple. So getting married to have a ‘loving family' is no good excuse to do something as dumb as get married since that is held just as much by the singles.
2) Economic benefits: A) my opponent mentioned when you get married it makes you more ‘interdependent' financially. I don't know about you but to me that sounds like a terrible thing to have happen to you. Financial ‘Independence' is where you want to be. B) We do remember all we are talking about being the pro in economics for the married is ‘smaller' tax's. I like tax breaks wherever I can qualify for them too, but there not such a significant amount you make on them however high they are. Think about this, add up all that you would get back when you file for your tax returns that you wouldn't if you were just single but do because your married. Then consider how long you would have to save up that income to match what it cost you to put together your wedding, your wedding rings, your honeymoon… ect, making sure to consider interest if you paid for any of those things on a credit card of some kind. And that's just talking about the things you put up at the start of your marriage. The truth is married people are more stressed out over there money than single people can ever become. I, as a single person, do not have to worry at all about money disappearing out of my account for unknown reasons outside of identity thief. A sad married man does, for when he got married his money and his spouses money become ‘their' money. What's even sadder still about what happens to your income after marriage, the change stays even after divorce. Marriage isn't just a bad decision you do once just to try it and not have to live with it the rest of your life. once a person was lucky enough to win the lottery, but she made the mistake of getting married at one time and her deadbeat ex-husband got half of her winnings. This would have never happened if she was simply secure enough with herself to stay single.
4) Separate church and state! : A) you mentioned ‘laws are to allow people to act according to their beliefs'. Technically, if that were true then anarchy would be the only ‘law' that allows this. ‘I see that Dr. Pepper on that shelf, oh I'm thirsty, oh it calls to me, oh it belongs in my stomach, I don't think I should pay for it, I believe I should just take it'. Now most don't have the belief that its okay to just take things without paying for them, but what if it was your belief, would their ever be a law to protect it? No, the only thing a law is ever designed for is to keep you from doing something you would otherwise. B) As long as you going to pretend you care about the separation of church and state, you should still be anti-marriage or at the very least anti-gay-marriage and pro-civil union. A civil union is something the state can do that has nothing to do with church. Marriage is not, as churches do do something with that. Right now, defending pro-gay marriage is trying to make the state interfere what the church does, witch is condemn that, and being all out illegal you say is the church making a law somehow and forcing the state to pass and enforce it? The only way to keep the two separate is to leave the title of marriage alone to the church and create civil union for the state. And if the gay couple really ‘loves' each other than what difference should the semantic title difference make to them, they can be together now in some legally binding way.
3) U.S. Benefits: A) This is the only argument that ever gets even die hard republicans to sympathize with. While they its so wrong to support having the state force the church to do something it does not believe in, keeping people from visiting those they care for in the hospital is just wrong. They will often campaing on saying while they wont support gay marriage they will support legislation that would help extend things like those visitation rights. This is were we should return to supporting those civil unions I mentioned, and making them a legal equivalent to marriage in areas such as these benefits. What's better yet is that this path is much more sensible to pursuer as those on the opposite side will compromise and are willing to meet at the very least here, Rudy Giuliani had something very similar already done during his term as mayor of new york, making the married state the same legal state as non-married for new Yorkers. B) The injustice is not really with keeping gay partners from having such things as the visitation rights or choice in medical decisions. Specifically anyway. The true injustice is that there are restrictions at all in who we can choose ahead of time to have final say plug pulling decision, can visit, ect. If I respect my Scoutmaster so much more than my flesh and blood family, I should be allowed to have him sign papers that give him legal weight in such matters (if he wanted it). People who are not married can cosign an account, they should be able to cosign these things too.
So those were my rebuttal, now for my case.
I said being pro or con should rest on what you would say to your friend if they asked you if you would encourage them going through with marriage.
If I was asked, I would say No. Here are my reasons for why the gay or straite should avoid getting married.
1) if you really have the best interest for the growth of the relationship of the couple, have them never get married. It will ruin there relationship and almost certainly bring it to an end. Like my reasons for telling my friend to not buy a scratch off ticket based on the bad statistical odds there are against him, the statistical odds do not look better for marriage. More than half of them end in divorce. The majority of those that try marriage are dissatisfied with it
2) Marriage will affect your character for the worse. Most men testify to losing there ‘spine' or there ‘balls' after they got married. This actually works both ways though, a friend of mine used to be pretty independent, she would freely go out and do things, but since her marriage her friends and family have noted how she complains about not being around her
denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
Any way, the last of that last paragraph finishes……
‘hubby' and wont go anywhere with her friends or family if he's working or cant be there for some other reason, so basically she just stays at her house most of the time. Going through with marriage amplifies your insecure and illogical need to define yourself by your relationship with another. We should learn to be comfortable with who we independently are being more than you are as your ‘partners spouse'.
Though my opponent forfeited a round for unknown reasons to me at this time, I figure I best not waist the character space allotted me this round so that I might have less of a need for all 8,000 next round.
I might anticipate a response of some kind from my opponent like this "this debate is over allowing Gays to marry, not if marriage itself is good or bad."
As for the ‘allow' part, no that's not the resolution at all. I refer back to my Con-lottery ticket analogy. Though I support your right to be allowed to buy those scratch off tickets I am still by all rights Con-lottery ticket. It's a dumb waist of your money. Likewise I have essentially argued for this resolution for Con-marriage, it's a dumb waist of your time and your money.
Too often the debates take a focus of ‘justify your beliefs that gay marriage wrong!', but I say its time someone answer to my question ‘you justify marriage.' Do you really know what it is your arguing for the right for, or are you just trying to find some reason to feel like a oppressed minority like teenage drama-queens so often look for? Saying its unfair that ‘you two can get married and we cant' is like saying its unfair that ‘you have small pox and I don't'
Now you might say "I thought you should believe in marriage and the love that it should have, isn't in your religion that gave you the beliefs that say gay marriage is wrong? Aren't you a hypocrite for saying marriage is bad when talking about gays but not for yourself?'
1st off, I cant be accused of being a hypocrite in this stance I'm making when I'm happily single.
2nd off, if there ever was a time that the love that should go special with marriage that fairy-tail movies try to tell us about there's no proof of it still existing, and I leave the burden of proof of its existence on my opponent. All cases today when anyone would describe love they have it is either that of lust, or just a simple love that can be given to all in a purely non-sexual way that is sometimes called ‘agope' the Christian love we should give to all. Or its just plain being used to describe a weak a feeling as one has for there car. I challenge my opponent to show that there is love in any kind marriage out there that is so unique that only they who ‘are ment to marry' should have it, cause I contend there is no such example out there. What married people ever call love for each other is never really all that special, we can have that for them (or anyone) too if we take a notion to.
3rd off, if there is any real interest in returning to the scriptures I believe in (there might not be I admit) to justifying marriage, you'll find the bible is anti-marriage too. The apostle Paul told all of his fellow Christians they should stay single forever so they could worship God better and not be half-devoted to a spouse.
You'll find that the logic to that works for any belief just fine if you don't care to much for this one as a plan for spiritual growth and study. Having a spouse is a distracting variable in your life and require your undivided attention quite often, plain and simple. Even if your not spiritual thus having no spiritual growth or understanding to pursue, I bet you have something that's more important than you consider yourself, something that's bigger than you that needs further studied and explored. Whatever your projects or goals in life are, they will benefit from not having a distracting spouse. Plain and simple.
So the challenges I have presented my opponent for his last round are...
1) justify marriage. prove the concept of it and sell it to me.
2) Show how whatever a person considers there 'highst objectives or pursuites' in life will not benifit from not having a distracting, time and money consuming spouse.
Remember; tax returns will never be high enough to match the net loss in allomoney.
Stay happy and as a neccesity to do that I suggest you stay single.
and now I awaite a possible response from Pro.
denisemarie323 forfeited this round.
It's a little annoying that my opponent was able to finish his debates with others he was holding at the time but not post for a single round of rebuttal in his debate with me. But who knows, mabye he died of a heart attack shortly before getting to post again in this debate, mabye all his computers he has access too spontainiously combusted for some reason. Mabye the powers out in his area, mabye he is lost in the woods after going on a hike in between rounds and has no wifi signal. mabye he forgot to take his depression meds and right now bothering with debates, even debaes he already started seems so pointless, so he cannot bring himself to bother arguing another round.
Whatever my opponents reasons are for the forfietted rounds; I made and effort on my part for this debate, not sure I'm proud enough of it ot call it my best for waiting so long to source or the overdone character limit in round one, but I did put some effor into it.
normally I might thank my opponent for there time or a good debate, but it seems innapropriote in this case, so I leave off thanking any of those who bothered to read this debate and read my cynical doubts toward marriage that I put ot there hoping to find an opponent who would argue well enough to put them to rest.Even though no such arguments were made it was still good to get the doubts off my chest.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.