The Instigator
nurddude
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Con (against)
Winning
14 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 3 votes the winner is...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,082 times Debate No: 20933
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

nurddude

Pro

This is my first debate on this site, but I feel very strongly about this topic.

Anything goes, as long as it doesn't violate website rules.

Why is it that people are so against gay marriage? I find no reason to disapprove of it, seeing as it makes people happy. It causes no harm, and freedom is clearly stated in the constitution. Also, this debate is under politics not religion. Please keep that in mind.
FourTrouble

Con

Alright, I accept the debate. I look forward to Pro's case, and will wait until it has been presented in the upcoming round before providing any counter-arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
nurddude

Pro

Why is there any reason to disapprove of gay marriage? It is harmless to those around the couple, and would move the world closer to equality for everyone.

Some people say that people become gay because of Blah, blah, blah. That ISN'T what the debate is here! We are trying to find a LEGITIMATE reason that these homosexual partners are not receiving the same benefits as a heterosexual couple with the same intake and social status.
FourTrouble

Con

Has Pro made an argument in support of gay marriage yet? If so, I am sorry to both Pro and our readers, I have personally failed to locate it. At the moment, I only see a question (directed at me) and some claims (without support). First, for the sake of clarity, I will define gay marriage, then I will address Pro's claims, and then I will begin to provide my case against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Gay marriage is a same-sex marriage, a marriage between a same-sex couple, between two people of the same sex. I hope this definition is acceptable to Pro and our readers.

Pro claims (but not quite argues) that gay marriage is "harmless to those around the couple." That depends on how narrowly or broadly "harmless" is defined. I leave that definition up to Pro for the next round. At the moment, I have no stake in this premise, as I do not think anything about the legality of same-sex marriage follows from it. Many things that are "harmless" are not legal.

Pro claims that gay marriage "would move the world closer to equality for everyone." I have two issues with this statement. First, semantically, it could easily be glossed in the following way: the world (as a spatial or temporal entity) moves closer to equality (an abstract principle) as a result of gay marriage. This reading is somewhat nonsensical, so I'll dismiss it.

Other readings for the claim, however, are equally ambiguous. To wit, the lack of a clear definition for the word "equality." In fact, equality is a word with very little substantive content (arguably none), and therefore, its meaning is determined by the specific context it is invoked within. Anytime someone says something creates more "equality," it implies that from another perspective, things are less equal.

The reason is because equality itself is not a neutral or impartial principle, and it is often invoked in a way that marginalizes one group for the sake of another. Obvious example is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the doctrine of "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. This doctrine was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), when it was noted that an abstract principle like equality cannot be understood without reference to the conditions of its production.

As is clear, an abstract principle such as equality only makes sense from a set of assumptions about the way the world works, and when you change those set of assumptions, things don't look so equal anymore. And this is precisely what happened between 1896 and 1954 in the case of the "separate-but-equal" doctrine. I will return to this point about equality in later rounds, if this debate takes the direction I see it taking.

Finally, Pro claims there is no "a LEGITIMATE reason that these homosexual partners are not receiving the same benefits as a heterosexual couple with the same intake and social status." This claim (which, as I have said before, is not the same as an argument) is what I will spend the rest of this round attempting to address. In other words, I hope to give a reason against same-sex marriage.

The problem (and reason to disapprove), as I understand it, has to do with the meaning and definition of marriage, and with the consequences this has for marriage law. Why should marriage even be recognized in the first place? Pro provides no reason for marriage as an institution or human right.

Furthermore, Pro presupposes that marriage is a "legitimate" right and presupposes this as a consequence of a particular (and I argue wrong) definition of marriage. If you think about it, Pro is employing some form of circular reasoning, at least hidden within the claims Pro makes: Pro argues that same-sex marriage is a right because marriage is a right, but marriage is a right... because? Pro provides no reason, but simply presupposes it is a right. The argument is ultimately empty and question-begging.

Since Pro has the burden of proof, I figure Pro has to provide an argument for a right to marriage before Pro can assume that heterosexual partners have a right to marriage. And, following an argument for a right to marriage, Pro would then have to show that this right to marriage is inclusive of homosexual partners.

To make his case, Pro has to do two things. One, Pro has to provide a definition of marriage that produces, in its definition, enough state interests to justify it as a right. And two, Pro has to argue that this definition of marriage can be extended to same-sex couples.

I eagerly await the next round to see how Pro makes his case.
Debate Round No. 2
nurddude

Pro

nurddude forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

My opponent forfeited the last round. I extend my arguments for this round, as they still hold.
Debate Round No. 3
nurddude

Pro

nurddude forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

My opponent has forfeited another round. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
nurddude

Pro

nurddude forfeited this round.
FourTrouble

Con

My opponent has forfeited this debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by handbannana 4 years ago
handbannana
What problems would be created if marriage didn't exist?
Posted by nurddude 4 years ago
nurddude
I am swing the problems will exist with and without marriage. The only difference is more problems will be created if marriage were no longer legal.
Posted by handbannana 4 years ago
handbannana
You said without marriage these problems would not be solved. Marriage solves none of them.
Posted by nurddude 4 years ago
nurddude
All of that is true, but if marriage was gone, that would still be around.
Posted by handbannana 4 years ago
handbannana
Married people cheat

The father can adopt.

Unmarried men can currently have their wages garnished by the government to pay for child support.

You can sign on to your partners mortgage or car loan without being married.
Posted by nurddude 4 years ago
nurddude
Unfaithfulness, child custody/child support issues, who own what if you buy things together, etc.
Posted by handbannana 4 years ago
handbannana
like what
Posted by nurddude 4 years ago
nurddude
@handbannana. I think that could lead to more problems than it solves.
Posted by handbannana 4 years ago
handbannana
All marriage should be banned.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
I am definitely pro gay marriage, just so you know, but it should be interesting to try arguing the other side of things.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 4 years ago
Johnicle
nurddudeFourTroubleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I am in favor of gay marriage. But pro let me down.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
nurddudeFourTroubleTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
nurddudeFourTroubleTied
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