The Instigator
niwrad
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Pigzooka
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 632 times Debate No: 81623
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

niwrad

Pro

Legal doctrine dictates that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Since taxation is in principle an interference with that right, because it deprives the person concerned of a possession, namely the amount of money which must be paid, government or public spending must be objectively justified by the public interests. Public interests and its equivalents general interests and public good, refers to some collective good which superimposes itself over private interests and is defined as the welfare or well-being of the general public.
Government policy that legally recognizes and benefits homosexual union with public money, either in the form of civil union or in the form of gay marriage, is not based of public, but on private interest. As such, it represents the pursuit of private interests with public money. Additionally, it represents the pursuit of private ideology of political elites with public or taxpayers' money.

Since the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption, gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption.
Pigzooka

Con

You claim that gay marriage is not in the public interest, yet the majority of the public (1) supports it. While private politicians are certainly among those who support gay marriage, by your argument any law passed represents corruption. You fail to explain how gay marriage is not in the public good, so I clicked over to the comments, where you stated that gay marriage wasn't in the public interest because only heterosexual marriages produce children. Yet this makes zero sense as a condemnation of gay marriage; it's not like gay people would be having kids if gay marriage was ILLegal. In fact, gay marriage can help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system, since gay couples adopt much more regularly and tend to be better parents than heterosexual couples (2). Anyway, only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, and whether or not they have kids has very little effect on the population anyway. Unless you're some kind of a spread-the-race nationalist, I can't see why this argument holds water.

To summarize, you fail to explain why gay marriage does not represent the public interest, and I had to dig through the comments to find a specific point to rebut.

1. http://www.pewforum.org...
2. http://www.medicaldaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
niwrad

Pro

"You claim that gay marriage is not in the public interest, yet the majority of the public (1) supports it."

Public interest has nothing to do with the majority of the public but with the welfare or well-being of the general public.(1) Majority of the public is relevant in a democratic decision-making process.

"While private politicians are certainly among those who support gay marriage, by your argument any law passed represents corruption."

No, I clearly stated the following: "the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption". Ergo, any law pursuing private interests with public money represents corruption. Since homosexual union is legally recognized and benefited with public money, although this union is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public(public interest), and as such, it belongs to the category of unions that are of private importance only, this represents the pursuit of private interests with public money - or in short - corruption.

"You fail to explain how gay marriage is not in the public good, so I clicked over to the comments, where you stated that gay marriage wasn't in the public interest because only heterosexual marriages produce children."

Again no. Gay marriage - or public recognition of homosexual union -is not in the public interest because this union is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public. The same as other types of romantic, economical, spiritual or sibling unions, in which people live together, such as: polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters. They are not of general public concern because this types of unions are per se unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public.

"Yet this makes zero sense as a condemnation of gay marriage; it's not like gay people would be having kids if gay marriage was ILLegal. In fact, gay marriage can help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system, since gay couples adopt much more regularly and tend to be better parents than heterosexual couples (2). Anyway, only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, and whether or not they have kids has very little effect on the population anyway."

Various arrangements in which people live together, such as polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters... can also "help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system". Nevertheless, they are not entitled neither to special public and legal recognition nor to taxpayer funded benefits. The reason is simple: mimicking some aspects of heterosexual union is not valid reason to treat every union where people live together as heterosexual union.

"Unless you're some kind of a spread-the-race nationalist, I can't see why this argument holds water."

Ad hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.(2)

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Pigzooka

Con

"Public interest has nothing to do with the majority of the public but with the welfare or well-being of the general public.(1) Majority of the public is relevant in a democratic decision-making process."

So does America participate in a democratic decision-making process, or not? If it does, I think it makes sense that the majority of the public should have some say. You also seemingly deny that the opinion of the majority of the public matters, by stating that it is not part of the public interest. Do politicians know what the people want better than they themselves do? And speaking of those same politicians, you state that gay marriage is "not in the public interest" and any politician supporting it is corrupt. However, you do not state any specific reason why gay marriage is "not in the public interest" other than that it doesn't produce children (rebutted below), so I take "the public interest" to mean "things that I agree with." While you are an important part of the democratic process, you are not the only part, and a larger part does not agree with you than does.

I don't get your third point. You state that heterosexual unions are in the public interest, while homosexual unions are not. I would agree with you that homosexual unions do not always produce children (though they can, through surrogates). The reason for my spread-the-race jibe, on the other hand, was that marriage is not always to produce children. It also makes people happy, and I doubt even you would say that gay people don't deserve to be happy. And being surrounded by happy people makes everybody happier. And happy people are good workers. Isn't a happy population at least as productive as a large one? Also, like I said, gay people do not generally have children if they can't get married. You actually never enumerated the "positive effects" that het marriage creates and gay marriage does not.

You keep referencing the "public interest." What public is this, and why are they interested in banning love and letting roommates and nuns adopt children together?
Debate Round No. 2
niwrad

Pro

"So does America participate in a democratic decision-making process, or not?..."

Nobody decides what issues are of public interest, neither the majority, nor the politicians, just like nobody decides whether the Earth is flat or round. Public interest it simply the results of observation, which is an act of viewing or noting a fact, an occurrence or effect. Now, what occurrence or effect is associated with, for example, environmental pollution? The answer is: harm to humans and other living organisms. We didn't decide in a democratic decision-making process that environmental pollution causes harmful effects. Instead, we have obtained that knowledge through the study or observation of the natural world. Since public interest is the welfare or well-being of the general public and we know that environmental protection is able to produce effects that are beneficial to the well-being of the general public , it logically(not politically) follows that environmental protection policies are of public interest.

The same is true for social stability, internal and external safety, treatment and prevention of disease and illness, reproduction of society and so on. They all produce effects that are beneficial to the well-being of the general public. That is why welfare state, police, army, hospitals and paramedic, heterosexual unions..., are issues of public interest. They are recognized(not determined) by public authority(government) in the form of policies or public services and are funded with public or taxpayers' money.

Various types of unions in which people live together, such as: homosexual, polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters... are unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public. That is why this types of private arrangements are not of public interest and politicians don'thave any objectively justified reason neither for special public and legal recognition of this arrangements nor for the transfer of public money to them in the form of benefits.

"I don't get your third point. You state that heterosexual unions are in the public interest, while homosexual unions are not. I would agree with you that homosexual unions do not always produce children (though they can, through surrogates)."

Children born through surrogacy are always the product of heterosexual unions, with built-in identity of one man and one woman. Homosexual unions has nothing to do with it.

Homosexual union can only deprive child of a full development potential and it is not in the best interest of a child. That is easy to prove with the following argument:

Premise 1: Through interactions with parents child develop social and cognitive skills, mature emotionally, and gain the self-confidence required to engage in social environment.

Premise 2: Men and women have different characteristics. Modern science and conventional wisdom shows that men and women differ in many aspects. Women communicate better than men, they focus on how to create a solution that works for the entire group, talking through issues, and utilizes non-verbal cues such as tone, emotion and empathy. Men on the other hand, tend to be more task oriented, less talkative and more isolated. Men have a hard time understanding emotions that are not spoken, while women tend to intuit emotions and emotional cues. Experts have proven that men process better in the left hemisphere while women tend to process equally well between the two hemispheres. This difference clearly shows why men are stronger with left-brain activities and approach problem solving from a task-oriented perspective while women typically solve problems more creatively and are more aware of feelings while communicating.

Premise 3: The more different interactions a child have during development the more richer it will become in emotional, social and cognitive skills required to engage in environment which consist of both men and women, just like child living in a multilingual society that is exposed to two differnt languages during development, will communicate better than those exposed to one.

Premise 4: In a parent-child interactions, child of a lesbian couple is deprived of characteristics typical of a men and child of a gay couple is deprived of characteristics typical of a women. Hence, a child with homosexual parents will have less differnt developmental interactions and therefore less emotional, social and cognitive skills required to engage in environment which consist of both men and women, just like child living in a multilingual society that is exposed to only one language during development, will do worse in communication than those exposed to two languages.

Conclusion: Homosexual union deprives child of a full development potential and therefore it is not in the best interest of a child.

Since each individual human being has a built-in identity of one man and one woman and since homosexual union deprives child of a full development potential, by your line of reasoning, public intrest is to create a family conditions where child is disconected from its built-in dual identity and deprived of a full development potential.

"The reason for my spread-the-race jibe, on the other hand, was that marriage is not always to produce children."

Marriage is defined as a legally recognized union or relationship between two people that establishes rights and obligations between them. Ergo, "marriage", ipso facto, can never produce children. You were supposed to say "interpersonal intimate relationship is not always to produce children". And that would be a non sequitur because government isn't concerned with people's private choices and romantic relationships but with the fact that children are always the product of heterosexual unions. That is why this type of union is of public intrest and is legally recognized by government.

"It also makes people happy, and I doubt even you would say that gay people don't deserve to be happy. And being surrounded by happy people makes everybody happier. And happy people are good workers."

Publicly funded policies and services are concerned with the issues that have positive effects on the general public.
If you, or some LGBT interest group, are concerned with the positive effects on gay people and their happiness you are free to establish a private fund that will pay benefits to gay people who decided to live together in a romantic relationship. Also, some LGBT organization is free to create and issue a document that would mimic a marriage license, authorizing a gay partners to "marry" and establishing rights and obligations between them.
But, the relationship and happiness of gay partners is not an issue of general public concern as this relationship is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public.

Since homosexual union is legally recognized and benefited with public money, although it is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public, this political recognition represents the pursuit of private interests with public money. Additionally, it represents the pursuit of private ideology of political elites with public money. Since the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption, gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption.

"You keep referencing the "public interest." What public is this, and why are they interested in banning love and letting roommates and nuns adopt children together?"

That is not true. If government doesn't publicly recognize homosexual union that doesn't mean government is banning love or romantic relationship between gay partners. They are free to live together in a romantic or sexually intimate relationship, to organize a wedding ceremony, exchange vows in front of family and friends, make promises of eternal love... They can do whatever they like to pursue their happines, regardless of public proclamation of their relationship by an authority figure.
Pigzooka

Con

"Nobody decides what issues are of public interest"

Then why do you say that gay marriage is not in the public interest, while I say that it is? I agree that fixing the environment definitely is, but if we don't agree, then public interest here is not a given, but rather what the public says the interest is, since neither you nor I can actually state definitively the effects of gay marriage on the economy/society/whatever of the USA. And the public says that their interest is in allowing gay marriage. If you continue, then, to state that the public interest is not in gay marriage, then you state that you know better than the American people what's good for them, which, considering that you're on debate.org and not in Congress or the White House, you do not. You seem to take it for granted that gay marriage does not produce beneficial effects, given your robotic restatement of that claim and your apparent confusion when I try to challenge it. So I need to explain this: I do not approve of giving funding to things that do not benefit the United States. I agree with you there. But I think that gay marriage benefits the United States. THAT'S what I'm arguing.

In debates, I bow to the old Wendy's commercial and, looking at my opponent's argument, ask "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" In your argument, it seems to be the long list of "premises" that blights the whole center. You seem to claim that children raised by gay parents are less exposed to different thinking. But this is untrue; if you had read my first statement, you would know that children raised by gay parents not only perform at the same level as children raised by straight parents, but actually do better very regularly. So I preempted your argument, but you stated it anyway.

I, unlike you, am not basing my argument off of dictionary definitions. You know perfectly well what I meant. And children are not always the product of heterosexual unions. You claimed that surrogates and gay parents represented a het relationship, but this is nonsensical; while certainly the surrogate is aiding in the production of children, they have no relationship with said children. And no gay parent would want to marry a surrogate.

And I'm confused by your argument for my next point. You say that the public shouldn't fund gay marriage, but why should gay people fund straight marriage? Are they wrong? Do they need to be punished? And your proposal that a civil rights organization give out marriage certificates is ridiculous. An organization cannot guarantee shared taxes or hospital visitation. The point of gay marriage is to give gay people the same rights as straight people, which private organizations can't guarantee.

If straight people are allowed to marry, gay people should be too, since they also produce beneficial effects on society. Vote for happiness and freedom!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by niwrad 1 year ago
niwrad
@ MagicAintReal
Your objections are irrelevant. Each individual human being has a built-in identity of one man and one woman. That is why relationship or union between one man and one woman is of public interest.
Other types of romantic, economical, spiritual or sibling unions, in which people live together, such as: homosexual, polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters... are not of general public concern but are of private importance only. As such, they are not entitled neither to special public and legal recognition nor to taxpayer funded benefits.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
People can be born out of heterosexual unions, and people can be born without two people having sex...your arguments are not very good.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
You really should use quotation marks when you quote something.
Posted by niwrad 1 year ago
niwrad
@ MagicAintReal

Public services are impossible to exist without doctors, scientists, nurses, teachers, military officers, teachers, police officers... and they are all the result of heterosexual union. Public interests is defined as the welfare or well-being of the general public. Ergo, without heterosexual union there is no well-being of the general public. That is why this type of union is of public interest, it is legally recognized and individuals that have chosen to enter into it are entitled to publicly funded benefits.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
"Government policy that legally recognizes and benefits homosexual union with public money, either in the form of civil union or in the form of gay marriage, is not based of public, but on private interest. "

So, is a government policy that legally recognizes and benefits heterosexual unions with public money, either in the form of civil union or in the form of straight marriage, not based on public, but on private interest?
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
I am against legal marriages and civil unions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.