The Instigator
JohnT
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
WriterSelbe
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay marriage is not a human rights issue

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
JohnT
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,934 times Debate No: 19989
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

JohnT

Pro

This debate will be about whether the ability to marry someone of the same sex is a basic human right. I will be taking the position that it is not.

A human right is defined as "an inalienable fundamental right, to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being."

The first round will simply be for acceptance and any definitions.
WriterSelbe

Con

I accept this challenge. Because the first round is for definition, I will dissect the resolution:

As stated by my opponent: A human right is defined as "an inalienable fundamental right,to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being." An example of a right being choice. Every human being has the ability to choose, something that cannot be taken away from a person, and thus it is one's right.

Right-- Morally good, justified, or acceptable.

The resolution thus states that I must prove that the prohibition of gay marriage/the allowance of gay marriage is an issue that infringes upon or affects the rights of humans. Seeing as the definition of right used does not apply to morality, the only definition suitable is the one my opponent and I have agreed on. Thus, morality cannot have a say or any leverage in the debate that follows.
Debate Round No. 1
JohnT

Pro

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.
I will present three arguments for why I believe gay marriage is not a human rights issue.

Argument 1: By not allowing gay couples to marry, the government is in no way infringing upon their freedoms.
Unmarried gay couples can still live together, have sex, or do anything else they could do if married, just like heterosexual couples.

Argument 2: Marriage is a social institution, not a universal human right.
Marriage is a legal union instituted by the government. I fail to see how the government is infringing on anyone's rights by not legally recognizing two people as a couple.

Argument 3: The government has a right to choose who can marry who.
It already does this in many areas, such as only allowing people of a certain age to marry, not allowing close relations to marry and limiting the number of people you can be married to to one. If being able to marry whoever you want is a human right, then surely it would be wrong for the government to place restrictions on it.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's counter arguments.
WriterSelbe

Con

I thank my opponent for his response. Now, I shall argue my opponent's contentions.

Argument 1: By not allowing gay couples to marry, the government is in no way infringing upon their freedoms.
Unmarried gay couples can still live together, have sex, or do anything else they could do if married, just like heterosexual couples.

Seeing as the United States' main appeal is its equality for all humankind, not allowing homosexuals to marry is a human rights issue. If all men are equal to all women, then replacing a woman in an equation of marriage with another man shouldn't be a problem. Also, this whole point is invalid because the financial benefits that come with marriage are not available to homosexual partners unless married.

Argument 2: Marriage is a social institution, not a universal human right.
Marriage is a legal union instituted by the government. I fail to see how the government is infringing on anyone's rights by not legally recognizing two people as a couple.

Not at all. A social institution would be dating because dating isn't recognized by the government as a relationship sharing financial benefits. Marriage is a legally instituted joining of lives and funds.

Argument 3: The government has a right to choose who can marry who.
It already does this in many areas, such as only allowing people of a certain age to marry, not allowing close relations to marry and limiting the number of people you can be married to to one. If being able to marry whoever you want is a human right, then surely it would be wrong for the government to place restrictions on it.

It is wrong for the government to place restrictions on it. Just because the government doesn't allow something doesn't mean what isn't allowed is wrong, and the same goes for allowing something. Hence, slavery. The government allowed it, so if we went by my opponent's logic, slavery is morally right. (http://www.usconstitution.net...) However, it isn't.
Debate Round No. 2
JohnT

Pro

1. Just because two people aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean they are being treated unequally. For example, just because a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean the government isn't giving them the same rights as everybody else. It just means that the government doesn't believe it would be beneficial or morally right to allow them to marry.

2. Whether marriage is a social institution or a legal one doesn't change the fact that it is not a universal human right.

3. You believe it's wrong to place restrictions on it, so I presume you believe it's alright for brothers and sisters to marry, or for young children to marry, however I'm sure the vast majority of people would disagree. If the government can place restrictions on these things then it can also place restrictions on the sex of the people getting married.
WriterSelbe

Con

1. Just because two people aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean they are being treated unequally. For example, just because a brother and sister aren't allowed to marry doesn't mean the government isn't giving them the same rights as everybody else. It just means that the government doesn't believe it would be beneficial or morally right to allow them to marry.

Yes, regardless of whether or not other people view it as morally wrong or right, that is treating a certain group unequally, and, in the case of your example, a brother and sister being declined the right to marry goes against their right to marry whoever they want. As I stated before, the government says all human beings are equal. Thus, the worth of a man is equivalent to the worth of a female. They are of the same value. So, a man marrying a man is the equivalent of a man marrying a woman and vice versa. It is their right.

2. Whether marriage is a social institution or a legal one doesn't change the fact that it is not a universal human right.

My burden is to prove that it is. I disproved your 'social contract' theory already, so now your burden is heavier. Yours is to prove that it is not. However, your only argument is saying that it 'is not a universal human right,' and that proves nothing. I need an argument.

3. You believe it's wrong to place restrictions on it, so I presume you believe it's alright for brothers and sisters to marry, or for young children to marry, however I'm sure the vast majority of people would disagree. If the government can place restrictions on these things then it can also place restrictions on the sex of the people getting married.

Morality is subjective, so having one moral view or another cannot be proven right. As I stated above, not allowing the union of any two groups of people goes against human rights. Morality has no play in this.

This debate is now concluded, and I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Crawford 2 years ago
Crawford
I fail to see how "Collecting on a deceased spouses social security" makes it more likely that a now widowed woman will have kids.

It is not that we would check them before marriage, it is that there would have to be a deadline for them to start popping out kids. If they did not meet that deadline, than we would have to assume that they cannot or will not have kids. At this point there would be no reason for them to receive the same benefits and we would make them separate. Legally separate, not physically.
On a separate note, same sex couples are more likely to adopt. Thus if we had more married homosexual couples there would be more adoption. Every child that is adopted is one less child the state has to take care of.
Posted by JohnT 2 years ago
JohnT
If the financial benefits given to married couples aren't to make it more likely they will propagate society, then what are they for?

As for only allowing couples who are fertile to marry, the cost of testing every couple to see if they were infertile before they got married would be far to high. Also, couples unwilling to have children might change their minds later, and couples who are barren may be able to receive treatment to change that. However it is literally impossible for gay couples to ever have children.
Posted by Crawford 2 years ago
Crawford
So why dont we take back the cost benefits of those heterosexuals unable or unwilling to have children? Are the cost benefits of marriege caused only from a the perspective of propogating society? If they are than the only fair option is take back those benefits. This is how the Holocaust happend. First there is a stereotype that the barren and homosexuals dont propogate society. Second, these people are blammed for societal problems. Third, we take away some of their "small" rights, liberties or freedoms. Fourth, acts of physical violence and finally genocide. Gay marriage might not be a right, but the unequall deprivation of freedoms is still wrong. Is it not?
Posted by JohnT 2 years ago
JohnT
@Blithe That's a good point, thanks for posting the link.
Posted by Blithe 2 years ago
Blithe
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

http://tech.mit.edu...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 2 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
JohnTWriterSelbeTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I was considering a Con vote until I read this: "Morality is subjective, so having one moral view or another cannot be proven right. As I stated above, not allowing the union of any two groups of people goes against human rights. Morality has no play in this." Con completely undermines her argument despite adequately rebutting several of Pro's points.