Gay marriage should be legalized in the entire US
Debate Rounds (3)
Pro's argument for gay marriage commits the quod nimis probat, nihil probat fallacy. In other words, his argument proves too much. If taken to it's logical conclusion, it not only results in the government having an obligation to issue a license to gay couples, but it also results in the government having an obligation to provide everybody with a spouse.
The reason Pro thinks government ought to allow gay marriage is because gay people have an equal right to tax benefits with straight people. But if the government has an obligation to take action or provide a service on the basis that doing so ensures equal rights to tax benefits, then not only should the government issue a marriage license to gay couples, but they ought to provide a spouse for each person.
After all, the only way I can have an equal right to tax benefits is if I get married. So if the government owes me that right, then the government owes me a spouse.
The Surpreme Court has consistently found that the right of counsel guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment entails not just that criminals have the right to hire an attorney, but that if they are unable to do so, the state must provide the accused with a court appointed attorney.
So if there really is a right to equal tax benefits that requires the government to take action in order to ensure the realization of that right, then not only would the government be obligated to issue a marriage license to both gay and straight couples, but they would also be obligated to provide spouses to people who can't find them themselves. The government ought to find me a wife because unless I have a wife, I don't have equal tax benefits with married people.
That is the absurd consequence of Pro's premises. If we reject the absurd consequence, we must object the premises that lead to them. The faulty premise is that people do, in fact, have an equal right to tax benefits. No such right exists. Or, if it did exist, it would not be a positive right. It would be a negative right.
A positive right is a right that requires another to provide something to you. For example, the right to an attorney requires the government to provide one. A negative right only requires others to not hinder you in your pursuit of whatever it is you have a right to. For example, if you have a right to speech, that doesn't mean anybody owes you a platform from which to speak. It only means the government cannot legally hinder you from speaking.
Marriage and tax benefits are not positive rights because the government has no obligation to give everybody the same tax benefits, and the government has no obligation to provide people with whatever prerequisites those tax benefits have. For example, home owners have tax benefits that renters don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a house. Parents have tax benefits that non-parents don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a child.
There is no positive "right to marriage," and there is no postive "right to tax benefits."
JacobiJones forfeited this round.
JacobiJones forfeited this round.
That concludes tonight's debate. Thank you for coming.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Auto 7 points for FF
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.