The Instigator
Clash
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Jenx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

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 5 votes the winner is...
Clash
Started: 6/28/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,527 times Debate No: 24482
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Clash

Pro

As Pro, I will affirm the resolution and argue that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US. As Con, you will negate the resolution and argue that Gay-marriage should be legal in the US.

Clarifications

The debate topic is that gay-marriage should not be legal, so to say that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal (something which I'm fully aware of), is invalid. If the debate topic was however that gay-marriage is not legal in the US, then it would be valid to say that that there are many places in the US which already makes it legal. In fact, if you have said that, you would have negated the resolution (i.e., That gay-marriage is not legal in the US)

Since I'm arguing that gay-marriage should not be legal in the US, that means that I'm also arguing that places in the US which already makes gay-marriage legal, should not make it legal anymore. And since Con is arguing that gay-marriage should be legal in the US, that means that he's also arguing that places in the US which doesn't make gay-marriage legal, should start making it legal. Basically, this debate is not about if gay-marriage is legal or not, but only about if it should be legal or not.

Definitions

Gay-marriage: 'The practice of marriage between two males.' [1]

Legal: 'Permitted by law; lawful: Such acts are not legal.' [Ibid]

The US: 'United States or United States of America Abbr. U.S. or US or U.S.A. or USA. A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.' [2]

Rules

Round 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments shall be given in the last round. No semantics.

By accepting this debate, you also accept all the rules and definitions of this debate. Violating one of them will lose you all 7 points.

Sources

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Jenx

Con

I accept your challenge.

I believe that it should be legal for gays to marry in church.
Debate Round No. 1
Clash

Pro

Thank you, Jenx, for accepting this debate challenge.

What Marriage Is

What's the reason for a country to create a law about something? Why does it do it? The answer is simple. A country creates a law because that law will benefit the society as a whole. Does and can gay-marriage benefit the society as a whole? No, because gays cannot procreate. Hetersexual marriages is the only marriages which can continue our society by procreation. Marriage is by nature oriented to procreation. It is procreation which is the sole purpose behind marriage, and marriage is incomplete without it.

Now, why should the US legalize gay-marriage or at all have an interest on it? What does the society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay-marriage? The fact of the matter is that society as a whole is benefited from the union of a male and a female in ways that are not valid for two persons of the same sex, because only heterosexuals are capable of procreation. Gays are not capable of procreation, and gay-marriage becomes therefore very useless for the society and for the state. Procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society. Indeed, this is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage.

Calling something marriage or just writte under a 'contract' that you are married, does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.[1] This is what real marriage is, and gay-marriages goes completely against it.

Girgis, George and Anderson, the authors of “What is Marriage?”, nicely explains what marriage actually is:

'Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.' [2]

This view of marriage is called the 'Conjugal view' or the 'Traditional view'. Indeed, this the most rational view of marriage.

But wait! What About The Revisionist View of Marriage?

The Revisionist view of marriage is that marriage is about love and not procreation. This view however is simply just false. Those who say that marriage is about love and not procreation have completely misunderstood what marriage is and why it is regulated by the state.

If marriage was merely about love, then what are the state's interests in recognizing it to begin with? And if marriage is about love and not procreation, then what reasons is it for the US to not allow other relationships like for example friendships, few peple wanting to marry each other, or even people who wants to marry an animal because he/she loves it? Very little. In fact, 'love-marriages' can be used to justify all sorts of relationships. However, in nature and in the governments eyes, marriage is to create a procreating type relationship that enables the continuation for the society. Only heterosexuals can create this kind of relationship. This is indeed the most rational form of relationship marriages, and there is no rational reasons as to why the state should have an interest on any other forms of relationship marriages, like for example 'love marriages' which can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, and which doesn't benefit the society as a whole.

The truth is that the government doesn't care about love, and marriage is not about love. Of course, love is a important part of marriage. However, it's not the sole porpuse behind marriage. Procreation is. This is why the state at all has an interest in regulating marriage, because it recognizes that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society.

Gay-Marriage and Equality

According to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their equal rights, and it also goes against the idea of equality (i.e., All humans are equal and should have the same equal rights etc).

However, equality has very little to do with this. The real sake of the matter is mainly and fundamentally over what marriage is. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson says:

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that denying homosexuals to marry each other violates the idea of equality and deprives their equal rights, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are relevant, and which are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [3]

So you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because of "equality," unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And as I have said earlier, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered towards the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. Thus, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, there is no discrimination against them or their 'equal rights'.

Conclusion

Gay-marriage cannot benefit the society as a whole, because they cannot procreate. It is basically useless for the state and the society, just like for example friendship relationships. Moreover, gay-marriage goes against what marriage actually is. Namely, the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

In the words of Girgis, George and Anderson:

'Same‐sex partnerships, whatever their moral status, cannot be marriages because they lack any essential orientation to children: They cannot be sealed by the procreative act.' [2]

There are also no compelling reasons as to why the state should have interest on gay-marriage or recognize it - or at least legalize it. Thus, the US should not legalize gay-marriage.

Now, Con must do these three things in order to successfully refute my argument:

1) Give us a compelling reason as to why gay-marriage should be legalized, and why the state should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing it.

2) Show us that there are rational reasons as to why a person should marry another person of the same sex.

3) Show us that my definition of marriage is wrong, and that my definition of marriage is not why the US at all has an interest in marriage. Namely, because of the continuation of our race and society by procreation, and because of the rearing of children which only heterosexuals can naturally create.

The US ought to not legalize marriages which goes against what marriage really is, and the state is justified in recognizing only real marriages. Indeed, the resolution is for now affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US

Sources

[1] http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...

[2] http://www.peter-ould.net...

[3] http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...;
Jenx

Con

Jenx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Clash

Pro

My opponent has, for one or another reason, disappointingly and unfortunately forfeited her second round. If I had known that she would just forfeit, I wouldn't have challenged her to this debate in the first place. Anyway, I extend my arguments and hope that she comes back and engages in what is left of this debate.

Now, since Con forfeited her second round, I would like to use this round to refute two common arguments made by gay-marriage proponents. These two arguments comes from the idea of “rights” and are used many times to support the belief that gay-marriage should be legal in the US. However, as we will now see, both of these arguments are failures.

1) Marriage is a fundamental human right

This argument is merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Moreover, proponents of this argument must also answer and justify how gay-marriage is fundamental human right, and why gay-marriage is a fundamental human right.

I agree that marriage is a fundamental human right, but I however strongly disagree that gay-marriage is a fundamental human right. Why? Because it goes against what the term ”marriage” really means and really is. You cannot argue that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that gay-marriage is a fundamental ”human right”. Maybe heterosexual marriages is but not gay-marriages, because gay-marriages goes against what marriage actually is and why it is at all recognized legally by the state. The goal of marriage is the continuation of the society (procreation). Only heterosexual marriages fulfil this goal. Gay-marriages do not.

2) Not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their rights

According to many proponents of gay-marriage, not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”.

First, this argument is also merely a question-begging because it does not justify and successfully answer this question: What marriage is and why it is recognized legally. Again, you cannot argue that gay-marriage should be legal because not legalizing it deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”, unless you first establish what marriage actually is. And again, since the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with, it can't be said that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their ”rights”. Just like it can't, for example, be said that not allowing me to become the president of the United States deprives my ”rights”. To say that would be illogical since I don't qualify as the president of the United States to begin with. Thus, no “rights“ are being deprived from me by not allowing me to become the president of the United States.

Secondly, proponents of this argument must also successfully answer:

1) How gay-marriage is a “right“.

2) Why gay-marriage is a “right“.

3) And why gays should be given this “right“ to marry each other in the first place.

If these three questions isn't successfully answered, then what rights is the homosexuals deprived of? You can't say that someone is deprived of their rights when those rights doesn't even exist. So proponents of this argument must first prove that such a “right“ even exist.

This argument is simply just assuming that gay-marriage is a “right“ of the homosexuals without first proving that such a “right“ even exist. Moreover, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Thus, there is no discrimination against gays and no rights are being deprived from them, because “gay-marriage“ doesn't exist and because the nature of marriage is that gay relationships cannot qualify as marriages to begin with. In order to claim that gays are deprived of their “rights“ by not allowing them to marry, you have to first change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too. However, what are the state's interests in recognizing and legalizing a relationship such as a “two males relationship“ as marriage to begin with? What does the society as a whole benefit from doing that? Very little. And again, marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. This is the very reason why the state at all has an interest in marriage, because it recognises that procreative marriages is essential, important and necessary for the production of future citizens and therefore the continuation of the society.

It is now Con's job to prove that this view of marriage is wrong in order to successfully change the meaning of “marriage“ to include a relationship between two males too, because according to my view of marriage (which is called the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage) gay relationships cannot qualify as real marriages to begin with. Thus, to say that not legalizing gay-marriage deprives homosexuals of their “rights“, is absurd and invalid. Well, until Con have refuted the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage and given us a rational reason as to why we should believe in another view of marriage, and why the US should at all have an interest in recognizing and legalizing marriages in accordance to that view. We have already seen that the revisionist view of marriage is illogical, invalid, and cannot in any way be better or more rational than the “Conjugal view“ or the “Traditional view“ of marriage. And nor can the revisionist view of marriage be considered a good reason as to why the US at all should have an interest in recognising and legalizing gay-marriage.

Conclusion

All my arguments stands completely unrefuted and Con have not given even one reason/argument as to why gay-marriage should be legal in the US.

The resolution remains affirmed: Gay-marriage should not be legal in the US
Jenx

Con

Jenx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Clash

Pro

Yeah, you know what to do bro.
Jenx

Con

Jenx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Clash 1 year ago
Clash
Jenx, I would like to note to you that this debate is not about if it should be legal for gays to marry in church or not. The church is a private thing and have very little to do with the actual topic of this debate. This debate is only about if the US (the state, the government of the US etc) should legalize gay-marriage (a marriage between two males).

Microsuck, I don't think that she is trolling. She has probably just misunderstood what this debate is actually about a little bit.
Posted by Microsuck 1 year ago
Microsuck
Sorry clash that a troll accepted your debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by ceruleanpolymer 1 year ago
ceruleanpolymer
ClashJenxTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by TheOrator 1 year ago
TheOrator
ClashJenxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow, I hate to see someone who spent so much time on their arguments just have to sit by while someone doesn't use up their time. Conductand Arguments for forfeit.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 1 year ago
Ron-Paul
ClashJenxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 1 year ago
Maikuru
ClashJenxTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Con.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 1 year ago
airmax1227
ClashJenxTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is the only one who made any arguments. Conduct for FF.