The Instigator
DML
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
antonetteaquino
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay 'marriage' violates the principle of equality among citizens

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: 5/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 91872
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

DML

Pro

I Pro will argue for the topic, Con will argue against the the topic.
antonetteaquino

Con

So the statement for today's discussion is that gay 'marriage' violates the principle of equality among the citizens. The agenda of this issue in the face of the LGBT community has been a contested issue and is also an area that includes the doctrine of question that continues to evolve. Both sides of the debate remain steadfast in their beliefs and continues to push changes in the legislation regarding this issue.
My first contention would explain exactly why I stand in negative of this statement.

1. In the statement mentioned, it is clear that the terms used are contradicting to each other in different ways. Now, why is that so? To define the "principle of equality" - it is a philosophical, moral, and legal doctrine asserting that all human beings are "equal," and that they ought to be treated "equally" under the law. Now my question is, how exactly is marriage, a sacrament that involves two people who clearly love each other to uphold a commitment, violating the "principle of equality"?
Debate Round No. 1
DML

Pro

Equality - the quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.(1)

The principle of equality means the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation of equality principle would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. Generally, the question of whether the principle of equality among citizens has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to some privileges yet denies other individuals the same right.

Taxpayer-funded privileges of marriage are available to certain citizens only. On the other hand, all citizens are obligated to pay taxes. So, it is obvious that law or policy that determines eligibility for taxpayer-funded privileges must be based on clear standard equally applicable to everyone. Generally, this standard is called the legitimate state interest.

Let's suppose the government creates a law by which people with 'blue hair' have special rights that other citizens do not. This law would not be able to pass legitimate state interest test because there is nothing inherent in the 'blue hair' that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest so that only people with blue hair are able to fulfil that interest. Therefore, the principle of equality among citizens would be violated.

From the above mentioned it's clear that marriage law or policy by which two persons of the same sex that accept legal obligation to mutual love, respect, fidelity, help and support, are eligible for taxpayer-funded privileges is also not able to pass legitimate state interest test. The reason is simple - there is nothing inherent in the love, respect, fidelity, help and support between two persons of the same sex that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest so that only people that form same-sex type of union are able to fulfil that interest.

The opposite is true for law or policy that recognizes men-women acceptance of obligations before the law. Love, respect, fidelity, help and support between two persons of the opposite sex are rationally related to the state interest of well being of children and society. The more man and woman that are in relationship love and respect each oder the less families would be broken apart and more children would live in intact families with mom and dad. Also, social costs of broken families would be lower. Henece, there is a legitimate state interest to promote love, respect, fidelity, help and support between men and women through the institution of marriage.

On the other hand, love, respect, help and support between gay people is socialy desirable the same as it is desirable between roommates, cousins, siblings, polygamous partners and other different types of interpersonal relationships. So there is nothing inherent in gay love, respect, help and support that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest so that only gay people that accept legal obligation to love, respect, help and support should be given taxpayer-funded privileges.

Since the citizens that live together in various types of interpersonal relationships are not eligible for taxpayer-funded privileges, while gay citizens are, gay marriage policy is treating people differently without justification in a legitimate state interest and as such it violates the principle of equality among citizens.

(1) - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
antonetteaquino

Con

antonetteaquino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DML

Pro

waiting...
antonetteaquino

Con

antonetteaquino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DML

Pro

DML forfeited this round.
antonetteaquino

Con

antonetteaquino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
DML

Pro

DML forfeited this round.
antonetteaquino

Con

antonetteaquino forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.