The Instigator
policydebategod
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
clsmooth
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Gays should be allowed to marry

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,434 times Debate No: 774
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (20)

 

policydebategod

Pro

For gays not to be allowed to marry is archaic and discriminatory. idon't understand why anybody would think gay marriage is acceptable. Please explain your reasoning.
- Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
- Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
- Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation.
- Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
- It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
- The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
- The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.
clsmooth

Con

policydebategod, you are one of my favorite debaters at Debate.org, and I welcome this challenge.

It is true that if you look at my profile, you will notice it says I am "against" gay marriage. However, you have to look at what the Debate.org questionnaire actually says. It says:

"Couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, and be recognized by the State."

Now I am all for couples of the same sex being "allowed" to get married -- but I am not in favor of the state recognizing gay marriage, nor heterosexual marriage.

Throughout history, marriage has been a religious sacrament. "Separation of church and state" is a good principle that I agree with. Therefore, I am opposed to the co-mingling of marriage (a religious institution) and the state.

So let me go through your arguments:

"Denying them is a violation of religious freedom"

No one forbids churches from permitting gay-marriage services. I would be bitterly opposed to any efforts that did so. But tellingly, here you admit that marriage is a religious affair. This is the basis of my argument against state-marriage.

"Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples"

These benefits are available through private contract. Most educated people can write contracts for themselves, without a lawyer. However, I admit it is unfair for heterosexuals to have greater access to this contract, via the state (marriage), than homosexual couples. That's why I support civil unions for all and state-marriage for none.

"Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation"

Accepted by whom? "Proven biological causation"? I don't think so. It's up to debate. But what kind of argument is this? Who cares if society accepts gays or if the causation for homosexuality is biological? Would gays have any less right to contract if they were not accepted or if homosexuality were merely a choice? Does one not have the right to choose to be gay? I think one does.

"Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination"

I would counter that by saying that PROVIDING heterosexual marriages is what leads to the discrimination. State-sponsored marriage is not a Natural Right. It is a privilege. Therefore, the privilege should be taken away from the privileged to restore parity.

I'm in complete agreement with your final three arguments, and therefore, I cannot rebut them.

The question is one of less government or more government. I say less. I say take away the privilege from the privileged. Let's not forget that there are those who choose not to get married, and the government should not engage in social engineering to promote marriage or discourage it. All should be equal before the law -- straight, gay; married or unmarried.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod

Pro

- Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
- Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
- Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation.
- Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
- It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
- The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
- The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create.

- policydebategod, you are one of my favorite debaters at Debate.org, and I welcome this challenge.
+ thank you.

- No one forbids churches from permitting gay-marriage services. I would be bitterly opposed to any efforts that did so. But tellingly, here you admit that marriage is a religious affair. This is the basis of my argument against state-marriage.
+ However, you will notice that atheists and satanists get married on a non religious basis. Why cant gays get married if non religious people can?

- These benefits are available through private contract. Most educated people can write contracts for themselves, without a lawyer. However, I admit it is unfair for heterosexuals to have greater access to this contract, via the state (marriage), than homosexual couples. That's why I support civil unions for all and state-marriage for none.
+ Civil unions are not recognized in every state or country limiting the places that gays can live and travel, which is unfair. Gay marriages would be recognized in every state and country so they can live anywhere they wish. Civil unions are not as impressive as actual marriages because marriage has been around for centuries and people respect it alot. 14% of New Jersey civil unions are not recognized their employers.

- Accepted by whom? "Proven biological causation"? I don't think so. It's up to debate. But what kind of argument is this? Who cares if society accepts gays or if the causation for homosexuality is biological? Would gays have any less right to contract if they were not accepted or if homosexuality were merely a choice? Does one not have the right to choose to be gay? I think one does.
+ Some people feel otherwise, which is why I made that argument.

"Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination"

I would counter that by saying that PROVIDING heterosexual marriages is what leads to the discrimination. State-sponsored marriage is not a Natural Right. It is a privilege. Therefore, the privilege should be taken away from the privileged to restore parity.

I'm in complete agreement with your final three arguments, and therefore, I cannot rebut them.

The question is one of less government or more government. I say less. I say take away the privilege from the privileged. Let's not forget that there are those who choose not to get married, and the government should not engage in social engineering to promote marriage or discourage it. All should be equal before the law -- straight, gay; married or unmarried.

How are you against gay marriage? All marriage sgould be recognized by the senate. Most marital benefits are provided by the government: (THIS IS JUST A LIST OF MARITAL RIGHTS-- YOU DONT HAVE TO REFUTE EACH ONE-- TRY THE GENERAL LIST) Social Security pension, veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing survivor benefits for federal employees, $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty, renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse, employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances) sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits, veteran's disability, Supplemental Security Income, disability payments for federal employees, medicaid, property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates, joint filing of bankruptcy permitted, joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records, family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison, next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce, domestic violence intervention, access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods, Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs, Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses. Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens, Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act, Threats against spouses of various, federal employees is a federal crime, Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse, Court notice of probate proceedings, Domestic violence protection orders, Existing homestead lease continuation of rights, Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption, Funeral and bereavement leave, Joint adoption and foster care, Joint tax filing, Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society, Legal status with stepchildren, Making spousal medical decisions, Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver, Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation, Right of survivorship of custodial trust, Right to change surname upon marriage, Right to enter into prenuptial agreement, Right to inheritance of property, Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
clsmooth

Con

"However, you will notice that atheists and satanists get married on a non religious basis. Why cant gays get married if non religious people can?"

I don't think anyone should be able to get married by the state. If they want to create their own entity to issue them a marriage, then so be it. But why use the state? It isn't necessary. The state exists to defend liberty, not to grant privileges and perform services that can easily be provided by the free market.

"Civil unions are not recognized in every state or country..."

I don't wish to have jurisdiction over other states or countries. But under the Constitution, all states have to respect the contracts of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

All of the benefits you list could also be passed on through private contracts.

You admit in Round 1 that marriage is a religious institution. Then you back away from that argument and the obvious conclusion it leads to -- that marriage and the state should be separate, just as church and state should be.

There was no need for state licenses or federal recognition of marriage in early America. In fact, "marriage licenses" first came into being in order to regulate against interracial marriages. Let's do away with this crude and offensive intrusion into our privacy by the state -- abolish state-approved marriages, end Marriage Apartheid, and allow all free individuals to freely associate and call it what they want. Anything else is discriminatory, and by arguing for it, you are actually arguing in favor of discrimination.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod

Pro

- I don't think anyone should be able to get married by the state. If they want to create their own entity to issue them a marriage, then so be it. But why use the state? It isn't necessary. The state exists to defend liberty, not to grant privileges and perform services that can easily be provided by the free market.
+ The benefits of marriage cannot be provided by anybody except for the state because the benefits are state oriented like tax breaks, copyright, custody, wills, etc. I don't understand how anybody could marry under a non-governmental way.

- I don't wish to have jurisdiction over other states or countries. But under the Constitution, all states have to respect the contracts of other states. The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
+ Well, they simply dont. These are not necessarly contracts but rather laws. These contracts are illegal by law and constitution in most states.

All of the benefits you list could also be passed on through private contracts.

You admit in Round 1 that marriage is a religious institution. Then you back away from that argument and the obvious conclusion it leads to -- that marriage and the state should be separate, just as church and state should be.
+ The benefits granted by the state can only be granted by the government.

T- here was no need for state licenses or federal recognition of marriage in early America. In fact, "marriage licenses" first came into being in order to regulate against interracial marriages. Let's do away with this crude and offensive intrusion into our privacy by the state -- abolish state-approved marriages, end Marriage Apartheid, and allow all free individuals to freely associate and call it what they want. Anything else is discriminatory, and by arguing for it, you are actually arguing in favor of discrimination.
+ WTF are you talking about?
clsmooth

Con

The marriage tax breaks are discrimination against non-married people. I'm against the income tax anyway, and this is yet another reason why.

Copyrights, custody, and wills absolutely can be determined by contract. That's preposterous for you to suggest otherwise. A will is a contract, for goodness sake!

I thought you were a libertarian. Why don't you trust the free market to provide these services? Why must the government do it? How did people get along just fine until governments decided to ban interracial marriage?

Contracts are illegal in most states? States don't have to respect each other's contracts? What are you talking about? You are just making these things up. The Constitution is clear.

Why is it that the benefits can only be granted by government? I could put you in my will. I could leave custody of my children to YOU. We don't need to be married by the state in order for this to happen.

You are in favor of discrimination against non-married people. You are potentially discriminatory against people living in polyamorous relationships, etc., unless you think the state should also recognize their relationships and provide the same tax breaks, etc. Your argument is for bigger, more intrusive, and tyranical government. No wonder you support Joe Biden and not Ron Paul.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
I'm going to say that I think pdgod is just a little bitter on this one. Congratulations clsmooth. You won this debate undoubtedly and got my vote because of it.

PS: I looked at the round before I voted.
Posted by thelistman 9 years ago
thelistman
I disagree with clsmooth, but he won that argument hands down.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Again, WHERE DID I CHANGE MY POSITION?
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Stop pretending you're a libertarian, please. "Our society is based on benefits that the government creates."

Wow.

Free society is based on freedom, not government-granted benefits. Governments exist to defend liberty, not bestow benefits.

Changed my position? No. I already debated you on the exact same topic. My entire argument is based on separation of marriage and state. Why debate it again? You lost. Get over it.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
notice that he declined my debate about whether the government should be in marriage. he changed his view again on this.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
Hey. I'm not calling names. Why don't you actually debate the topic instead of being a kindergartener who point and calls people names. Our society is based on benefits that the government creates. And you changed your position every round. I could not have won this debate because I did not even know what we were debating. And you got the most votes because you changed your position.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
Whatever, dude. You're an idiot. Marriage existed for centuries without the government. The benefits could be assigned via private contract, and where they are welfare benefits, they should not exist anyway.

Changed my position? Where? Where do I change my position? I am consistently for freedom. You are a confused statist.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!! THE GOVERNMENT GIVES BENEFITS TO MARRIED COUPLES!!! MARRIAGE HAS TO BE SPONSORED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ELSE THOSE BENEFITS ARE TAKEN AWAY!!! ILL CHALLENGE HIM ON THE DEBATE SOLELY OF GOVERNMENT BEING IN MARRIAGE. LOOK AT THAT ROUND B4 U VOTE HERE.
Posted by policydebategod 9 years ago
policydebategod
this was impossible to debate. he did not even have a position. he changed his position every round.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
1. I have absolutely no care whether gay marriage would "erode the institution of marriage," and it should be very clear from my arguments that I care not in the least. I have no desire to preserve or extinguish the institution. I am free to be married or to be single, and I would prefer to be freer -- i.e. free from state compulsions, benefits, or disincentives.

2. See Thomas Malthus.

3. I care not what foreign governments do. They should be neither our servants, nor our masters.

4. People need to take responsibility for their own affairs. That said, the common law provides basic survivorship rules, and where it does not, it should. I am never in favor of the state acquiring any amount of property for any purpose.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 week ago
Mharman
policydebategodclsmoothTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:03 
Vote Placed by Kierkegaard 9 years ago
Kierkegaard
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by 08tsuchiyar 9 years ago
08tsuchiyar
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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 
Vote Placed by maxh 9 years ago
maxh
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mv 9 years ago
mv
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Heyzeus 9 years ago
Heyzeus
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by longjonsilver 9 years ago
longjonsilver
policydebategodclsmoothTied
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:03