The Instigator
Magicr
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Legalization of Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+27
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 10 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 13,523 times Debate No: 26037
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (54)
Votes (10)

 

Magicr

Pro

Resolved: The reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so.

(Note: This does not neccessarily refer to a specific jurisdiction within the United States, but rather any jurisdiction within the United States.)

I have made this debate unacceptable for now, as I would like to ensure a good opponent. I have tried this debate a couple of times before and have had forfeits both times.

The BOP is shared between Pro and Con.

Rules:

1. First round for acceptance, unless Con wishes to begin his or her arguments. If Con begins arguing in R1, he or she shall not post any arguments in R5.
2. Semantic arguments should not be counted.
3. Drops will count as concessions.
4. No new arguments in the last round.

Good luck to whomever accepts!
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Magicr

Pro

Thanks to InVinoVeritas for accepting this debate.

As this debate will discuss the reasons for legalizing same-sex marriage compared to the reasons not to do so, in this round I will discuss some of the most important reasons to recognize the practice.

A primary question that must be asked in this debate is what does it mean for a society to have marriages that are recognized legally?

The answer: Marriage is merely the institution through which two people are recognized as immediate family members by the government and the law. This is important as this familial recognition allows for certain benefits. These benefits include tax benefits, estate planning benefits, employment benefits, medical benefits, and death benefits [1]. Clear examples of the important difference between a married couple and an unmarried one present themselves in examining the last two benefits. A legally recognized spouse has visitation rights in a hospital situation that only apply to family as well as well as access to information and the power to make decisions regarding death. A partner who is not legally recognized as a family member does not necessarily have these benefits.

So this important question arises: Why should heterosexual couples have access to these benefits but homosexual couples should be denied them?

The first reason to legalize same-sex marriage is equality. People in our society should not be denied certain benefits merely because of the color of their skin, their nation of origin, or their sexual orientation.

Not only is it immoral to discriminate based on sexual orientation, it is flat out unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states in Section 1:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” [2].

Marriage is certainly a privilege, if not a right, therefore denying this privilege to a group of people is denying the “equal protection of the laws” about which our Constitution speaks.

Yet, this simple reason of unconstitutionality is followed by an even simpler one: happiness. Not only are Americans guaranteed Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but pursuing human happiness to the greatest extent possible while minimizing unhappiness is a, if not the basic goal of humankind.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would create a great deal of happiness for same-sex couples who would have access to equality they had previously been denied. The only unhappiness resulting from this decision would come from the mostly religious dissenters.

History shows us, however, that those who support discrimination soon fall away and the impact of equality is far greater. One only must look at an event such as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s to see that the racist dissenters brief unhappiness is overwhelmed by the lengthy happiness of an equal society. So it would be with legalizing same sex marriage.

The case for legalizing homosexual marriage is a simple one:

Equality is denied, the Constitution is violated, and unhappiness prevails when same-sex marriage is illegal.

I await my opponent’s response.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.nolo.com...

[2]- http://www.archives.gov...


InVinoVeritas

Con

Why is the institution of marriage legally recognized by the government? Why does the government choose to provide exclusive legal status and benefits to those who are married, while not doing the same for those involved in, say, friendships?

Marriage is an institution that is unique in that it is primarily centered around two things: procreation and child-rearing. That is why the government benefits those in marriages; it recognizes that childbearing and child-rearing are difficult tasks and compensates people for it. In return, the society that the government oversees receives new members created and raised to be future citizens. And this is, of course, in the government's interest, since the advancement of the system depends on the generation of new citizens. The marriage of homosexuals would not serve this interest, and therefore, it should not be instated as a legal institution.

On to the issue of "equality." Based on the opponent's representation of "equality," all members within a group should be allowed to marry, regardless of their individual nature. Going by that theory, the government should legally enable me to marry my car, and I should receive benefits for it, for the sake of "happiness," as my opponent simplistically poses it. This is absurd, of course, and this is because the nature of an individual certainly affects what rights he is eligable for. (Example: If someone developed a chronic bone condition that disallowed him to work, there is a good chance that the government would provide him with disability benefits. Do I also deserve these benefits, even though I am perfectly healthy and capable of working?) "Equality," in our society, means that everyone receives the rights that they are eligable for, based on compatibility of individuals' traits. Moreover, I have shown in my previous argument that homosexual partnership, by its inherent nature, does not meet the "procreation/child-rearing type" format that would make it eligable for marriage. The issue is not a matter of "inequality," as the opponent's argument suggests.

In conclusion, homosexual couples are not legally eligible for marriage, based on their incompatibility with the inherent nature of marriage. The idea of homosexual marriage conflicts with the significance of marriage and the reason that it is legally significant in the first place. This is not a matter of "inequality," since this implies that gay couples had the right to marry and it has not been met; the existence of such a right, however, has yet to be proven.

Now I will turn it over to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 2
Magicr

Pro


I would like to thank my opponent for his response.


The deciding factor in this debate will be what the purpose of marriage is. In his R2, Con argued that the center of marriage is “procreation and child-rearing.” I have argued that “Marriage is merely the institution through which two people are recognized as immediate family members by the government and the law.”


In this round I will compare and contrast our two interpretations of the purpose of marriage and explain why the one I presented is superior.


First, let’s observe which reason is more closely aligned with the actual function of marriage in our society.


Procreation and child-rearing are actions that can occur within marriage, but marriage are not necessary for these actions to occur at all. Additionally, not all marriages include these aspects.


Conversely, composing a familial unit in the eyes of the government is exactly what marriage does. Two unrelated people do not have this benefit outside of marriage, and all marriages have this aspect.


It is obvious that Con’s purpose does not fit very well at all within the current structure of marriage, while mine fits perfectly.


In fact, Con’s only justification for claiming the purpose of marriage is procreation and child rearing is that the law does not recognize friendships or other casual relationships. The reasons for this, however, are simple.


Married couples tend to cohabit and share finances, so it makes sense why they should be recognized as a unit. Additionally, as I stated in R2, spouses have important rights and privileges that are not accorded to friends, so to accord these benefits, the government needs to know who spouses are. Legally recognized marriage allows the government to do this.


It should be noted that Con dropped my constitutionality argument, and as I have continued to prove that marriage is not merely about procreation, this argument stands.


Regarding my happiness argument: Con has addressed this argument as if it were independent of my previously stated purpose of marriage. It is not. The reason he cannot marry his car for happiness is because a person and an intimate object cannot engage in the institution of marriage. My argument is that gay marriages can fulfill the purpose of marriage, therefore gay people should not be denied this happiness.


In conclusion, I have clearly shown that there are numerous positives to legalizing gay marriage. Con has not provided any reasons why it should not be legalized.


InVinoVeritas

Con

In order to find out if someone has a right to do something, we need to define what the "something" is that we are discussing. In this debate, we are debating the topic of "marriage." Indeed, my opponent and I seem to have very different interpretations of marriage. I will now explain my interpretation further and elaborate on why my opponent's interpretation is flawed.

My opponent states: "Procreation and child-rearing are actions that can occur within marriage, but marriage are not necessary for these actions to occur at all. Additionally, not all marriages include these aspects." Right. But my point is that the legal aspect of marriage was established for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing. Although the purpose is not necessarily met in all cases, the laws of marriage should uphold the purpose to fulfill the purpose in as many cases as possible. The opponent's point does not address the matter at hand.

The opponent then suggests that all marriages consist of a "familial unit." What is the significance of a "familial unit" in and of itself? First of all, the definition of a "family unit" varies from one culture to another; nonetheless, virtually all definitions involve children. Not often (if ever) does one hear of a two-person family. And, indeed, within our culture, the social construct of "marriage" oftentimes encompasses the formation of a social construct called a "family unit"... But saying that the purpose of marriage is to form the family unit is absurd, since they are just artificial tags for things that needed names. Therefore, the arbitrary label of "family unit" does not fill the bill. The clear-cut purpose of marriage is procreation and child-rearing; these are not socially constructed tags, but rather objective necessities for a society to progress.

Why would the government have a vested interest in people "cohabit[ing] and shar[ing] finances"? Why would these traits justify the creation of an exclusive legal label? The government solely upholds the legal institution of marriage because it encourages and upholds controlled procreation and child-rearing, which serves the government and society. And all the "important [legal] rights and privileges" handed down to persons engaged in marriage are passed down through the government; the opponent explains that the government needs to recognize them for that reason, but the real issue that needs to be addressed is why the government provides these rights and privileges in the first place, which I addressed earlier in this round (and the last round)?

The "happiness" argument is not relevant, since the opponent states that it is founded on the "fulfill[ing] the purpose of marriage" aspect of the debate, which is in dispute. I agree that if homosexual couples were eligible for marriage (based on the purpose of marriage), then they should be able to do so; however, as I have maintained throughout the debate, such an eligibility is nonexistent, due to the inherent nature of marriage.

Again, the nature of homosexual partnership is not compatible with the purpose of marriage, which I have clearly explained and proven. Homosexual partnership (by its single-gender type) is not conducive to child-rearing and procreation, the functions that form the basis for legal recognition of marriage. And because they do not, homosexual couples should not be able to engage in marital contracts.
Debate Round No. 3
Magicr

Pro

In R3, con has continued to perpetuate his argument that procreation is the purpose of marriage. Yet, he has still not provided any strong evidence to support this claim. Throughout his argument he makes unevidenced claims about history of marriage and its historical purpose. He also blindly labels ideas as clear cut, but provides no real logic to back up his position.

The first claim he makes is that “the legal aspect of marriage was established for the purpose of procreation and child-rearing.” It should be noted that no source is presented to back up this assertion.

Additionally, in today’s society we have discarded aspects of marriage that existed when it was first recognized. Marriage was originally recognized as a transfer of property, that property being women. This treatment dates back to Biblical times and likely existed before that. Not only were women treated as property, but polygamy was not uncommon.

The way society recognizes marriage today is vastly different from the way marriage was recognized in ancient times. Thus, the purposes associated with marriage then do not have to correlate with the purposes then. This is exemplified by the fact that marriages were often focused on what was strategically best for a family’s monetary or political interests. Today, we no longer see marriage as a transfer of property or a strategic tool for self gain. So that fact that marriage may have been established with procreation in mind has no necessary bearing on our view of marriage today.

Con’s argument could be simplified within the Toulmin model of argumentation:

Claim: The purpose of marriage is procreation.
Reason: Marriage was founded with procreation in mind.
Warrant: An institution’s initial purpose should be the same as that institution’s modern purpose.

While the claim and reason is specifically presented in Con’s argument, the warrant is not, however this seems to be the logical statement that would tie the previous two together. But because he has not tied his claim and reason together with such a warrant the claim can be disregarded within the context of this reason.

The argument is refuted.

Next, Con attacks my use of the term “familial unit” because he claims that it implies children, not merely two adults. Once again, no evidence is presented to support his argument. And more than that, his point is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is that two married adults are considered by the law to be immediate family members regardless of whether they have children.

Additionally, I suppose that my opponent’s definition of a familial unit is not limited to biological children, i.e. step and adopted children count as part of a familial unit. Therefore, gay couples with adopted children or children that are biologically related to one parent would mean that homosexual couples could have “familial units” by his own definition.

Con continues by asking what interest the government has in marriage if not procreation and acts as if this could be the only compelling interest the government could have. This is not the case. I will return to the previously cited hospital example: Let’s say that a spouse is in the hospital. The hospital is legally required to allow the family members of this person certain privileges. If there was no officially recognized way for spouses to be seen as family members, then they would be denied certain rights. Visitation rights, along with almost all of the benefits awarded to married couples have nothing to do with procreation.

Con has not really presented any justification for his claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation other than an unwarranted claim and a false dichotomy.

On my part, however, I have presented a strong reason which is that same-sex couples should be allowed the same privileges as straight couples, particularly as these privileges associated with marriage have almost nothing to do with procreation.

Con has presented no sound argument supporting his purpose of marriage. I have shown that recognizing people as family members is an important interest for the government because of the benefits associated therein.

Finally, I will point out that Con has not presented one negative consequence to legalizing gay marriage. I have shown that there are positive benefits to legalizing the practice. Therefore, I have fulfilled my BOP while my opponent has not.
InVinoVeritas

Con

All states prohibit marriage between blood relatives and more than two people, about half prohibit marriage between first cousins, and some even restrict marriage from those suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, such as syphilis. [1] [2] [3] Contrary to popular belief, marriage is a heavily regulated legal institution, not the extremely inclusive union that many gay marriage advocates make it seem like. Homosexuals do not compose the only group that cannot marry.

Indeed, marriage is strictly regulated. And it should be. Why? Because it is a contract of great legal significance. When the government recognizes the marriage of people, it bestows unto them exclusive benefits and rights that others do not get. These rights and benefits include collecting a deceased spouse's social security, receiving an extra tax exemption, and spousal health insurance coverage, among myriad others. [4] The bestowal of these rights and benefits is costly to the government, as well as to other individuals under its jurisdiction, so why, then, does a government have a vested interest in the institution of marriage? Reworded, what incentive does marriage hold for the government?

Because the union of two opposite-sex individuals creates the most pragmatically ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing. And let us remember that propagation of the society is indubitably a compelling state interest.

---

My opponent states: "The way society recognizes marriage today is vastly different from the way marriage was recognized in ancient times." Indeed, marriage has changed over time, but this does not address my argument. Rather than taking on the traditionalist view that my opponent is countering, I am taking on the view of legal practicality. I am emphasizing the pragmatic reasoning behind marriage and why the government legally upholds it, specifically the matters of procreation and child-rearing. The idea that marriage has changed in the past is irrelevant; I am discussing marriage as a contemporary legal issue.

---

The opponent misrepresents my case with his skewed argumentation model. Firstly, the purpose of marriage is procreation AND child-rearing. Secondly, the "Reason" is simply inaccurate; in actuality, I am arguing that 1) The legal basis of marriage, with government offerings of benefits and rights, is procreation and child-rearing, which successfully create future citizens that propagate the society. 2) This is the sole basis of the legal institution of marriage, since there are no other rational criteria that would justify its existence. And based on these criteria (i.e., procreation and child-rearing), I am arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to engage in legal marriage.

---

My opponent claims that the purpose of marriage is to form "familial units." This is simply an incomplete explanation to the issue at hand. Why does the government have a vested interest in forming "familial units" through legal marriage? What does the government gain from them? The government does not have interest in forming a legal familial bond for every two people who happen to have feelings for each other, so where does the interest lay? The "familial units" argument is simply a more indirect step to my argument, which upholds the idea that marriage is founded on procreation and child-rearing. Homosexual couples can raise a child but not procreate; but this does not fully serve the government's goal of creating new citizens to propagate society. Without procreation, the ability to raise children is futile. This is why, for example, a single parent who raises children cannot be married to himself/herself.

---

The argument states that "hospital visit denial to homosexual couples is unjust and therefore, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry" is flawed in that it forces a false dichotomy; the dilemma makes it seem as if the two outcomes are to allow them to marry so they can have visitation rights... or not to allow them to marry so they would not have said rights. However, this overlooks the idea that hospital visitation policy itself may be changed to better suit the needs of couples, regardless of marriage status. Furthermore, these rights can be acquired by gay couples by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir; this right is, therefore, not exclusive to married couples, since only rights and benefits that are costly to the government are not offered to unmarried couples, since the government has no legal investment in their unions.

---

My arguments have been indirectly replied to and have ultimately remained unrefuted. Therefore, we can conclude that gay marriage should remain illegal, because homosexual partnership is not compatible for the institution of marriage or its legal significance in contemporary society.

---

[1] http://stdlabtest.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.nolo.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Magicr

Pro

In R4 my opponent offered his fullest argument yet, and in this last round I must respond to it, making for a rather lengthy conclusion. In this final round I intend to offer rebuttals and integrated with summaries of the debate at this final stage.

The main contention of this debate is what is the nature of marriage. I have contended that in today’s society, there is no definite link between procreation or child rearing and the legal benefits recognized by the governments associated with marriage. Con has argued, though without a logical basis, that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples.

In the beginning of his R3, Con argues that marriage is already highly regulated, and therefore it is not a big deal to not recognize gay marriage. There are several problems with his argument. The first is that while marriage is already highly regulated, it is not as regulated as it would need to be if one’s main concern was optimizing procreation. If the focus of marriage is procreation, then infertile couples should not be allowed to wed. Why are these couples allowed to marry? Because our society has decided that these couples are entitled to the same benefits as a couple that can procreate. This should also apply to homosexual couples.

Second, Con’s statement “The union of two opposite-sex individuals creates the most pragmatically ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing,” is false. The most ideal situation for procreation is polygamous marriage composed of one male and multiple females. This situation would allow for one man to impregnate multiple women at once, thus leading to more offspring for society. Why don’t we do this?

Two reasons. The first reason is that we have decided that marriage is not just about procreation, it is about an equal relationship between two people and a polygamous relationship creates a situation in which people would likely be valued unequally.

The second reason is that it is probable that a polygamous marriage would not be the best situation in which a child could be raised. This transitions nicely into the next point: Child raising.

While I do not deny that marriage is often associated with the raising of children, that, like procreation, is certainly not the main function of legally recognized marriage. Even if I had conceded that it was, this point would mean nothing. As I previously stated, a homosexual couple raising a child that is not biologically related to both parents is no different from a heterosexual couple with an adopted or step child, marriages that are recognized by law. Therefore, homosexual marriages ought to be as well.

Two final points on this topic: Con has not provided any solid justification for his two standards through which marriage should be viewed. He has argued that procreation is a compelling interest for government, however fails to address why this interest is significant to the issue of marriage, specifically. Second, it should be noted that legalizing same sex marriage does not hinder heterosexual couples from procreating in any way, so this interest of society would not be hurt.

Con concedes that the history of marriage should not be an issue in this debate, even though in R3 he made it a point to say that marriage “was established for the purpose of procreation and child rearing.” Certainly then, this justification for his “purpose” must be discounted.

Next, Con appeals to ignorance by stating that the only possible reason for marriage to exist could be procreation and child rearing. Untrue. The contemporary reason for marriage’s existence is to recognize two people who have agreed to live together for a long period of time as one “unit.” When two people live as one “unit,” they gain legal recognition so that they can do things like share financial situations much easier than two people who are not viewed in this manner. As I have previously mentioned, the benefits associated with marriage have nothing to do with Con’s purposes of marriage.

Con’s response to this is that the government must have an interest in order for this institution to exist. An interest that relates directly with the way in which the institution of marriage works today is that the government has an interest in making life better for its people. Marriage does this by allowing two people who have committed to each other to live together and share their lives receive certain benefits in order to make having a joint life easier. Additionally, it is not “the government” who receives gain from from procreation and child rearing, but rather society as a whole.

I must disagree with almost everything said by my opponent in his next section. As I have already explained familial unit was merely the term I used to express a joint commitment of two people to live as family members though marriage. Con now claims that child rearing has no bearing if procreation is discounted, however earlier in his argument he made a big deal out of the fact that I had “misrepresented” his case by not including child rearing in my representation of his case. But now we find that it really doesn’t matter. But it does. An example of this is an orphan who is adopted by a gay couple and receives loving parents and this child grows up to be successful, vs. this child being in the system until he or she is 18 and this child is more likely to not be as successful. Child rearing most certainly does matter independent of procreation, but not from Con’s standpoint.

Next, Con says that while it is not as simple for homosexual couples to have visitation rights, it is still possible. While that is true, there is no good reason why a homosexual couple ought to have to do extra work to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, especially on an issue that is completely independent of procreation or child bearing. It is unequal treatment.

Con justifies this by saying that the government has no investment in the union of homosexuals, however, I would present him with an comparison using his own standards: Let’s say there is a homosexual couple that has adopted or had a child through in vitro fertilization and this couple has raised the child to be a solid, productive, member of society. Compare this with a heterosexual couple that is infertile and does not do one of the above things or a couple that decides not to have children. The government has no vested interest in the second marriage, however that couple is able to take advantage of this privilege. The government has a strong vested interest in the first couple because they are creating or raising a citizen for the future, however that couple is denied equality. Does this make sense? No.

I have shown that procreation and child rearing are not the main function of marriage in legally recognized marriage, and therefore denying homosexual couples the same benefits is unconstitutional, as my opponent has conceded through his drop of my constitutional argument.

Con has not sufficiently demonstrated that legally recognized marriage is based on procreation and child raising.

He has also not presented a single negative consequence of the legalization of gay marriage.

The resolution at hand is whether the reasons to make same-sex marriage legal in the United States outweigh the reasons not to do so with a shared BOP between the parties.

I have fulfilled my BOP by showing the inconsistencies in the idea that marriage is based on procreation and child rearing, as well as demonstrating that marriage is an agreement by society that merits certain benefits. The Constitution mandates these benefits for all.

Same-sex marriage should be legalized.

I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, as well as the astute readers and voters of DDO.

I rest my case.

VOTE PRO!


InVinoVeritas

Con

Although we see that marriage does not always result in procreation, this does not change the fact that the government created marriage to create as practical of a system as possible to promote procreation and child-rearing. Because the government strives to make the end result of marriage procreation and child-rearing, it is against the government's interest to uphold marriages that are not procreative in type.

---

The opponent brings up a common question: "Why are [infertile] couples allowed to marry?" Infertile heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, because they are heterosexual in type. It would be completely impractical for the government to investigate into the procreative potential of all heterosexual parties in all marriages; it would be a huge fiscal burden, and it would also lead to a huge problem of obstruction of rights. That is why heterosexual couples are allowed to get married, rather than being obligated to have fertility tests or asked mandatory, intrusive personal questions (e.g., "When do you intend on having children?"). No investigation needs to be done for homosexual couples, since they are not gender-compatible by type and cannot procreate due to biological incompatibility. Therefore, on face value alone, it would be practical for the government to not allow homosexual marriage, since disallowing it is a pragmatic means to not fiscally investing in non-procreative unions.

---

The opponent claims that the ideal situation for procreation and child-rearing is polygamous marriage. This is, of course, not even remotely close to the truth. Biologically speaking, the procreation is negatively impacted, because the male's genes are spread to multiple children, and preventing the genes of other males (who otherwise would have procreated with the women) to be distributed. This would lead to less genetic diversity and be a serious issue for the species, since species survive through diversity of traits; lowering this diversity is against the species' interest, the society's interest, and ultimately, the government's interest. And in regards to child-rearing, the child's father figure would have to divide his time among all of his children, so children would nearly be raised by single parents (i.e., their mothers.) This, of course, is far from the "ideal" of child-rearing.

---

My point, since the start of the debate, is that the intended function of marriage is procreation AND child-rearing. Furthermore, I argue that these motives are practical and just. My opponent states that homosexual couples can rear children, and I do not contest this. Moreover, I will not delve into whether homosexual couples raise children less than or just as well as heterosexual couples. The issue we face is that homosexual couples cannot effectively procreate within their unions, and without procreation, there are no children to raise (and in the government's eyes, no future citizens to raise.)

---

My opponent states that procreation and child-rearing are not central to the issue of marriage, yet he has not offered any other valid reason that marriage should be legally recognized. He acts as though he is an expert about what does not constitute marriage, yet he never recognizes what marriage is actually founded on. The only reason that the government invests in marriage is for two necessary functions that benefit the society: procreation and child-rearing. What other aspects of marriage would the government have a vested interest in? It only makes sense that these vital purposes are what marriage stands for and why marriage bears the legal significance that it does.

---

The next idea my opponent proposes is that marriage is founded on the formation of a "unit." This does not answer the question of why the government chooses to fiscally and socially invest in marriage. Why does this unit justify the bestowal of various rights and financial benefits? The benefits go far beyond "sharing financial situations much easier," as my opponent proposes. But his answer surely does not justify the legal significance of marriage or the bearing it has on our society.

---

His next proposition is that "it is not 'the government' who [sic] receives gain from from procreation and child rearing, but rather society as a whole." Of course, this is absurd. If, through recognition of (and fiscal investment in) marriage. the government were seeking to make individuals in a society happy, they would legalize all types of marriage. I would be able to marry my lawnmower, and the government would fiscally support my union with it. However, the types of individuals that are allowed to be engaged in marriage are restricted, because the government has a vested interest in specific types of unions over others.

---

Again, my opponent upholds his "unit" argument, but he does not explain why the government would provide legal significance to it, as opposed to, say, a friendship. It boils down to procreative and child-rearing capacity.

---

The opponent's hypothetical lacks a sense of practicality. Of course, in theory, an infertile heterosexual couple that gets a child through invitro fertilization is equally productive to a homosexual couple that gets a child through the same means. Practically, though, the government can forbid the homosexual couple to not get married due to their gender incompatibility, while determining that the heterosexual couple is infertile would require serious inquiry and fiscal cost for the government. Sacrificing money and mandating tests for every citizen being engaged in marriage are against the government's interest. This is why the government forbids couples who cannot reproduce due to incompatibility in gender type to get married.

---

I have maintained that the government's interest in maintaining marriage as a legal institution is founded solely on procreation and child-rearing. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to refute this or provide a valid alternative to this reasoning. My opponent's refutations have been inconsistent and illogical.

---

Homosexual partnership contradicts the reason that marriage is legally recognized by the government in the first place. Furthermore, the government is justified in upholding the institution solely due to procreation and child-rearing, since these functions are vital to a developing, thriving society. Homosexual couples do not meet the criteria for marriage that are justifiably upheld by the government.

---

Clearly, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Without doubt, the resolution has been negated.

---

Many thanks to my opponent; although I respectfully disagree with him, I appreciate his participation in the debate. Thank you to the readers, too.
Debate Round No. 5
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Emmo 3 years ago
Emmo
would love to have a debate with Magicr, if you read this i hope you can make that happen
Posted by mylittlebrony 4 years ago
mylittlebrony
I like pie!! and Rainbows And unicorns
Posted by mjohn008 4 years ago
mjohn008
I would also have no problem debating you on this point. There are a few points that I feel were left out that I would like to address.
Posted by HeWhoKnowsAll 4 years ago
HeWhoKnowsAll
I am very secure in my sexuality and do not like gays. That does not mean I hate them. I do not hate any group of people that do not intend harm on others. I simply have no need to know gays or be friends with someone who believes so opposite of me. I do know a couple of gays but I would not consider them friends. I don't think that churches should marry gays and district justices should not be forced to. I do believe though that gays do have a right to become a couple especially for insurance purposes. Call it union or some other name but a marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. It is not fair that gays are excluded from things like being on their significant others insurance policy or be able to collect their partners social security when they die. If the fem is taking care of the home for 40 years and their partner makes the money why should they lose out on the SSI?

There are 25 states where it is illegal to marry first cousins, 49 states where it is illegal to marry more than one spouse and most states it is illegal to marry a brother, sister, father or mother so your "familiar" principal is bull crap! It is an argument with a lack of intelligence and forethought!
Posted by sheppied 4 years ago
sheppied
Mark23456,

If that's the case, I'll count on you supporting universal American citizenship to everyone on the same grounds. Otherwise, you should acknowledge that eligibility should be restricted to those who can deliver the social goods of marriage.

Your laissez-faire theory barely holds until (as in Florida) a court is forced to decide, in a same-sex divorce case, that the absolute parental rights of one biological parent (boeth mother) have to be shared equally with an ex who has partial genetic rights (egg donor), or worse no biological relationship to the child whatsoever.

Genderless marriage undermines the primacy of biological parents. It assigns biological parental rights to non-biological partners automatically.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Mark, that's opposite from the position that I took...
Posted by mark23456 4 years ago
mark23456
I completely agree with the person under me each person should be married to whoever they

want.Who is someone to tell me who i am and who i shouldn't be with i should decide that for my

own,and for whoever thinks it is not right how can something that comes within you not be natural

we should all be accepted for who we are and what we do at the end it is not hurting anyone and

that is what should matter not who you are with.Besides that who is someone else to tell me or

anyone what is right and what is wrong.Its never bad to be open minded it allows you to see the

good in people not judge them for the honesty of showing who we all really are.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Marriage, from a social perspective, is not a meaningful institution at all. If we are talking about marriage in this sense, saying marriage is a human right is like saying friendship is a human right; it's simply a mutual feeling. Experiencing and expressing emotions, as long as they don't infringe on another person's rights, are indeed human rights.; this is what "marriage," from a strictly social perspective, narrows down to.

I am speaking of marriage in a legal sense, with a fiscal and social investment made by society to provide exclusive benefits and rights. I am not speaking of marriage in a strictly social sense, because in a strictly social sense, I can feel married to whatever I want. Marriage is defined in contemporary society by its legal context.
Posted by sheppied 4 years ago
sheppied
Happy to move onto more substantive issues as you've clarified that your comment was only a counter to the latter point (whether marriage was a human right at all), rather than counter to his preceding point in that statement that 'being human doesn't make you eligible for all legal rights'.

You are no doubt aware of the difference between claim-rights and liberty-rights, the former involving a reciprocal duty on the part of others. Marriage is a claim right that demands a duty of validation, equivalence and support on the part of the State. Being human doesn't make you eligible for all legal rights. Marriage and citizenship are prime examples.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
InVinoVeritas wrote "Thomas.ratje, being human doesn't make you eligible for all legal rights. Are you somehow implying that marriage is a human right of some sort? Absurd."

I wrote: "Well the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sees it marriage as one."
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Volk23 4 years ago
Volk23
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote PRO based on the fact that the CON's standards are deeply untenable. Despite hammering on the fact that "marriage is for procreation/child rearing," CON fails to see how the status quo doesn't uphold that.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by cherrytree 4 years ago
cherrytree
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: pro doesnt give another alternative for why the gov't accepts marriage . ... so gay marriage shouldnt be legal cuz of gov't standerd for marriage
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: con gave a reputable argument on procreation and child rearing. Pro, offering no other states interest, means we have an interest vs. no interest. The expensive regulations (Con R4) would only be in place for a reason. Con, therefore, wins arguments. Sources pro because his two sources where reputable. Many of cons are questionable. Con showed, however, marriage is the best way to promote proper procreation and child rearing. Con wins. Counter xenofreedomx's source points with conduct & SG
Vote Placed by shuffledybot 4 years ago
shuffledybot
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In R3 Pro did make a semantic towards his opponent, and in R5 he concluded with vote pro. Con had better conduct, and Pro used two sources in R2, while Con used 4 sources in R4
Vote Placed by xenofreedomx 4 years ago
xenofreedomx
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I think this debate could have been taken into a much better direction by the Con.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 4 years ago
Billdekel
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn?t have a leg to stand on. He government has ruled that marriage is for child bearing. Con did very well showing this as in limiting incest. Pro couldn?t refute the arguments yet con should've cited more documents to show the government's rule
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a good case. Con didn't defend his claims, just repeated them. And Con equivocated, arguing that the history of marriage should control the present when he (Con) is talking, but not when Pro is talking.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 4 years ago
Like_a_Boss
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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: Pro made a great case while the Con's was centered around the fact that mariage is based on procreation. Plus Con was a bit of an ass in the comments.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
MagicrInVinoVeritasTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't cite anything that said marriage was centered around procreation.