The Instigator
Legitdebater
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Legalization of Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Legitdebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,110 times Debate No: 35140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Legitdebater

Pro

Debate Procedure:
Round 1:Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments/ Refutations
Round 3: Refutations and Arguments
Round 4: Final closing Arguments and Refutations; no new Arguments

Definitions:
Marriage: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1]

Gay: Homosexual

My very first gay marriage debate. As Pro, I will be arguing for the legalization of it, while Con must argue against it. Good Luck!

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Legitdebater for creating this debate.

Clarfification

By debating "gay marriage" what we are literally debating is "same sex marraige". As such Pro must make the case why two people of the same sex should be allowed to get married. I as the Con will argue that same sex marriage should not be allowed.

I look foward to Pro's opening argument.


Debate Round No. 1
Legitdebater

Pro

I thank IllegalCombatant for accepting this debate.

My Arguments

Gay Marriage Benefits Society

Gays parents are just as good as heterosexual ones

When it comes to marriage, the well-being of the kids is a concern. Whether homosexuals choose to adopt or have artificial insemination, we know the kids are in good care. According to Benjamin Siegul, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, the kid's relationship with the parents as well as social and economic support is more important than the parent's sexual orientation.[1] Numerous studies have also claimed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting effectiveness, namely the American Psychological Association.[2]The American Psychological Association states through their decades of research that "adjustment, developmental and psychological well-being of the child is unrelated to the child's sexual orientation" and that kids of lesbian or gay couples are likely to flourish.[2] The American Academy of Pediatrics have come to the same conclusion: "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders."[3]

Many kids are also happy with their homosexual parents, and in fact, feel like they don't even need a parent of the opposite gender. One kid named Logan, a son of lesbian parents in Alberta, Canada stated this: “I don’t feel I needed a father or wanted a father,” said Logan, “It’s kind of overrated. It’s not like you need a male figure in your household the entire time, as long as you can talk to guys and see them and you can be friends with them. That’s enough.”[4] Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and most kids are doing just fine.

Marriage is a Constitutional Right

The Supreme Court verified 14 times that Marriage is a protected right for all citizens.[5] The 14th Amendment 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."[6] Ideally, rights such as marriage shouldn't be taken away from people just because of their sexual orientation. Not only is this supported by the Constitution, but it's also supported through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. In article 16 it states, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."[7]I've shown that gays are fit to parent, so why can't two people who love each other get married and enjoy priveleges just like everyone else.

Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations

That's what marriage is all about isn't it. Gays shouldn't have the right to marry taken way from them just because of their sexual orientation.Isn't the United States all about equality. If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. Gay Marriage is legal in 15 different countries. [8] My question is : Why can't America legalize it as a country? It's a Constitutional right that applies to all people. Therefore, gays should be able to marry for these reasons.

I look forward to my opponents next arguments.








Sources:http://www.bu.edu...;[1]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[2]
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3]
http://www.edmontonjournal.com...[4]

http://www.ctpost.com...;[5]
http://www.law.cornell.edu...;[6]
http://www.amnestyusa.org...;[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]

Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument.

Gays raising kids

I take it what Pro is getting at here is that sexual orientation does not necessarily translate into how good or bad a parent will be. There are and will continue to be both good and bad parents both heterosexual and homosexual. I can grant this.

What is marriage ? What is the right to marry ?

SSM = Same sex marriage

Pro claims that to deny same sex marriage (refereed too from now on as SSM) is denying a "right to marriage". But what EXACTLY IS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE ? At the very least the advocate of SSM must be of the view that the right of marriage whether legal or natural allows for two people of the same sex to enter into a marriage. But Pro can't just assume that without begging the question [1] in favor of SSM. So what reason has Pro given us to believe that the right of marriage allows for two people of the same sex ?

Pro says..."Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"

Even if we grant this its a complete non sequitur in support of SSM. People can share rights and obligations without entering into marriage, yet alone a SSM.

Consider where Pro argues for SSM..."If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be."

This is a nice sounding argument on the surface, but ultimately unsustainable. This kind of reasoning could be used to justify a brother and sister marrying. So either Pro can bite the bullet and admit that this kind of reasoning allows for a brother and sister marriage or drop this line of argument.

Defining marriage as between a man & a woman

I will refer to the procreative in type argument to justify that marriage is between one man and one women as Contradiction puts it..."In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type. This is precisely why the state subsidizes heterosexual marriages with certain legal and economic benefits. Because homosexual marriages are non-procreative in principle, they do not count as marriages to begin with. Hence they are not being denied marriage rights or due process simply because their relationship doesn't count as a marriage." [2]

This gives a justification for why the state should recognize mixed sex marriage as opposed to no justification for the state to recognize SSM.

Summary

1) Pros begs the question as to whether the "right to marry" entails allowing SSM
2) Pros argument that if two people love and respect one another they should be allowed to get married justifies incest marriage. Will Pro bite the bullet ?
3) The state has an interest in recognizing mixed sex marraige, but not for SSM.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Legitdebater

Pro

Before I state my contentions, I must clash with my most worthy opponent.
My Refutations

What is marriage? What is the right to marry?
Con begins this refutation by asking a direct POI (Point of Information) :"What exactly is the right to marriage?" The right to marriage in legal terms is this: "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial" etc. [1] Basically, the right to marry is to grant two homosexuals the same legal marriage benefits as heterosexuals. In an societal aspect, it's the right to declare love and commitment, while society dignifies that commitment. [1]

Con then states that my third contention "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations" is a non sequitur and that this is could be the same rational for letting a brother and sister get married. I think we need to clarify a few aspects of my argument. First of all, by love, I meant an intimate love that two homosexuals or heterosexuals share with each other. Haven't you seen Brookback Mountain? A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals. A brother and a sister aren't meant to share legal obligations with each other since they're from the same family. He also states that people can share rights and obligations without entering a marriage, however, civil unions aren't the same socially. Also, the Defense of Marriage Act prevents homosexual couples from receiving federal level benefits. There is also a number of states that don't recognie civil unions.[2]Therefore, I think we need to change my argument to : Two people who love and respect one another should be allowed to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals.

Defining marriage as between a man & a woman (Procreative Argument)

My opponent refers to classic, but highly flawed procreative argument to ban gay marriage. He quotes: "In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." However, homosexuals can procreate. Gays can choose to adopt, while lesbians can adopt or have artificial insemination where it's legal. According to Urban Institute, 65, 000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with 14 000 foster homes headed by gays and lesbians.[3] Not only are gays helping our society, but they're helping internationally. According to an October 2011 report by Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 60 percent of all lesbian and gay couples adopted across races, with more than half of them being special needs kids. In 2007, Urban Institute reported that more than half of gay men and 41% of lesbian women would like to adopt. [3] Not only is this procreating, but it's also giving special needs kids around the world a home.

Second of all, marriage isn't all about procreating. Let's see how semantics will backfire on Con. According to Con, if a couple can't reproduce, then they shouldn't marry. Let me provide the hypothetical: If a sterile man loves a woman, but can't have kids, should they get married? If a man and woman can procreate but are occasionally physically abusive to each other, should they get married? After all, "The procreative act is at the heart of what marriage is." My opponent fails to provide evidence on why marriage is just about procreation. As I stated previously, marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations. Legally, marriage is about "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial". It's not all about procreation. Even if it was, I have proved that gays and lesbians can through artificial insemination and adoption. [3] [4]

My Arguments

Gays raising kids

My opponent accepts that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting and that homosexuals can be just as good of parents as heterosexuals.

Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Again, the 14th Amendment and the Universal Decleration of Human Rights actually state that homosexuals have the right to marriage. Homosexuals are granted equal rights as everyone else since the 14th Amendment states nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws in section one[5]. Basically, gays are given equal rights including marriage, equal to heterosexuals in the Constitution. The Universal Decleration of Human Rights also states that men and women of full age should be entitled to equal rights to marriage[6]. Therefore, we should abide by this and let them marry.

Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals

Con uses semantics to dissaprove of my contention, however, the type of love I was talking about was the intimate love between spouses. In my opinion, I think it's rational to grant same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as heterosexual couples through marriage. Civil Unions don't convey the same rights, so homosexuals should have the right to marry as I've already defined. If gays benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, why shouldn't they be able to marry?

Summary:
1. Con's one and only contention is flawed in two ways as I've shown
2. I've proven that homosexuals should be able to marry since it's a Constitutional right and that it's equality
3. Homosexuals benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, therefore the should be able to share the same rights and obligations through marriage.

Sources: http://www.dissentmagazine.org...;[1]
http://divorcelawfacts.wordpress.com...;[2]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[3]
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...;[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5]
http://www.un.org...;[6]


Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

What is marriage ? What is the right to marry ?

SSM = Same sex marriage

Consider where Pro claims..."Basically, gays are given equal rights including marriage, equal to heterosexuals in the Constitution...&..."I've proven that homosexuals should be able to marry since it's a Constitutional right and that it's equality"

Gays (that is to say some one with a sexual attraction to the same sex) are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but rather same sex marriage is, and that's a crucial difference.

You will recall how I pointed out that in order to establish that the right of marriage entails the right of SSM that Pro must give us justification for this, and not just assume SSM is a necessary consequence of the "right to marry". In response Pro mentions such things as tax treatment and inheritance. But this only informs us of the BENEFITS of entering into a marriage, it doesn't tell us what marriage is and consequently is not. As Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson explain...

"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 some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, 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 (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) 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."[1]

Cons arguments in support of SSM

Pro responds to one of my objections as such..."Con then states that my third contention "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations" is a non sequitur and that this is could be the same rational for letting a brother and sister get married."

Well he is half right, half wrong. I already addressed the first half where I pointed out..."Even if we grant this its a complete non sequitur in support of SSM. People can share rights and obligations without entering into marriage, yet alone a SSM."

The claim that can be used to support incest marriage among other things is where Pro claims...""If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be."

Pro tries to deny that this kind of reasoning can be used to justify incest marriage by throwing in the following caveat....

1) "A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals"

Why does the incest couple sexual attraction disquailty them from the right to marry but the gay couples same sex sexual attraction does not disquality them from the right to marry ?

Pro merely asserts that incest sexual attraction being different justifies denying them the right to marry. As such it can also be merely asserted that the sexual attraction of gays justifies denying them the right to marry too. One assertion is just as good as another.

Defining marriage as between a man & a woman

Pro retorts..."Let's see how semantics will backfire on Con. According to Con, if a couple can't reproduce, then they shouldn't marry"

But was the argument that only couples will produce children should be allowed to marry ? No it was not. Rather the argument is that marriage is recognized as those relationships that are pro-creative in type. It is not necessary for two people to produce children to be recognised as pro-creative in type.

This argument is given to justify the states interest in recognising a marriage IF and ony IF the marriage is procreative in type. A SSM does not satisfy this requirement.

Pros conception of marriage is ill defined

Consider how Pro envisions marriage such as...

1) "Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals"

2) "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"

3) "If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be"

4) "marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations."

The problem here is that these statements are so vague that you can include all sorts of possibilities under this vague understanding of what can count as a marriage. Can me and Pro enter into a marriage based on our mutual love & respect of debating one another ? should the state recognize such a relationship as a marriage ? Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ? Should such a relationship now be granted the benefits that go with being recognized as being a marriage ? I think not.

What ever the faults of the state restricting recognition of marriage to those that are pro-creative in type, and I certainly don't argue its perfect, but at the VERY LEAST it's a superior understanding to what marriage IS and consequencty IS NOT compared to Pros ill defined & vague notions of what counts as a marriage.

Summary

1) The right to marry how ever understood will necessarily exclude some couples from not being allowed to marry
2) Pro can't just assume the right to marry entails allowing SSM
3) Pro merely asserts that because incest sexual attraction is "different" this justifies the denial of incest marriage. Thus I can merely assert that because homosexual attraction is "different" this justifies the denial of same sex marriage.
4) Pros objection to the state recognising only marriages that are pro-creative in type wrongly assumed that this meant only couples that will produce children should be able to marry
5) The superior understanding of what marriage IS compared to Pros vauge notions of what counts as a marriage.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
Debate Round No. 3
Legitdebater

Pro

My Refutations

What is marriage? What is the right to marry?

Con first asserts that under the Constitution, Gays are not denied the right to marry under the one man one woman rule, but are denied the right to same sex marriage. However, my opponent merely states this without any evidence or source. He then explains how I described the benefits or marriage, but not what it was or what it was not. I believe at the beggining of the debate, I defined marriage as: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.[1] Therefore, the right to marriage is what is given in the definition. Now, I will prove that denying marriage is unconstitutional and refute Con's point. Recently, Calfornia Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional for reasons such as a violation of fundamental rights.[2] It also did not possess legal standing to defend the resulting law in federal court.[3] Therefore, governing bodies of the United States have already ruled some bans on gay marraige unconstitutional because of the Equal Protection clause and the 14th Amendment.

Cons objections to my arguments

Con states yet again that my third contention is a non sequitur in support of SSM, and that people can share rights obligatons without entering a marriage. True, but as I mentioned before in the second round, civil unions aren't the same as marriage. They don't provide the same benefits as marriage. On average, the benefits civil unions are usually less generous then marriage in regards to taxes, health insurance and social security benefits.[4] An Iowa Court rejected civil unions because they don't satisfy equal treatment. The Iowa Supreme Court quotes:

"A new distinction based on sexual 
orientation would be equally
suspect and difficult to square
with the fundamental principles of
equal protection embodied in our
constitution."[5]

Homosexuals should be able to share equal rights and obligations as heterosexuals through marriage.

For my refutation of the brother and sister argument, Con asks: "Why does the incest couple sexual attraction disquailty them from the right to marry but the gay couples same sex sexual attraction does not disquality them from the right to marry?"

As a response I say this: It's not just about sexuality, it's about the inbreeding impact. Children of these parents are prone to disorders and diseases due to inbreeding.[6] Mostly, it's for the safety of the children. I've shown that kids raised by gays can be healthy, but kids from incestual parents are not.

Defining marriage as between a man & a woman

First of all, Con needs to define what pro-creative in type means. He then states: "It is not necessary for two people to produce children to be recognised as pro-creative in type." This basically means that if gays don't produce children, it can still be a pro-creative relationship. Con then states:

"This argument is given to justify the states interest in recognising a marriage IF and ony IF the marriage is procreative in type. A SSM does not satisfy this requirement."

Yet again, Con needs to define what pro-creative in type means. He then states without any evidence or source, that SSM doesn't satisfy this requirement. However, I proved that homosexual males can adopt and lesbians can adopt or have artificial insemination. What exaxtly is your definition of procreate? Procreating is raising a new generation, and most Gays are looking to do this by adopting....[6]

My Conception of Marriage

I believe at the beggining of the debate, I defined marriage as: a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. The rights and obligations part was the part I was stressing. I didn't just say the marriage was just about rights and obligations. I also mentioned the legitmate defintion of marriage in Round 1, and I described the legal aspects of marriage in Round 3. Do you call this vague? I desribed the entitled rights of marriage in Round 3, and obligations would be love and respect. In my third contention, all I did was shorten the defintion of marraige. Con then states meaningless semantical questions such as: "Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ?" Friends are not spouses that would be willing to share rights and obligations and raise children.

My Arguments:

Gays raising kids

Accepted by Con.

Marriage is a Constitutional Right

Con has no evidence that it's not, while I do. According to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Justice Kennedy, " “The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the state, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”[7] Banning Gay marriage violates a number of Amendments and the Constitution. Hence, this has resulted in the abolishment of California Proposition 8. Morgan Freeman's voice: Therefore, Marriage is Constitutional right upheld by the 14th and 5th Amendement. Not only is it granted by the Constitution, but is granted through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights.[8]

Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals

By rights, I mean "the right to favorable treatment in tax, inheritance, insurance status, immigration rights, adoption and custody, decisional and visitation rights in healthcare and burial". By obligations, I mean love and respect i.e. not cheating. I don't think this is vague as Con asserts. In conclusion, two consenting homosexual adults should be able to share rights and obligations through marriage. Hence, guaranteeing them rights equal to heterosexuals. If gays benefit society just as much as heterosexuals, they should be able to get married.

Conclusion:
1. Pro's one and only contention is quite vague and ultimately fails since gays can procreate.
2. Banning gay marriage has already been deemed unconstitutional by some Courts.
3. Homosexual marriage benefits American society and International society through adoption.

I thank Illegalcombatant for an excellent debate!




Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
http://www.cato.org... [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]
http://divorcelawfacts.wordpress.com...;[4]
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com... [5]
Wolf, Arthur P.; Durham, William H. (2004). Inbreeding, Incest, and the Incest Taboo: The State of Knowledge at the Turn of the Century. Stanford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-8047-5141-2. [6]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...? [7]
http://www.un.org...;[8]
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

SSM = Same Sex Marriage

What is marriage ? What is the right to marry ?

A court might rule that the right to marry necessarily entails allowing SSM or Incest marriage or polygamy, But so what ? What is of importance is their justification for their ruling........or lack of. This doesn't answer what SHOULD count as a marriage and what SHOULD NOT.

It's worth repeating..."The right to marry how ever understood will necessarily exclude some couples from not being allowed to marry" Pro has not disputed this point. But has Pro being able to justify his conception of marriage and how that conception necessarily entails allowing SSM ? that is the question.

Cons arguments in support of SSM

[Benefits]

Pro makes the point that homosexual couples can and do provide a benefit to the community. Well no argument but what exactly does this justify ? All sorts of types of relationships can and do provide benefits to society but this in of it's self doesn't justify that therefore all those relationships should be allowed and recognized as a marriage too.

Defining marriage as between a man & a woman

Pro cites two objections to the state only recognizing relationships that are pro-creative in type as a marriage, those being...

1) To define pro-creative in type
2) That the state recognizing only relationships that are procreative in type allows for SSM

Pro-creative in type here refers to the necessary natural pre-condition which needs to occur in order for procreation to be possible, ie: coitus. Contra Pro this doesn't entail allowing SSM, since two people of the same sex can't met this requirement.

Pros conception of marriage is ill defined

First I would like to highlight a shift on ground on Pros part. First in order to deny an incest marriage he justified this on..."A brother and sister aren't sexually attracted to each other like heterosexuals or homosexuals" But in the last round he denies incest marriage on a different basis as he now claims..."As a response I say this: It's not just about sexuality, it's about the inbreeding impact. Children of these parents are prone to disorders and diseases due to inbreeding."

So which is it ? is it the sexual attraction that justifies disallowing incest marriage or is it the "inbreeding impact" that justifies denying incest marriage ?

Let's recall all the vague notions that Pro has bought up in order to justify that the right of marriage entails allowing SSM, such as...

1) "Two people who love and respect one another should be able to share rights and obligations equal to heterosexuals"

2) "Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligations"

3) "If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be"

4) "marriage is also about love and the sharing of obligations."

In response to Pros question..."Do you call this vague?" Yes, yes I do, and it leads you into all sorts of problems.

Recall in the past round I argued..."The problem here is that these statements are so vague that you can include all sorts of possibilities under this vague understanding of what can count as a marriage. Can me and Pro enter into a marriage based on our mutual love & respect of debating one another ? should the state recognize such a relationship as a marriage ? Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ? Should such a relationship now be granted the benefits that go with being recognized as being a marriage ? I think not."

Pro says..."a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws. "

Notice the emphasis on spouses. But what does Pro mean by what type of relationship is allowed to be regarded as a "marriage" as thus the people within it are "spouses' ? Pro merely selects at his own pleasure what counts as a marraige and who counts as "spouses........because he says so.

Pro gives an example of this where they reply..."Should the state recognize best friends forever as a marriage too ?" Friends are not spouses that would be willing to share rights and obligations and raise children."

It's at this point that Pros problem becomes more obvious. Cause Pros vague notions of what justifies a type of relationship to count as marriage can be used to justify all sorts of things to be counted as a marriage Pro is forced to step in and arbitrarily claim what should count as a marriage and what should not, what two people should be regarded as spouses and what two people should not. Remember Pros vague notions of what counts as a marriage do not allow for such distinctions, it's all arbitrary on Pros part in response to my counter arguments.

As such I submit that Pros has not being able to sustain logical consistency in light of my objections to justify that the right to marry necessarily entails SSM.

Closing statement

Pro relies on vague notions to justify that marraige necessarily entails SSM which forces him to step in and arbitrarily declare what should and should not count as a marriage when presented with counter arguments that show what kind of relationships can also count as marriages based on those vague notions.

I presented an argument the state should only recognize relationships that are pro-creative in type and I claim at the very least is a better conception of how we should understand marriage to be and consequently is not compared to anything Pro had to offer in this debate.

Vote Con.

I thank Legitdebater for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 3 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Omgosh, I had that same profile picture a while back and I was like, "I never did this debate!"
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
I simply cannot understand why so many gay marriage supporters keep saying that marriage is a fundamental right and that gay people should have the right to get married. Newsflash. Gay people DO have the right to get married. Every state gives gay people the right to marry. That's not what the opposition to gay marriage is about. It is not about an INDIVIDUAL'S right to marrry. It's about a COUPLE'S right to marry. The constitution says nothing about equal liberties for couples. It only gives equal protection for individuals. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right, not GAY marriage. Why does this keep going unchallenged?
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
In the first round of arguments, the subject of gay parents was raised. I immediately began looking for the following arguments that were not included in the debate, and from which I could not score:

- Gay and lesbian parents will continue to be gay and lesbian parents whether or not they are legally able to divorce another gay or lesbian spouse. Allowing marriage equality does not create gay and lesbian persons.

-Marriage equality reduces the number of children born to gay and lesbian persons. Laws that strongly encourage gays and lesbians to attempt opposite-gender marriages, on the other hand, would be expected to increase the likelihood that some of these unions will result in children being born into these homes.

Con simply conceded,a classy move that denied me my peripheral arguments.

Of more relevance, CON attacked the overall premise by way of raising a few pointed rhetorical questions. "Why wouldn't the pro SSM argument allow sibling marriage?"

PRO responds patiently to this. I considered the question to have been a slippery slope fallacy, akin to asking if bestiality was next, followed by eating broken glass. PRO also avoids the "why not" trap when defending SSM by repeatedly pointing out that it may represent a constitutional right. I expected CON to answer this, but he did not. Instead, he continued to rely on slippery slope hypotheticals and intentional misunderstandings to largely ridicule PRO's assertions.

I awarded sourcing to PRO, as well as S&G. At times, CON's arguments were difficult to follow due to the errors. "(refereed too from now on as SSM) is denying a "right to marriage". But what EXACTLY IS THE RIGHT TO MARRIAGE ?)"
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
@4567TME, It really adds sincerity and legitimacy to my arguments doesn't it? Thank you for your response.
Posted by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
Legitdebater, whenever I read one of your arguments, your profile pic makes me envision it in Morgan Freeman's voice.
Posted by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
Lol, very funny ilGootch.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
LegitdebaterIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: As my scoring is high, I felt that I should fully justify my decisions in the comments section. In short: CON uses slippery slope fallacies and intentional misunderstandings to ridicule rather than challenge PRO's premise.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
sweetbreeze
LegitdebaterIllegalcombatantTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Both had very good spelling and grammar, reliable sources goes to Pro, although, before and after the debate I agreed with Con. Both had good conduct and convincing arguments go to Con. Give both competitors a round of applause!
Vote Placed by 4567TME 3 years ago
4567TME
LegitdebaterIllegalcombatantTied
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: Legitdebater was able to back up his arguments using his own logic and his facts. Con never used a real argument, just exposing errors, whether real or imagined in pro's debate.
Vote Placed by guesswhat101 3 years ago
guesswhat101
LegitdebaterIllegalcombatantTied
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 focused more on tearing down the arguments of Pro more than proving why Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized.