The Instigator
Pyro565
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
shourya01
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Legalizing Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 49191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Pyro565

Pro

Hello! I would like to respectfully engage in a debate as to why gay marriage should be legalized. My opponent should clearly debate as to why gay marriage should not be legalized.

The following definition (taken from dictionary.com) will be used to serve a basis for the debate:

Marriage (noun) - (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities


My opponent should use his/her response in Round 1 only to accept this debate.

5,000 word limit per round.
4 rounds.




shourya01

Con

I do accept the opposing side of the debate, and will use clear and accessible arguments to defend my position.

I will take the aid of peer-reviewed studies that have been carried out so far on related topics, skeptical questioning into various probabilities, a clear line of logical connections that lead to a conclusion, and will abstain from dogmatic assumptions and/or conclusions.

As a freethinker and a skeptic, I will abstain from bringing any religious and/or cultural perspectives into this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Pyro565

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate! Feel free to counter my arguments and introduce your own arguments as you see fit in this debate. I am also aware that people may have different thoughts on the true definition of marriage; feel free to input your thoughts on that, too, but the provided definition serves a basic basis.

I. Gay Marriage as a Right

The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States reads as follows:

Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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."

There's a few important parts to this, and they overlap a little bit, so I'll go at them one by one:

1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Residents of a state are subjected to the laws put in place by that state.

2) "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States..."

Marriage is a privilege. Therefore, as a privilege, it is not allowed to be restricted from any citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation. If heterosexuals get the privilege of marriage, then homosexuals should also have the same privilege because both are citizens of the United States; heterosexuals can't have more rights than homosexuals because that would be abridging the privileges of the homosexuals, which is ultimately unconstitutional.

3) "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."

Liberty is the key word here. When heterosexuals receive more freedoms than homosexuals, liberty is non-existant. Heterosexuals have the liberty to marry, while homosexuals do not. The State cannot deprive any person (regardless of sexual orientation) of liberty, including liberty in the form of marriage.

4) "...without due process of the law."

The law can interfere with liberty, which is what it is currently doing in some states against gay marriage.

5) "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection is granted to every person, unless the law prohibits it.

---

You probably have noticed a lot of contradiction here. When some states make laws against gay marriage, those laws do not grant equal rights for all. These laws are therefore unjust because they go against the amendment. But when states enforce these unjust laws, the people are forced to follow them. Their liberties to marriage are restricted because it's what the law says, but that law was already unjust and uncontitutional in the first place.

To an extreme extent, this could possibly be classified as oppression, since unjust and contradictory laws to the amendment are put in place to subject homosexuals to following them.

In other words, liberty is abridged, but only because the law says so, but that law is wrong because it aims at abridging liberty for homosexuals.

shourya01

Con

I, to begin with, have a slight objection with marriage being classified as a 'privilege' as per (2), and a 'liberty' as per (3).

What I want to emphasize is that marriage is not purely a personal choice; contrary to religious procedures, which depend purely upon the individual and the religious organization involved. Every marriage is a significant burden upon the state treasury.

How? Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest.

And it is a logical extension that a skilled workforce (be it blue- or white-collar) is essential to sustain any state. So any state is interested in propagation of its populace.

Thus marriage can be regarded, purely in legal terms, as an incentive given by the respective state to a couple who can procreate. And since this incentive poses a burden on the state's treasury, the state reserves the power to deny this incentive to any couple, which it believes cannot procreate.

This also makes any parallel to inter-racial marriage moot because inter-racial couples can naturally procreate.

Another factor is the issue of sterile/aged couples and couples (heterosexual) who do not wish to reproduce after marriage. The cost involved in the sterility tests are too high at the moment to selectively filter sterile couples. Aged people marrying is such a rare case that it does not justify a separate legislation on its own might. Couples who do not wish to bear children after marriage; we'd need mind reading technology to filter them out.

Agreed homosexual couples can propagate society via artificial insemination or adoption; and recognition of homosexual marriage may propagate this trend. But the fundamental fact persists: it is much likely for a couple (homo/hetero) to raise a child of their own bearing rather than adoption or insemination (where the child truly isn't 'theirs'. This disturbing trend (practically observed ever since adoption laws were formalised) puts a big question mark over their capability for true propagation of society by homosexual married couples.

Furthermore, UNHRC has stated that the right to raise a child is not the sole right of the parents, but also should consider the interests and rights of the child. Since homosexual marriage is a deviation from the norm of heterosexual marriage, the burden of proof lies, therefore, on the proponents of same sex marriage to prove that any child in homosexual parentage will have the same psychological development as any child in heterosexual parentage (taking it for granted, or trying to justify it using existing data or simply axioms, can be dangerous). To the best of my knowledge (after rummaging through various sources), no study, involving a significant target populace, involving proper scientific methods of experiment, and having been comprehensively peer-reviewed, has conclusively asserted this fact. (If my opponent can cite any such study, I welcome it.)

Thus I conclude by saying that legality of same-sex marriage is the sole discretion of the state involved, and not legalising it does not imply inequality or homophobia, but simply the state's unwillingness to provide an incentive that would bear no fruit.
Debate Round No. 2
Pyro565

Pro

Pyro565 forfeited this round.
shourya01

Con

shourya01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Pyro565

Pro

Pyro565 forfeited this round.
shourya01

Con

shourya01 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by xXCryptoXx 2 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Arguing the definition of marriage is central to the gay marriage debate, so you can't provide a definition of marriage.
No votes have been placed for this debate.