The Instigator
HermanGomez95
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Marriage Equality: There is no sufficient argument to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 6/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 933 times Debate No: 76814
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

HermanGomez95

Pro

This debate will analyze reasons for and against homosexuals and their right to marry. The argument is structured with the understanding that there are no sufficient reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marry. There will be 5 Rounds

Round 1: Challenge and Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Rebuttal
Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Closing Statements.

LET"S KEEP THIS CIVIL, BUT IMPASSIONED.
Opening Statement: With the forthcoming decision of Obergefell v. Hodges, the debate over marriage equality has never been more pertinent. However, upon reviewing the transcripts of the oral arguments, I came to the conclusion that not only did the defendants fail to address the questions asked in the brief, they also failed to provide a sufficient reason explaining why homosexuals should not have the right to marry. It is my intention to challenge any argument submitted against marriage equality, proving there is no sufficient reason for the government (and the Supreme Court) to deny the national legalization of gay marriage.
KeytarHero

Con

Thank you to Pro for instigating this debate. My space is limited, so let’s go.

What is Marriage?

1) In order to discover who can be married, we have to discover what marriage is. Marriage is not something malleable, that we can change. Marriage is an objective thing with a true definition. Marriage is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. Throughout all of human history, even in homosexuality-celebrating cultures, marriage has *always* been seen as being about the natural possibility of children. The only relationship that produces children is this relationship. Indeed, this is the only relationship in which having children actually *enhances*, rather than hindering, the relationship.

2) Society has no vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. It *does* have an interest in promoting opposite-sex marriage because these are the relationships that produce children, and a low-stress marriage with a mother and father is the best situation in which children can be raised to be productive members of society, replacing those who are too old to work or dying off.

3) The only reason that marriage should have the expectation of permanence is because of children.

4) So labeling this as “marriage equality” is an attempt at poisoning the well. The marriage debate is not about equality. With natural marriage, homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one has a right to marry just anyone they fall in love with. If marriage is something we can just define, there is no principled reason to exclude family members from marrying, plural marriages, etc.

I was on the fence about same-sex marriage. My reason for opposing it now is because I discovered that the revisionists have no argument for why we should allow same-sex marriage. The only people with an argument are those supporting natural marriage. The same-sex marriage supporters rely on demonizing the opposition to support their case.

Debate Round No. 1
HermanGomez95

Pro

Thanks, KeytarHero, for accepting!
Here's my rebuttal to your claims.
1.) My opponent has left himself open for the usual rebuttal: Infertility. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC.gov), "About 6% of married women 15-44 years of age in the United States are unable to get pregnant after one year of unprotected sex". [1] http://www.cdc.gov...
If marriage is constructed based on the ability to procreate, it should only be available to fertile couples. Having read a similar argument in the Obergefell v. Hodges transcripts, I can't resist quoting Justice Ginsburg"s question: "Suppose that I"m a 70 year old woman..." I could go further, but for the sake of characters, won't.
2.) Society has several reasons to promote same-sex marriage.
I. With the procreation argument refuted, what possible reason does a nation have in denying same-sex couples the right to be recognized as spouses?
II. Morality aside, Gay Marriage does benefit society in an economic sense. According to GayMarriage.ProCon.org, "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.". [2] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
3.) Children are not suitable evidence for permanence. Consider divorced couples who must battle over custody for their children.
4.) The definition of marriage HAS changed over the years. Consider the fact that interracial marriage was once illegal. Allowing gays to marry will not "poison the well" and does not create the possibility of incestuous relationships or polygamy. Marriage is considered the legal binding of monogamous relationships. Beyond that, any reliable definition of natural marriage is refuted when DOMA was struck down. With the separation of church and state, religious reasons are also refuted. For the sake of characters, I"ll end here.
KeytarHero

Con

As per a private message, we're going to end this debate and create a new debate with more characters. So ignore this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
HermanGomez95

Pro

Yes, as per our agreement, we ask you to ignore this argument and vote for a tie.

Thank you for your consideration.
KeytarHero

Con

Please vote for a tie as we begin another debate.
Debate Round No. 3
HermanGomez95

Pro

Yes, please vote for a tie.
KeytarHero

Con

This debate is a tie.
Debate Round No. 4
HermanGomez95

Pro

I feel this has become redundant. Thank you, once more, to my opponent for his patience and willingness to adapt to a new debate. I look forward to hashing it out with you later!

Reminder: THIS IS A TIE
KeytarHero

Con

No worries. I look forward to that, too.

Reminder to the voters: The debate is a tie. And the cake is a lie.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
Once again, if you wish to vote on the final product of the debate, I ask you to vote for a tie here and find our new debate (same tittle).
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
Herman, I've sent you an add request. Had to do that to send you a private message.
Posted by Tucktovich 2 years ago
Tucktovich
Herman, challenge has been sent.
Posted by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
KeytarHero message me so we can resolve this issue. I'm sure the debate will be better for it.
Posted by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
I completely agree. I thought it would be suitable, but after the last round, I realize how wrong I was.
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
2,000 characters is woefully inadequate to make a decent argument.
Posted by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
Tucktovich: I'd be happy to debate that topic with you. You've greatly intrigued me.
Posted by Tucktovich 2 years ago
Tucktovich
Well, HermanGomez, I was intending to argue that Marriage should itself not be a legal entity, and therefore gay marriage should not be legal either.

If you'd be interested in having that debate, I'd be happy to set up the challeng.
Posted by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
Drat. I left a point out of number 3). It should read that the only reason we should expect permanence and *exclusivity* is because of children. I'll correct that in my next round.
Posted by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
Tucktovich: The implication of the duel argument was unintentional. Like a court of law, in which you are innocent until proven guilty, I've created an argument in which it's understood that gays should have the right to marry unless a sufficient argument is able to justify the denial of marriage equality.

However, if you create a separate debate on the second topic, I'll gladly challenge you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.