Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass and implement a marriage equality amendment to the US constitution.
Hello, DDO community! I've the pleasure of initiating this debate with hilton16 and will be taking the Pro side that marriage, in the eyes of the State, should be considered equal for straight couples and homosexual couples. Just a few things to get out of the way:
Round 1: acceptance only
Round 2-4: debate (new arguments allowed)
Round 5: closing statements (new arguments not allowed)
Breaking the structure results in conduct loss. In the case of new arguments from the last round, an automatic seven-point forfeit will be awarded to the opponent. If anyone other than hilton16 manages to accept the debate, it is an automatic seven-point forfeit to Pro.
While the legal BoP is on Pro to change the status quo, Con has the BoR to prove the harms outweigh the benefits.
Sources are not necessary, but if used, should be used as a reference. Just keep in mind, a detailed government/organization website is far more credible than twenty anonymous blog sites.
1. Marriage: the formal recognition of a relationship between two consenting adults by the State.
2. Marriage equality: regarding same-sex marriage as equal to any State-recognized relationship.
Concession of an argument by either Pro or Con means concession of that argument for the debate. However, they are free to argue other aspects of the debate should take priority.
If Con has any questions regarding the structure of the debate, feel free to ask in the comments section. If there are no questions, I await Con's acceptance.
I accept the debate! I look forward to a great debate with my opponent and may the odds forever been in our favors. ^^
“We, the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” – The Constitution of the United States of America
The Role of Government
The United States Federal Government was established to promote three basic “unalienable” rights: life, liberty, and property, as seen from the text of the entire Constitution. However, the United States has had a difficult history in trying to establish and protect these basic principles. Just 143 years ago, blacks were given the right to vote, and it wasn’t until 50 years later that women were given their right to vote. The civil rights movement of the 1940s and 1950s was only 60 to 70 years ago. We are far from a perfect nation, far from being efficient, and far from being an equal nation. That holds true today. But, that doesn’t mean we take these issues lightly. Citizens in America want the opportunity to succeed, to not have to worry about discrimination and inhibiting predispositions. This is why we formed labor unions. This is why we have so many amendments regarding equality. Our 15th amendment tried to make voting an equal right, but it wasn’t clear enough, and later the 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. The past 250 years of the USA’s history exemplifies our desire to be an equal society. The role of the Federal Government is to promote the general welfare, not the welfare of certain groups over others. If we did, we wouldn’t have establish voters’ rights amendments to the Constitution, we would have a national language, we would let corporations treat workers unfairly, and we would probably have a national religion. But, we did establish voters’ rights amendments, we don’t have a national language, we do protect our workers, and we don’t have a national religion. I use “we” because we are the government. America is a country “by the people, and for the people.” 
What is “Marriage”?
This question has become a semantic focal point nation-wide. What is “marriage”? How should we define it? Why does the definition matter? What makes a “family”? Can homosexual couples be considered a legitimate relationship? If so, how? If not, why? So many questions, but the core is clear: what constitutes a “marriage”? We are at an etymological turning point for a single word that has an important meaning to both sides of the debate. Traditional values (at least, in the USA) regard the relationship between a man and a woman as the key aspect of marriage, and most dictionaries comply with this definition. However, even though the status quo definition of “marriage” is the formal union of a man and a woman, what is it in this word that demands a static definition? Why should we continue using an outdated definition that, in combination with State support, leads to blatant discrimination? Language is the most complex form of conscious interaction humans have developed over the span of our evolution. Knowing its origin is sometimes considered the “hardest problem in science.”  Language is not a static form of communication between humans, and it’s difficult to think of a way language can be. Words change, spelling of words change, and the popular use of different words change, quite frequently. The people, with the willpower to strive for the ideal, control what a “marriage” is, not tradition.
This is an equality issue. This social problem was never intended by supporters to tear down the definition of “marriage”, or even devalue the concept of a formal union between partners. The argument for marriage equality has been consistent because the warrants stand true: homosexual partners are discriminated against by the State for insufficient reason. As of right now, married couples are given 1,138 unique benefits by the State that a homosexual couple can never get in the status quo. These benefits include, but are certainly not limited to: social security, taxes, medical leave, and immigration.  Con must demonstrate why homosexual couples should be denied all 1,138 of these benefits granted to a heterosexual couple. Couples of the same sex are systemically oppressed due to the preconceived notion that a relationship between a man and a woman is superior to a relationship between two men or two women. Con must prove this oppression is a good thing.
One cannot say they approve homosexual partnerships and also wish to deny them marriage rights. It’s akin to saying they support citizen popular vote, but are willing to deny blacks or women the right to vote. It’s a clear hypocrisy. If Con concedes that being homosexual is okay, then he should also concede that the State should support their liberty. When we talk about federal support for marriage and economic benefits that entail from a formal union, it’s necessary to overcome personal convictions. It’s necessary to forget the general belief of what marriage should be. The denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples has always been founded in personal disputes over marriage. The argument that being homosexual is a choice isn’t necessarily falling out of favor because there is evidence to say otherwise (however, like most things, it’s most likely a combination of nature and nurture   ). The reason it’s falling out of favor is because the argument itself is irrelevant. It only supports the religious base who want to enforce Leviticus 18:22. There is no link between the premise that it’s a choice and the conclusion that the Federal Government should restrict it. Personal convictions of others hold no merit, just as someone being on a diet has no right to proclaim others shouldn’t eat cookies.
In round two I made it clear that, to win, Con had to prove denying all 1,138 legal benefits allowed to married couples is acceptable. This is where this becomes an equality debate. This is where the discrimination lies. This is where things need to change.
The Role of Government
Marriage is a basic right, not a “critical right.” America is a nation founded on individual liberties, not collective liberties. Con claims the Federal Government supports collective/majoritarian liberty, but does not cite a single historical example where rulings or laws were made under this concept of “liberty”. However, I can cite dozens of individual liberties: no national language, no national religion, the existence of voters’ rights, the existence of workers’ rights, the first ten amendments, etc. The Federal Government supports individual liberty, where a person is free to do what he/she pleases so long as it doesn’t arbitrarily interfere with another person’s freedom to do what they please. 
Con insists the examples I use are insufficient because they aren’t centered on marriage equality. Here is my response to that: . Let that sink in. Regardless of how individuals feel about the issue, the Federal Government has the obligation to promote individual liberties. It’s time we made a fine distinction here. Calling it “gay marriage” as if it’s something unique—something that should be examined “critically”—is like saying we need to “critically” examine the idea of allowing “black/women voters”. There’s nothing needing critical examination about the Federal Government’s role. Their job, as elected officials, is to promote our general welfare regardless of its popularity/unpopularity.
Con lists several "consequences", not supporting any of them. However, for the sake of argument:
a) “Society does not recognize it:” this is a debate about the Federal Government’s role, not societal pressures.
b) “It’s abnormal:” so is being short, tall, dumb, smart, skinny, fat, six fingered, six toed, one armed, one legged, handicapped, blind, or deaf. Abnormality does not justify intervention by the government.
c) “It destroys society:” prove it . Heterosexual couples are still free to marry whomever they want.
d) “It could cause a chain reaction:” how is the State supporting marriage equality going to cause everyone to be homosexual? Let’s be reasonable.
e) “Diseases:” If a person is too worried about an STD from homosexual relations, their not forced to do it. The State is not going to rally up the nation and mandate everyone to have sex with people.
The USA is a land “by the people, and for the people.” This means we are a country that values individualism, opportunity, and equality. This is not a land supporting radicalism, but marriage equality is no more “radical” than civil rights issues of the 20th century.
What is Marriage?
Instead of answering my question, Con proposed a counter-question. “Does definition evolves?” Yes, definitions of words most certainly do and I answered that already.  My question still stands, as does this one: “…what is it in this word that demands a static definition?” Change won't confuse people any more than it “confused” people to allow blacks and women to vote. Con must demonstrate why this word, this word specifically, demands an unchangeable definition, and so far he has failed to do so.
Con fundamentally misunderstands my entire argument. I am not making my own personal convictions; I am criticizing personal convictions as an argument against marriage equality. Con says, “everyone have a right to life, and whatever makes them happen they should pursuit it,” except legalizing same-sex marriage. This is the contradiction that always comes up. If Con concedes people have individual liberties in the USA, he should also concede marriage equality. Otherwise, he must shoulder the burden of the systemic oppression in the status quo, including 1,138 marriage benefits they are currently denied. Just because perfect equality can't be achieved doesn't mean the Federal Government's role is to ignore the foundation of our rights. The governement doesn't restrict what's right, they restrict what's wrong. Homosexuality isn't wrong because it doesn't harm anyone. I'm glad Con got a laugh out of my analogy.
Rebuttal: Institution of Marriage
Assuming Con’s statements are true, this actually helps my point. Marriage is not a permanent bond, which means the definition is already fluid. It can’t be “weakened”, but it can change and it should. Con’s claim that “joke” marriages would increase is not very strong because a man and a woman could do this. If anything, the harms of 1,138 inaccessible benefits to two homosexuals in love massively outweigh the harm of a weakened institution. Again, this is about how the State should handle marriage equality. There are real couples in the USA who love each other and want to spend their lives with each other, but are systemically oppressed, and Con’s response is "principle". What kind of principle is this?
Rebuttal: Traditional Values
 Con is partially correct. The ability to work together for their fellow people shows remarkable strength in a nation. Then, Con adds a little spin. He defines a “family” as one man, one woman, and a child. This is not an accurate description of a family because the core of being a family is the bond between two people in love. The bond of a family does not rest on traditional beliefs; rather it rests on compassionate ones. Homosexual couples certainly can love. I rest my case: .
Rebuttal: Slippery Slope
It’s astonishing this is still considered a main argument against marriage equality. It’s absolutely ridiculous. Stare Decisis is the legal term for precedence, which means Con has to show how the term can be carried over between species. Just saying "why not?" doesn't suffice. Bill Maher sums it up clearly: "Gay marriage won’t lead to dog marriage. It is not a slippery slope to rampant interspecies coupling. When women got the right to vote, it didn’t lead to hamsters voting. No court has ever extended the equal protection clause to salmon."
By the way, the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional so long as it has the term “under God” in it. It’s irrelevant to the context of this debate, but it needed to be pointed out.
And nurses should be women, doctors should be men. Wives should stay at home and husbands go to work. It's not as appealing now, is it? Children are confused not by homosexuality, but by the constant opposition conflicting with its presence in society.
Rebuttal: Life Expectancy
This research has been repeatedly refuted and the one “study” done by Paul Cameron and the FRI is so methodologically flawed it’s laughable.  (myth #4) On top of that, it’s completely irrelevant because their shorter life-span in no way conflicts with the life-span of heterosexuals, unlike smoking and drinking, which do bring external consequences.
Answer to your opening statement
The Role of Government
What is Marriage?
We cannot simply go around changing words because things have changed such as those asking for gay marriage. I believe i answer your question, so don't make this seem like i ignore it. "The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged." What if things keep changing and people starts asking for a change in definition, like what is a "female" or "gay" or "love." What in this word that demands a static definition is that people will want to change what it is. So it needs a definition so some few people won't just go ahead and change it.
Rebuttal: Life Expectany:
Reread it..." its states "lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems" not just "one" study as you state done by "Paul Cameron and the FRI."
At the risk of repeating myself, fundamental rights are established individual rights, not collective ones. The Constitution’s 16th amendment grants the Federal Government the right to collect income taxes for reasons they find necessary. Not everyone supports war. Not everyone supports national healthcare. Not everyone supports federal spending for education. However, if they are going to give rights/benefits to married couples, they cannot constitutionally give those benefits discriminatorily. Con’s spending concerns are irrelevant because providing heterosexual and homosexual couples with equal benefits is a priority.
The Role of Government
What is “gay” marriage? It’s like “black” voting. Yes, technically, it isn’t wrong to call it that. But, why would we? Opponents to marriage equality call it “gay marriage” because it sets in an aura of abnormality. It’s not how it “should” be. We should be rejecting the very concept of a “critical right” because we should call it what it is: a right. Con believes I’m off on a tangent here, but it’s crucial to understand demeaning terminology and why it should be rejected.
Con likes the way I phrase my position. I do too. In that case, if I can show how drugs do interfere with another person’s freedom, the Federal Government is obligated to support marriage equality, since there is no longer an empirical example to the contrary. First, not all drugs are illegal. There are over-the-counter drugs and pharmaceuticals. Then, there are illegal drugs like methamphetamines. These are illegal due to their nature of being abused. This oversimplification completely neglects the consequences of drug abuse and tries to lump all the issues as if they’re one. The difference between marriage equality and drugs is, well, drugs harm people.
Con continues to insist the majoritarian mindset. The only way for Con to win at this point is to prove America is founded on majoritarian principles and prove why that mindset is a good thing. Otherwise, individual liberty and the harms of discrimination outweigh the “abnormality” factor of marriage equality and I urge everyone to vote pro.
Elected officials are there to govern. They govern federal spending, foreign affairs, internal affairs, and create laws, etc. Homosexuals are people, too. Just because the majority is okay with oppression does notmake oppression okay.
a) “Society doesn’t recognize it:” As I’ve said above, Con’s insistence of mixing governmental obligations with majoritarian interests is a lost battle. America is not majoritarian; it is pluralist.
b) “It’s abnormal:” Con believes the list I gave are all genetic abnormalities. That’s… just not true. The only purely genetic abnormalities on my list are being six-toed and being six-fingered. Other than that, every single thing on that list can be either genetic or environmental. Being homosexual is likely a mixture between nature and nurture.   
c) “It destroys society:” Con hasn’t proven anything. All he has done is repeated his claim by saying, “it will hurt [society] more.” Then he provides a vague imagery of homosexual PDA. Well, I don’t personally like heterosexual or homosexual PDA, so I guess we should make all marriage illegal?
d) “It causes a chain reaction:” I’m glad Con dropped this. Since he conceded this point, it’s fair to assume there won’t be an increase in homosexual partnerships, which also means there won’t be an increase in AIDS.
e) “Diseases:” The reason homosexual men are disproportionately more likely to get AIDS is due to unprotected anal sex. Wear a condom; problem solved. Also, what about lesbians? They have less of a risk than heterosexual women. Should we ban heterosexual marriage and only allow homosexual marriage for women? If not, then this entire argument is refuted.
What is Marriage?
Con gave his interpretation of marriage, but didn’t explain why this term demands a static definition. This was the point of my questions, and Con’s counter-question didn’t address that. However, last round he provided a defense, so I’ll respond to it here. Con accepts the definition of marriage “varies” among cultures, which means it is not static. Already, Con has conceded that it is acceptable for the term to vary in meaning. The definition matters greatly, which is why marriage equality advocates are trying to make it more precise. Con’s counterexamples of redefining “love”, “female”, and “gay”, do not hold ground because there is no reason to change them. Also, “love” is a very fluid term. This probably helps my point. There are reasons to change the definition, which is the whole point of this debate.
If the Federal Government is truly out for the well being of everyone, they should be out for the well being of individuals, particularly when they are consistently discriminated against by the State. Con went on a little rant about how it’s “wrong”, but gives zero warrants. His only new argument here is everyone will become old. If they pass a marriage amendment, it’s not like everyone’s going to jump on the bandwagon and say, “let’s all be gay!” No, Con’s objection to marriage equality, coupled with society’s perception of marriage equality, proves there won’t be a massive spike in being homosexual.
Rebuttal: Institution of Marriage
Con’s principles are based on tradition and traditions are often wrong. Case in point: slavery. Con doesn’t want to abandon his traditions. Why not? What kind of principle is oppressing a minority of Americans because the majority doesn’t like it? Con thinks we can’t just “change” principles. We're not changing the principle; the principle of equality has always been there. It's just been suppressed for centuries.
Rebuttal: Traditional Values
The first definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “family” as: “a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head.”  So, yes, a homosexual couple, regardless of marriage status or not, can be considered, in fact, a family. Con sounds offended by my definition of “family”, which is strange considering he’s the one declaring homosexuals can never be a family, ever. Again, Con is appealing to tradition, which is a terrible reason alone to continue something, especially when it harms people.
Rebuttal: Slippery Slope
A hamster doesn’t have anything to do with equality between equal voting rights, just as marrying a dog has nothing to do with equality between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples. Con showing the analogy makes no sense only proves this slippery slope makes no sense.
I completely understand what Con is getting at. However, breaking down gender roles is exactly what happened in the early 1900s when women escaped the “domestic sphere” and we’re a better nation because of it. Both genders are capable of taking on certain “roles”. We’re all human here.
Rebuttal: Life Expectancy
First, I’d like to note Con was never able to actually show any conclusive data about this claim, so face value it shouldn’t be considered. Second, Con dropped my argument that life expectancy is irrelevant due to it not conflicting with another person’s life expectancy. This is conceded and I ask Con not to bring this section up in his next round since he accepted the rules on concessions.
So far, Con has tried to frame the Federal Government’s role as a majoritarian one; he has tried to frame it where the majority rules and the minorities have to deal with the consequences. There are 1,138 legal benefits denied to homosexual couples. As Pro, I have shown both moral and economic reasons for the government to support marriage equality. Con needs to do two things: show how the Federal Government supports majoritarian interests, and substantiate how tradition outweighs oppression. He hasn’t been able to do either.
It seem that my opponent is using the Republican idea of individual rights. But it's true that "we're greater together than we are on our own" because if we leave everyone to go about their lifes and make their own decisions and indivual rights were not much of a "nation." I'll like to ask where did you see that "providing hetersosexual and homosxual couples with equal benefits is a priority" note that no where in the constitution talks about "gay marriage." So bringing up this debate of "marriage equality" is irrelvant and decisions will be made on personal convictions.
The Role of Government
Rights: If we talk about gay marriage we ought to talk about the consciences. Many people argue that “gay marriage” should be made legal not knowing the consciences. According to Wikipedia, in 2009, a pair of economists at Emory University tied the passage of state bans on same-sex marriage in the US to an increase in the rates of HIV infection. The study linked the passage of a same-sex marriage ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population.HIV, Aids, and STD, are already prevalence in this country, note that we haven’t find cure to HIV, AIDS, and STD, so adding to it will not only make the matter worse but add on to the health cost. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending (28 KB) between 2010 and 2019. I don't see the consciences of allowing "black vote."
USFG's Role rebuttal:"These are illegal due to their nature of being abused." i'm glad you point that out. "Gay marriage" is ban in a state to an increase in the annual HIV rate within that state of roughly 4 cases per 100,000 population. so since it increaed than it shouldn't be allow. "The difference between marriage equality and drugs is, well, drugs harm people." and gay marriage doesn't harm people? psychologal disorders. lower life expectancy.
It seems that after i answer every statement you state to "win" you bring up a new one. I inst on the majoritarian mindset because "we're greater together than we are on our own" letting everyone take their own pth isn't a way forward. It'll cost the government money of the diseases that may come up and extending benefit to them.
a) I like to point out that America is neither a individuality. Because thats the general point of your debate.
b) i notice that all the geneti abonrmalities, and i knew they are not true. I didn't have enough characters let to cover it. But its funny how you telling me its not true when you pointed it out. You made a mistake and come to correct yourself. "Being homosexual is likely a mixture between nature" prove it!
C) It seems that "pro" didn't througly read what i said. "The marriage existence between man and woman is already bad and gay marraige will only destroy it more. You'll see two gay people walking down the streets, kissing each other, or even having s*x together, no families are created, more diseases. You're trying to make this an issue of "like" the idea of i "don't like" and you "like" will not get us anywhere. This debate is an intellectual debate.
D) actaully i didn't drop it i didn't have enough characters let. Alright now lets look at this, "blacks" were givingthe right to vote, didn't "popuar voting" increase. It's going to be the same with "homosexual partnership" now when people see that they have the right to "gay marriage" the number of homosexual partnership will increase.
E) It funny how you put ou "wear a condom; problemd solved" than why that haven't been the case? If you notice AIDS is high and if i may be correct some people or most people use condom. If this is the case, than this argument is also refuted.
What is Marriage Rebuttal:
You keep doing, say i give interpreation but didn't explain or give a reason. you did the same with the "it destroys a society" in which you didn't read it thorougly to see what i wrote. Now i'll repeat why i said it demand a static definition so you'll see it..."What in this word that demands a static definition is that people will want to change what it is. So it needs a definition so some few people won't just go ahead and change it."
Just because they are the government doesn't simply mean they can just do whatever they want like changing what true meaning of "marriage" is. Homosexuality is wrong! It does harm someone. Everyone. The whole society. The cost they put on the society. And the shame they brought on the country. Know that if everyone were in a "gay marriage" we'll have less children being born. Which will lead to more old people. I say this because you said its something "nature and nurture." right? or am i wrong? Also if more childrens are adopted by "gay people" the child will turn "gay" right because you said its natu and nurture. Which means they'll go on to marry the same gender. Which leads to less children being born. Which will lead more old people. America is one of the most agiling nation in the word and it also have high life expectancy. Know that the old will not wo forever. So you don't have young people than theres alot of problem with no workers.
Rebuttal: Institution of mage
Marriage has it institution and a few people not just going to change it. The principle of equality has always been there, but it doesn't mean giving individuals whatever right they want.
Rebuttal: Traditional values
I am not not off by your definition. But we both provided two different definitions so we wouldn't know which one is right. But know that "two people i nlove" are considers couple even in a household. Wheres theres not a child there is not a family. Also i don't see how tradition "harm people" when i have been continuing my family tradition for long. And some of life's tradition.
See, this is the case of "we're greater together than we are on our own" because it was believe that "male" of something to do a certain thing and "woman" suppose to do a certain thing. This is the idea of individual. Male doing male stuffs while female doing females do. But yet mixing it together makes us "greater together than we are on our own." In the case of "father and mother" you're wrong that both genders are capable of taking on certain "roles" a father doesn't have a breast to feed a child. does he? He's capable of breast feeding.?
I like to thank the person who created this website for it is so great. I also want to thank the DDO community and my opponent for bringing up this debate. I'll like to finish this debate off by saying my opponens constantly arguing on the idea of "individual liberty, note that all individual won't get their "individual liberty." Also, this is not abou the majority ruling and the minorities having to deal with the consequences, so what about the consequences "gay marraige" will be face by the majority than. If talk about majority and minority, it have to talk about both sides "pro's and con's" not just picking ot of favorites. As Con, i have shown "moral" "institutions of marriage", "traditional values", "slippery slope", "expectations" and "consequences" for the govrnment not to "pass and imple a mariage equality amendment to the US constitution" i also take into consider some of "cons" reasoning but also unermine it. I believe i already show how the Fedral government supports majoritarian interests by "seeking the interest of everyone" and show substantiate how tradition outwieghs oppression. So yes, i have been able to do so. We look forward to everyone's vote! Thank you.
I appreciate those who stuck it out with us until the end. It's been a fun debate, and I'm hopeful the DDO community will look at the arguments set forth and consider the merits to each of them. Without further ado, let's go right down the list.
This debate is heavily centered on the role of the Federal Government. Contrary to what Con claims, I haven’t been shifting the goalposts at all. When I presented the framework, which is to determine the role of the Federal Government, I made the debate clean by saying, “Con needs to win X, and Pro needs to win Y.” Con committed himself to the majoritarian mindset, where the majority decides everything and the government acts on the will of the majority. Throughout this debate, it’s become clear the government does not uphold majoritarian ideals. I listed several historical examples where majoritarian interests were rejected in favor of individual morals (suffrage, slavery, workers’ rights, etc.). The only “secured” blessing in the Constitution is liberty. All others are “promoted”, “provided”, or “insured”. But, liberty is “secured”. It shouldn’t be taken away. While the constitution doesn’t explicitly talk about marriage equality, it lays the framework for evaluating various issues, which is the entire point of making the resolution around a constitutional amendment. Con hasn’t met the BoR to show the majority has anything to say about individual rights. His rhetoric doesn’t hold weight against empirical examples. Con may claim the consequences outweigh the framework next round. But, Con has mistaken individual consequences with societal consequences. Marriage equality does not infringe on the liberties of others, and therefore should be supported by the Federal Government.
Here is where the consequences come into play. Throughout the debate, I’ve repeated several times there are 1,138 individual economic benefits granted to married couples, which are necessarily denied to homosexual couples in the status quo. For Con to win, he had to win the framework and fulfill the BoR by showing the impacts of marriage equality outweigh those of Pro. On the nature of homosexuality (point “b” of Con’s harms), Con asked me to prove my points, which I already had done… so I can only think this is a concession on the nature of homosexuality.
The worst impact I see in this debate for Con to work with is the increase in disease. In round four I explained marriage and sex are not intrinsically related. People in love are most likely going to engage in sexual acts; it’s a given. There are also effective ways to prevent these diseases. Like I said, condoms are highly recommended (from the CDC). Con may argue next round that homosexual men are more likely to get AIDS. But, if this is strictly within the individual, it is the risk they put towards their own bodies, which don’t harm society. Con may try to continue with the drug analogy, but the difference is drugs harm others, while marriage equality does not inherently do so. My second answer was in round four, where I mentioned homosexual women are less likely than heterosexuals to get AIDS. Con’s argument that diseases should be prevented falls apart because there isn’t a link between marriage and disease. Con wasn’t able to provide that link in the last three rounds, so this impact should be considered moot in comparison to the economic burden and oppression homosexual couples deal with every day.
The last arguments Con presented revolve around tradition. He has used plenty of rhetoric and repetition of how important tradition is and no doubt will continue with it in his next round. What we need to look at is the value of this tradition in comparison to oppression. The framework section of the debate spilled over here. However, the link between changing the traditional concept of marriage, on a legal standpoint, and societal impacts, is essentially nonexistent. Con may try to argue society is structured around tradition, but that’s not true. Repeatedly, the government has gone directly against tradition, both religious and secular. The “expectations” debate falls under the tradition fallacy, and I’ve pointed out gender roles are diminishing (likely starting in the 1900s during the waning of the “domestic sphere”). Appealing to tradition for tradition’s sake is a terrible way to determine moral rights and wrongs, and is certainly a flawed way in making and enforcing laws. The impacts of marriage inequality are numerous, ranging from oppression and discrimination to economic and legal burdens. Con’s impacts rely on assuming tradition is correct and always will be.
Con didn’t actually defend the slippery slope argument in round for, merely alluding to it in his conclusion. There’s a reason it’s an informal logical fallacy. Con needed to show the link between equality among humans and extending that beyond. Without this link, there is no argument. Con’s rejection of the analogy of a hamster voting proves the link doesn’t exist. Marriage equality is a human rights issue, where advocates want people to be equal.
Some traditions need to change, and marriage is one of them. After debunking Con’s arguments and showing the systemic harms from marriage inequality, I urge everyone to vote arguments to Pro. Thank you everyone who stuck it out to the end, and thanks to Con for debating this issue with me.
Like "Pro" said "I appreciate those who stuck it out with us until the end. It's been a fun debate, and I'm hopeful the DDO community will look at the arguments set forth and consider the merits to each of them. "
I'll let every read and decide on the several merits "Pro" listed instead of talking about how i did well and how i should win this or that. I'll just like to say that all my debates were written on word document and i used the spelling check to fix it. but u claim i got alot of grammars and spelling errors and you don't so you get that "win." but like i said i'll leave it to our voters. Also i note taht "pro" talks about my sources you if you look at his sources you'll know some has to do with just "picture" and "definition" but yet he tries to talk about my sources. It's funny how things go. "Con gave a few sources, but none of them added substance to the debate." I will let the voters be the judge of that!
Thank everyone for viewing this debate and thank "pro" for proposing this debate! It is with heartfelt! ^^
Like the roudn 5 said "Closing statements (new arguments not allow) i'm not going to make new arguments or try to refute anything; because i learn once that last round debate don't count as so many people used that against me for their voting.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|