The Instigator
ConservativeAmerican
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
teddy2013
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Marriage Rights for LGBT in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 8 votes the winner is...
teddy2013
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,674 times Debate No: 29735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (8)

 

ConservativeAmerican

Pro

I would like to start this debate (providing you accept my challenge), by using bullets to explain my logic, I will not justify it until I know if you are going to accept the debate. Here are my views

-I am conservative, meaning I want the gov't to intervene in American's lives as least a possible (While still functioning as a gov't)

- Unlike most of my right wing counterparts, I support gay marriage, primarily for the purpose stated above, I may be uncomfortable with it, but it should not be my business whether a man or woman marry.

- While the definition of marriage may only include man and woman, tax exemptions are given to married couples, therefore not allowing the LGBT group to marry is monetary discrimination.

- Religion is not logical to include in this argument because a specific religion, or creationism in general does not represent everyone's views and due to secularism is illogical to include.
teddy2013

Con

Thank you for your offer to debate. I accept. Since my debate opponent used round 1 to lay out his basic argument, in fairness to my opponent, I will limit my round 1 arguments to a preview of my basic argument.

As I have indicated in other DDO forums, my opinion on gay marriage has evolved. It is the first issue that I researched when I joined DDO. I read many of the debates on gay marriage, and carefully considered both sides. The more I read, the more I evolved to being strongly opposed to expanding the definition of marriage.

I was particularly impressed with the arguments of the DDO members, who now are listed on as my friends on my profile page (you know who you are). As I read and was influenced by the content of their arguments, I requested their friendships, and all accepted.

My main argument against expanding the definition of marriage, has to do with the size and scope of Government, and the limited role Government should have. Surprisingly, my debate opponent is attempting to use the same small Government argument to suggest that Government should expand the definition of marriage.

I look forward to a spirited debate, I wish my opponent good luck, and I hope he comes in second, LOL.
Debate Round No. 1
ConservativeAmerican

Pro

I will start by replying to your argument that refusing to expand the definition of marriage actually decreases the size of gov't. Any time you have to enforce something, you are increasing the gov't, because you need tax payer money to enforce it. Disallowing gay marriage is another burden to the tax payers, primarily because the LGBT people's aren't getting the tax exemptions they should be getting for being married. My main argument still stands that the gov't can make resolutions all they want on the definition of marriage, I don't care how bigoted they are, but once it effects fair taxation and policy, it becomes a technical issue, does it not? It's sort of like, I don't care if someone is a closet racist or anti feminist (Todd Akin), but if it shows in his policy, or his aims to change/maintain policy, it becomes an issue.

I believe that if the definition of marriage is going to effect fair taxation policy, then the gov't has no business defining what marriage is, if they stopped tax exemptions for ALL married couples, I would deem it fair. I believe that the government has no right to define anything or make any resolutions that effect policy, because that does indeed increase the scope of government.
teddy2013

Con

Thank you Adam, for your argument. In posting my contention that marriage should remain between a man and a women, I will put forth my thoughts as well as cite many of the arguments made by my profile page friends. My argument has three main points


1. Government has a role in marriage, but the role should be limited.
There is a limited role for Government in marriage, but it needs to draw the line somewhere. Drawing the line, at the union of a man and a women is a common sense place to draw this line. This definition is supported by Court precedents, and has as one of its central cornerstones the possibility of procreation.

This argument was made persuasively by “Contradiction” in "Contradictions" debate arguments against gay marriage (Debate topic: Gay marriage should be legal, in all the US"). He argued that the only reason that a State has an interest in relationships is "when they affect the common good in structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation."

Procreation is a legitimate reason to afford such legal recognition An emotional bond, while nice, is not a reason for the States interest, if it was, then as Contradiction argues there would be legal recognition of just friendships.

“Lannon 13” argued it this way in his debate “Gay marriage should be legalized” "So, the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to poly amorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." “This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage.”

2. Procreation is not the only argument, but it the strongest.

Pro gay marriage advocates, always argue that lots of marriages do not result in procreation. While that is true, it is the only relationship where it is a possibility. The argument that if gay marriage is not allowed, then heterosexuals who can not procreate should not be allowed to marry was countered effectively by my DDO friends attributed below.

“1 percenter “ "This is countered by arguing that marriage relationships are based on procreation in type, not effect." (Quote from my politics forum “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”)

“16kadams” "Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant." (Quote from my politics forum “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”)

“Nur-ab-sal” "Marriage is about the sexual act not the result. Whether or not spouses choose to have children is irrelevant." He also cites numerous court cases , to show that procreation has been the basis of legal marriage in the United States (see my politics thread “Evolving on Gay marriage can go both ways”, to link to these court cases.)

3. Expanding marriage to include same sex couples, expands the size of Government.

The heart of Adam’s argument is " -I am conservative, meaning I want the gov't to intervene in American's lives as least a possible (While still functioning as a gov't)”

Expanding marriage to include gay couples, means there will be more benefits to be paid (ex. social security survivor benefits, health benefits to spouses of Government workers etc). Adam would have been better to have argued his case for Gay marriage, on other grounds, the notion that this reduces the size and scope of Government, is a false premise on its face.

Back to you Adam,



Debate Round No. 2
ConservativeAmerican

Pro

I will start by attempting to refute your arguments in 1.

To start, there should be a fair vote on what the 'role' happens to be for the gov'ts role in marriage, this a battle that the people should be determined to help fight, not small special interests groups.

-I will argue procreation in the 2nd section, although you cite it in the 1st.

Also, when you quoted "Lannon 13", I realized he, and you both have some legitimate points, but I also agree that the gov't should not discriminate and only recognize monogamous groups, they allow you to marry at virtually any age with a parent's consent, once you are 18 you can marry. So I don't get your point there, of course a parent should have a say in if their child (not adult until 18) gets married, that is nothing more then basic logic in my opinion. My argument still stands that until monetary benefits are given to homosexual couples, heterosexual couples should not get them either, this is monetary discrimination and bigotry in policy.

2. Procreation is an illogical point to argue, if the rare possibility came along that a dis proportionate amount of the population was homosexual, the gov't could simply force male citizens to donate their sperm once or twice a year so that women can be parents, but it is illogical to claim that just because gay marriage is recognized, more people will become gay/homosexual, there might be a few closet homosexuals, but not enough to create a population shortage, once there aren't enough heterosexual people on Earth to reproduce (we are already overpopulated), you may use this argument, but I doubt it will EVER happen in my lifetime, or my great great great grandchild's lifetime, or his great grandchild's lifetime.

3. I get your point in that my original argument is flawed, I will adapt it since I think it was half my fault for leaving it too open to interpretation and half your fault for (either intentionally or unintentionally) mis interpreting it.

I do get your point in that the gov't will have to expand their services to accommodate the LGBT group, but this logic is also applicable to when the gov't had to make education fair for all races, of course it costed more when the gov't had to actually give minority children fair schooling, but morality should always win over a few bucks, if you disagree with this, we have nothing left to argue about and I would already win in my opinion.

On to round 3.
teddy2013

Con

Adam, I will use this round to respond to your points, in three separate areas.

1. You stated “To start, there should be a fair vote on what the 'role' happens to be for the gov'ts role in marriage, this a battle that the people should be determined to help fight, not small special interests groups.”


The fair vote you addressed has occurred in 35 separate States, In 32 of those 35, the voters have voted directly, often overwhelmingly voting against gay marriage. (source Wikipedia “Same Sex Marriage in the United States”)


2. Adam, you said “ Procreation is an illogical point to argue, if the rare possibility came along that a dis proportionate amount of the population was homosexual, the gov't could simply force male citizens to donate their sperm once or twice a year so that women can be parents, but it is illogical to claim that just because gay marriage is recognized, more people will become gay/homosexual, there might be a few closet homosexuals, but not enough to create a population shortage, once there aren't enough heterosexual people on Earth to reproduce (we are already overpopulated), you may use this argument, but I doubt it will EVER happen in my lifetime, or my great great great grandchild's lifetime, or his great grandchild's lifetime.”


Adam, I am confused, I never mentioned under population or over population, sperm, or gay marriage creating homosexuals. Your descendants and my descendants will be around to debate each other hundreds of years from now. Since I never made these arguments I do not know where to start, so I won’t.


3. Adam you said, “I do get your point in that the gov't will have to expand their services to accommodate the LGBT group, but this logic is also applicable to when the gov't had to make education fair for all races, of course it costed more when the gov't had to actually give minority children fair schooling, but morality should always win over a few bucks, if you disagree with this, we have nothing left to argue about and I would already win in my opinion.”


I appreciate your passion on this issue, you obviously feel strongly. I feel this is a good opportunity to make the point. that just because someone is opposed to gay marriage, whether it be on the basis of the role of Government, or for Religious, or moral reasons, does not mean they are homophobic, or hate gay people. I do not. Some may, but the large majority may just see the issue differently then you. I think it is entirely possible my great, great, great grandson may favor gay rights, while yours may be against. Or, perhaps, they will both be opposed to gay rights, or maybe they will be lovers. I guess we will never know for sure.

Debate Round No. 3
ConservativeAmerican

Pro

Considering this is the last round, I will probably spend quite a bit of my time formulating my final rebuttal, the only downside to starting the debate is that you then have to let the opposition get the last word in, lol.

Anyways, I will address your points and then make a conclusion statement.

1. Your point is technically void because it has been found unconstitutional multiple times for an act to be passed that prohibits the federal gov't from passing a mandate that forces same sex marriage. " The provision of DOMA forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts. Five of these cases are pending review by the Supreme Court."

Same sex marriage wikipedia

2. Also, I was just further elaborating on why using procreation as an argument is illogical, since we only have four rounds I had to make assumptions as to why you think procreation is a feasible argument, I assume those are the reasons you back it, (under population, over population, etc.).

3. You and I seem to share the same sentiments in every issue except this one. I agree that if a state does not want to recognize LGBT married couples, that is their business. I don't even mind if they refuse them marriage certificates, the US may keep denying LGBT couples marriage certificates, that isn't even bigoted. What is bigoted and is obvious discrimination is giving Heterosexual married couples monetary benefits, but then denying it to others. This is monetary discrimination, which directly contradicts everything this nation stands for. If the gov't doesn't want to intervene directly on the issue, then that is their loss (of once again failing uphold American values), but they at least have to give no monetary benefits for marriage to any group, once they do this I will be able to spend more time debating on truly important things like economics and foreign policy, :P.

Anyways, It has been a pleasure debating with you, I will send you a friends request and I look forward to debating in the future on other issues if you are up for it, or when we have similar values to defend them alongside each other.

I never always surround myself with like-minded people, I am always interested in hearing what the opposition has to say (of course you will never change your mind on something if you never hear the opposing view), have a good night (or day when you read this), and I hope to stay in contact!
teddy2013

Con

Since this is the final round, I wish to briefly address the debate itself, and then extend my gratitude to the those who got us here.

On the debate itself, although passionate in his views, I do not believe that Adam was able to show that gay marriage would reduce the size and scope of Government.


I am confident I presented my arguments against gay marriage with clarity, logic, and hopefully some humor. I ask for a con vote.

As for my gratitude. First, I wish to express my appreciation to my profile page friends. The people who appear as my friends are those whose arguments in debates and forums were compelling and convincing, and backed up with logic and conviction. If one of the purposes of DDO is to sway people with the power of your arguments, you succeeded with me.

Also, a special note of appreciation to Garret, who along with Adam kept my thread “Lets leave gay giraffes alone” alive, which I focused on this debate. I did not want the giraffes to be a casualty of my attention being elsewhere.

And finally to Adam, my opponent in this debate. Adam proved to be an passionate advocate for his point of view. It is hard debating Adam, when he is so damn likable. For both Adam and I this was our first debate, and as they say “you never forget your first”. Like Adam, I enjoy hearing the views of people I may disagree with on an issue, and I happily welcome him as my newest DDO friend Thanks Adam.





Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
That was my mistake, not crediting the original source,however I still appreciate Lannan's using the arguments he used. Also I appreciate his strong and consistent support for traditional marriage, same as you and I.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
So Lannan's quote was a really not Lannan's
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
All those quotes from Lannan can be found here.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
Sticks and stones will break mybones but words will never hurt me unless my name is tes, then I prove why I am only 8 ys older than a 9yr old thru whining and bigotry :)

CaptainObvious 9:18--Science shows us how and why the act of cutting an onion sets off the smell and sometimes makes you cry. Religious doctrine shows us how and why the act of cutting a person is OK even if sometimes it makes them cry :)

CryBabies 8:11--We make all these claims that humans are weak and humans are not smart enough and strong enough to live in a world without the belief in a holy binky or savior, that is nothing short of condescending and insulting to mankind :)
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
What's unacceptable is not only your bigotry, but your attempts to turn the tables and call those who want everyone to be treated equally, to call us the bigots. No, that's just your religious brainwashing talking. Your rabbis are just as good at that as any Christian religious leader, and you have this evil Catholic guy to point to and scream "OPPRESSION" every time the Jews don't get their way. Let me remind you, however, that that Catholic is long-dead by his own hand, his policies dismissed, his Reich dismantled. In the USA, the Jewish faith thrives like nowhere else in history. But that's not enough for you. You don't want equality. You, personally and collectively, want supremacy. So when someone suggests equality is right, just, and good, you see that as a threat to your desires, and to your vile, disgusting faith. And that causes your intense rage.
Posted by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
tes, lets see what the dictionary calls you :)

Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their age, ethnicity, gender/sex, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, skin color, or other characteristics

That is the definition of "Discrimination"

You discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.

You are No better than a racist!

Racist and bigots both discriminate.

Bigot definition:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

You do not tolerate gay marriage. You are intolerant of gay marriage.

You practice intolerance towards humans and deny humans fair right

Hence, those who deny gay marriage are intolerant bigots :)

People are born gay. Just like they are born with white or brown skin. Just like they are born with blonde or brown hair.

Any man who votes No against another mans rights because that man was born brown that man is a bigot for voting to deny human rights to a man born different.

When a baby is born gay, you want to punish the child by denying her rights because she likes girls. Her physiology in her body was born different and you are going to make sure you HELP punish her rights because your adult pacifier, the holy binky, was written by 1st century dorks with little intellect, and I mold my life around idiots, so I will do what the idots in my book want me too, because I cant think for myself, even if it is the 21st century, Im brainwashed, not a free thinker :)

BIGOT!
Posted by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
It's not "equal rights", and you know it. You insult my honor by calling me a bigot, which is a falsity, and you care not for the effect. You are sadistic to keep spreading the lie that you do, and then insulting people who do not agree with it. You cause pain, and you find joy in it, or you simply don't care. That is evil. That is monstrous. And that is why you bother me so. You speak of equality, but won't admit you are wrong. You won't admit I have points. You won't stop insulting me, making false statements. And you know what? It makes you an evil, inferior, tyrannical individual. You do and say heartless, soulless, gutless things, and get people to think it's okay. That's the crime here. It's unacceptable.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Why does the mere suggestion of equal rights send you into a psychotic rage?
Posted by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
Holy ****, Deadlykris. You're damn right it doesn't carry the same respect. Because gay people are viewed as gay and straights as straight. We are NOT the same friggin' thing. Not discrimination, fact. Injustice occurs from forcing committed heterosexual couples to "Use Marriage and be happy" and destroying their hearts and souls. Their 5000+ privilege. You're a complete dick, you know that? You can have the same friggin' rights, let's draft the bill RIGHT NOW! Straights would support it! But you're not having that word.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Superlative, it's not about how the word "sounds", it's the fact that the concept is not respected the way the concept of marriage is. In many cases the civil partner is treated like a friend instead of family, by others. Rights are denied that are not denied to a spouse. Injustice occurs from forcing committed homosexual couples to "Use 'civil union' and be happy" and withholding their due rights to marriage.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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: Countering vote-bomb by AlwaysMoreThanYou, who is falsely accusing another member of vote-bombing.
Vote Placed by Tes95 4 years ago
Tes95
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proves the stake of the government in marriage, and who it is for. Homosexuals have proven themselves time and again to not want benefits, they want the title. All Con has said has resonated with my own logic and observations, and it was a fatal flaw for Pro to even bring in the idea of "Government Expansion". Separation of Church and State and Lemon Test, fellas. Not only that, he seems to imply the government has no ability to define what marriage is, so... this means they cannot allow gay marriage.
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually used sourses and most of his arguments went unanswered.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 4 years ago
Skepsikyma
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to adequately respond to Con's procreation argument, instead erecting and critiquing a straw man. If it weren't for this derailment he probably would have won, but the fumble warrants awarding Con the debate.
Vote Placed by Paradox_7 4 years ago
Paradox_7
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had the most convincing arguments, while they were a little bare, and open to much scrutiny, Pro failed to address them. I didn't find Pros arguments had any real subtance, and consisted of mainly asserting that Con was wrong instead of providing some sources or actualt arguments.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with teddy2013 both before and after the debate; ConservativeAmerican failed to sway me. I must note that both sides were extremely professional and cordial to each other. I agreed with practically all of teddy2013's arguments; here are some the problems I had with Pro's arguments: 1. Pro discusses 'marriage rights for lgbt' under the assumption that Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people don't have marriage rights. They do. They have the same right to marriage that straight people do: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is not a consideration of the government in defining marriage. 2. Pro said expanding the definition of marriage would reduce the scope of government. To prove his point, he uses the argument from analogy: government was decreased by desegregation of public schools. I don't agree that government was decreased by this; in fact, I think desegregation increased government, as well as being unconstitutional.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: DevientGenie 6:49--The Genie's propensity for inaccuracy is exceeded only by it's inclination for votebombing.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 4 years ago
devient.genie
ConservativeAmericanteddy2013Tied
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: DevientGenie 6:48--The Genie's appreciation and understandings of the universe and life, is not two steps, or ten steps ahead of a religious person, it is flights of stairs ahead :)