The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Freeman
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,240 times Debate No: 9917
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (29)
Votes (18)

 

mongeese

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Although my opponent and I have already had this debate before, I believe that this second debate would run much smoother, as I am now no longer burdened by the unfair connotation of being anti-gay, which caused many to vote against me, while my position suggests nothing of the sort, and we'll be able to concentrate on the actual problem at hand - that is, the legalization of marriage.

Marriage - an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Legal - having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

United States - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contention 1-: The legalization of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
"No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [1]
By recognizing marriage legally, government is distinguishing and discriminating between the married and the non-married, and protecting them unequally. This is an obvious violation.
The only real way to negate this contention would be to justify the discrimination between those whose marriages are deemed worthy of recogniztion, those whose marriages are deemed unworthy of recogniztion, and those who don't even consider themselves married.

That will be all for now, although I reserve the right to create new contentions in future rounds.

Good luck.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Freeman

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve some of the main issues that got somewhat obscured in the previous debate we did on gay marriage. Our goal in this debate is to decide whether marriage should exist as a legal institution, not to argue over the legal merits of specific types of marriages.

::Case Pro- Rebuttals::

Contention 1: The legalization of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Mongeese rightfully observes that our legal system is set up in such a way so that single people are treated differently than married people. However, the conclusions he draws from this fact seem wholly unsubstantiated. Married people have reached a status in society that justifies their special treatment. They simply have many more responsibilities than most single people. Given this fact, it is unreasonable and legally preposterous to argue that treating married and non-married people differently violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. One of my main purposes in this debate will be to show that a legal distinction between married and non-married people is justifiable.

::Case Pro::

Contention 1: Discrimination between married and single people is justified.

The dichotomy of legal treatment between those who are married and those who aren't is warranted. Married people take on extra responsibilities that are not undertaken by single people. For instance, they often raise families, which requires quite a bit of time, effort, and money. People that get married have lots of responsibilities, and thus, it is not unreasonable that they should be rewarded for this in a way that single people aren't.

Furthermore, if single people want to receive the benefits that married people receive all they have to do is get married. Marriage itself is not an inherently segregated or discriminatory institution. Anyone can get married whether they are rich or poor; educated or uneducated; white or black; or completely incompetent. There is nothing stopping people from getting married. Every legal resident of the United States, except gays, is on a level playing field in terms of their ability to be married. Therefore, single people do little more than gripe when they argue that married people receive legal benefits that they don't.

Contention 2: Legally sanctioned marriages are good for couples.

As the DDO member andre points out in one of his debates, marriage has many useful functions that are intrinsically valuable to a couple. [1] Among other things these benefits include:

- Inheritance of property
- Rights to make a medical decision for a spouse, or making other decision such as funeral arrangements
- Joint tax filing and joint adoption
- Rights to non-resident or alien partners
- Marital confidence privilege and spousal testimonial privilege
- Parenting rights (access or rights of both partners to make decisions for their child)
- Custody of children
- Shared property and shared bank accounts

It is, of course, true that these benefits could be achieved through various other methods without the legal sanctioning of marriage. However, what would be the point of reworking a system that doesn't appear to be broken? Legally sanctioned marriages provide all these benefits in one easy step. [2] If each of these rights had to be acquired individually or in groups the entire process of "marriage" would become needlessly convoluted.

Contention 3: Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government.

Marriage helps provide a safe place to have children and raise a family. And the importance of this institution really cannot be overrated. In fact, many aspects of societal dysfunction can be positively correlated with broken homes or otherwise dysfunctional families. [3] [4] Indeed, there is hardly another factor more foretelling of a persons status latter in life than the condition of the family they were raised in. Therefore, if a government wants to increase the well being of the nation that it's ruling it would be a good idea to promote marriage by subsidizing it with financial incentives and other benefits. This helps encourage couples to get married and in a small way helps improve marriages by making them financially less strenuous for people.

Contention 4: Laws or legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society.

According to the philosopher Jeremy Bentham actions can be said to be good or bad depending on the consequences they produce. And among his many contributions to philosophy was his development of the hedonic calculus. [5] [6] To put this principle in simplistic terms it basically states that any action can be considered good depending on how much pleasure it produces when the well being of all of those affected is taken into consideration. Given this understanding of ethics, it is then easy to realize that legally sanctioned marriages are valuable because they produce many positive benefits in society for lots of people.

Legally sanctioned marriages are key aspects of a healthy and functional society. Conversely, there is no reason to think that society would be any better off if my opponent's views were taken to their logical conclusion and we abolished marriage. Eradicating marriage as a legal institution would simply be a risky venture with no discernable benefits. And unless my opponent can demonstrate that abolishing marriage is good for society then he doesn't really have a very strong case.

Hopefully, that should be enough for now. I look forward to your response.

---References---

1. http://www.debate.org... See Con: Round 1
2. http://www.nolo.com...
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://plato.stanford.edu...
6. http://www.bartleby.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

Thank you for responding, Freeman.

Contention 1-: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

My opponent cites "many more responsibilities" held by married people as opposed to unmarried people as a reason for privileged treatment. However, he does not mention a single one. In fact, more natural benefits are gained than responsibilities.

Only one member of the couple usually cooks, cleans, etc., while the other can devote full-time to a paid job, and this specialization caused by division of labor increases efficiency. Additionally, cleaning one house for two people is considerably easier than cleaning two houses for two people, as is cooking for two people at once rather than separately. And then there's the bonus of sex.

If my opponent considers parenting as one of these responsibilities, then he is sadly mistaken. Many couples choose not to have children [1], and therefore should not receive any benefits meant to go to those who raise children. It would be much more efficient in these cases to reserve rights for parents, rather than married couples.

Contention 1 : Discrimination is justified.

My opponent still neglects to mention "extra responsibilities" besides child-bearing and child-rearing, which isn't even a characteristic of all marriages. Therefore, these benefits should not be granted to marriage, but to parenting.

My opponent also proposes that single people should just get married. However, some people have much easier times getting married than others. For example, the ugly, the poor, and the unskilled have a much harder time finding a marriage partner than others. The fact that nobody would want to marry a person prevents that person from receiving rights, and though the discrimination may be ethical on their part, it is not ethical on the part of government, which must protect all citizens equally. A person who gets an STD at birth, for example, would find it near-impossible to get a marriage partner. Additionally, by my opponent's proposal, a person who otherwise does not want to get married would have to be married to receive benefits, which would result in people getting married just for the benefits, such as Rezzealaux [2]. That hardly sounds like the interpersonal relationships upon which marriage is based, and is just an insult to the institution of marriage.

Contention 2 : Marriage is good for couples.

The fact that the people being discriminated for benefit from being discriminated for really adds nothing to the core problem.

The rights mentioned by my opponent should not be reserved to those who claim to be married, but to everybody. All people, married or non-married, should have the right to write wills and appoint other people to take care of them in case of unconsciousness or death (with consent). This could be easily handled by having a website set up called www.legal.gov in which people can write their wills, select people to have permission to visit them in hospitals, set up a hierarchy for matters involving death and unconsciousness, etc. This would allow for much more freedom than there currently is. When this is first implemented, all people who already had government-recognized marriages would have their accounts on legal.gov formatted so that they keep their current rights. For other people, a button could easily be developed to allow for any two people to have their accounts give each other all of the rights and appointments to be considered "married," although marriage itself would not be a legal institution.

With joint tax filing, shared property, and shared bank accounts, any group of people should have the ability to do this, and it should not be reserved only to married couples. For example, two men in a business partnership [3] would want the ability to set up such things, but would not wish to be considered "married" at all, especially if they each have their own wife to be married to.

The martial confidence privilege and spousal testimonial privilege are unfair privileges given discriminatorily. If government has no standards for marriage, mafia bosses could get married to take advantage of the privilege, not caring about social standards, and such things. If government has standards, then it is discriminatory. The solution: no privileges.

Finally, when it comes to children, this should all be determined at the time of birth or adoption. A child's biological parents and legal parents would be determined. The woman would naturally have initial control over the child until signing a contract agreeing for the father to also have custody, unless they agree beforehand that any child would belong to both of them. Why should married people be the only couples to take care of children together?

I don't even understand "rights to non-resident or alien partners." Any explanation?

My opponent asks why the process of "marriage" must become "needlessly convoluted." However, with the legal.gov proposal, legal matters such as these would be easy as pie, and discrimination would not be possible.

Contention 3 : Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government.

This entire contention assumes that if marriage was no longer a legal institution, it would just fall apart, and all families would become dysfunctional. This is hardly the case. Adults could consider themselves to be married despite lack of government intervention, and this mental state is more important as government recognition. Additionally, this contention assumes all marriages to lead to children, which is false. People will have children regardless of government. Finally, calling marriage "financially strenuous" is wrong. It is parenting that can be financially strenuous. Marriage actually has financial benefits, among others.

Contention 4 : Legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society.

The positive benefits my opponent mentions would produce more utility if they were available to everybody regardless of marriage. My opponent calls it a risky venture, but where is the risk? Marriage didn't start out as a legal institution [4], and it won't fall apart if it isn't any longer.

The positive effects of delegalizing marriage:

* Government can no longer discriminate who can and can't get married.
* People have more liberty to do what they want with certain rights.
* All people would have equal rights, with no discriminatory benefits for those who people are willing to marry.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.debate.org... (Fourth post)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Freeman

Pro

I appreciate your time and your thoughtful responses. It would appear as if we are actually making some headway.

::Case Pro- Rebuttals::

Contention 1: Delegalizing marriage has many positive effects such as:

"1. Government can no longer discriminate who can and can't get married."

Abolishing all legal forms of marriage to end certain forms of discrimination is completely nonsensical. It would be like cutting off your entire leg to get rid of a pain in your foot.

"2. People have more liberty to do what they want with certain rights."

I don't seem to understand what you are saying. If people can't get married then they would have less liberty, not more.

"3. All people would have equal rights, with no discriminatory benefits for those who people are willing to marry."

Giving all people equal treatment, regardless of circumstances, is itself a form of discrimination. Some people deserve more than others by virtue of their status/achievements in a society. Like I have said earlier, married couples deserve more rights than single people because they have many responsibilities that do not pertain to being single.

Furthermore, even though some married people choose not to have children there are other responsibilities which only pertain to two people in a relationship that do not apply to single people. Among these responsibilities include decisions that need to be made about end of life issues. If you are single then you are not legally responsible for the end of life issues of anyone apart from yourself. This is why it's ridiculous to argue that legally sanctioned marriages violate the fourteenth amendment to the constitution.

::Case Pro- Counter Rebuttals::

Contention 1: Discrimination between married and single people is justified.

Unfortunately, Mongeese has created a rather lengthy and irrelevant argument in this section. The fact that some people have a hard time getting married is utterly unrelated to this debate. People do not have a constitutional right to be guaranteed a marriage partner. Moreover, if people want to get married just to receive certain benefits then that's their prerogative. It is not the government's responsibility to investigate whether or not married people actually love each other.

Contention 2: Legally sanctioned marriages are good for couples.

"The rights mentioned by my opponent should not be reserved to those who claim to be married, but to everybody."

The rights accorded to marriage are open to everyone else, and thus, your argument is irrelevant. Certain rights just have to be sought out individually. Furthermore, your proposed method for people getting married, and presumably divorced, would very likely lead to societal dysfunction. If getting married were "as easy as pie" then marriage would significantly lose its value in our modern industrialized society. It is a basic fact of human psychology that people are more likely to back out of things if there is no social pressure guiding their decisions. Therefore, government sanctioned marriages are likely to be cohesive since they are intertwined with legal social contracts in a way that Internet "marriages" are not. In conclusion, these quick and easy marriages would inevitably undermine various social contracts and degrade our sense of moral commitment. [1]

Consider the following thought experiment. Imagine that a friend has invited you to a party where it doesn't really matter whether or not you show up. And then imagine that the president has invited you to speak at a white house dinner where you are the guest of honor. Which of these two events would you be more likely to back out of? Obviously, you would be less likely to stand up the president because by doing so you would endure many negative social repercussions. So to is the case with legally sanctioned marriages. If people could just get "married" by going to some website then divorce would almost certainly increase. This would then foster societal dysfunction. [2]

Marriages are done in churches and often at courthouses because this increases the likelihood that those marriages will not dissolve in a quick divorce. This also forces people to think at least twice about their decisions regarding marriage. Your argument in favor of legally unrecognized quick and easy marriages through the Internet is not only poor; it is very likely to lead to impulsive marriage decisions that would surely be detrimental to society.

Contention 3: Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government.

Mongeese, you seem to have misunderstood my argument. I do not argue that legal marriages are more stable than non-legal marriages. I simply point out that marriage, whether legally recognized or not, is in general good for society. And in order to encourage marriage the government would be wise to legally recognize it and subsidize it with benefits. Secondly, marriages are stabilizing aspects of society even if children are not involved.

Contention 4: Laws or legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society.

"The positive benefits my opponent mentions would produce more utility if they were available to everybody regardless of marriage."

This has already been dealt with in one of my earlier segments. Hopefully, we can reach some kind of a consensus by the end of this debate. And I look forward to your final round.

::References::

1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
2. http://www.divorcereform.org...
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

Thanks for responsing, Freeman.

I would just like to remind the voters of two things:

1. I am advocating that marriage exist without government interference, so if you're assuming that I'm advocating the complete elimination of marriage and all things associated with it, I would appreciate it if you would get that assumption out of your head.

2. As this is the last round, my opponent may not put forward any new arguments.

Contention 1-: Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This contention was apparently merged with my conclusion from last round, below.

Contention 2-: Delegalizing marriage has many positive effects.

1. Government can no longer discriminate who can and can't get married.

My opponent's analogy of "cutting off your entire leg to get rid of a pain in your foot" assumes that delegalizing marriage would end up worse for everybody. However, it would not. A more appropriate analogy would be giving one child a piece of chocolate because you gave the other child a piece of chocolate, and there is no good reason to discriminate between the two.

2. People have more liberty to do what they want with certain rights.

The "more liberty" that I am referring to includes the ability to let your co-workers visit you in the hospital, the ability to create joint bank accounts in a business partnership, and the ability to let your best friend handle your end-of-life affairs, all without having to marry all of the above people, which would be awkward.

3. All people would have equal rights.

My opponent's only justification (note that he cannot create more, as this is the last round) is a rather poor one. When two people marry, they generally consent that they would handle the other's end-of-life issues in the event of death. However, it is clear that both people consider the idea of having another person agreeing to handle their own end-of-life issues to be worth pledging to handle another's end-of-life issues. If one decided that the fact that his wife's willingness to handle his end-of-life issues was not worth his having to handle her end-of-life issues, then the two of them should have the liberty to come up with some other solution. The main point is, the responsibility comes with its own reward, or else the handling of end-of-life issues would never have been thrown into marriage in the first place. Same for all other responsibilities. It is, essentially, trade [1].

If an unmarried man who inherited an STD agrees with his widowed sister that in the event of either's death, the other would handle the end-of-life issues, both only benefit overall, as it is a positive-sum voluntary transaction. They should not have to be married in the eyes of the law to have this voluntary transaction (the important part) legally acknoledged, as that would be awkward, and the social connotations of marriage would be inapplicable.

Contention 1 : Discrimination is justified.

My opponent believes that any two people should be allowed to marry for any reason whatsoever. That means that if a large group of people were to all marry each other, they'd have increased liberty, even if they don't even regard a marriage as a marriage. As I have already said, the martial confidence priviledge would be easily abused. Finally, two people who wish to stay single should not be required to have the social connotations of marriage over their heads just to start a business partnership, especially if they don't want to be considered gay [2].

Contention 2 : Legal marriages are good for couples.

My opponent said that marriage rights are open to everyone, but in that case, why even require marriage in the first place to attain such rights?

My opponent implies that "social pressure" can only come from government. However, society can handle this without discriminatory government's intervention. If two people go about saying that they are, for all practical purposes, married, then society would view them as such, and therefore, the social pressure would exist. Why do we need government to tell us what do do with our social pressure? Furthermore, any contracts made on Legal.gov would still have legal importance, which is the function of the site, but the concept of marriage would never appear. People would inevitably create apps that would allow people to automatically fill everything out as if they were married, and people could sign social contracts with each other anyway, without government intervention.

My opponent uses an example of the white house to represent government. However, there is nothing legally binding one to go to the white house, just as there is nothing legally binding one to be in a marriage, but the negative social reprecussions would still exist.

For divorce, an app could easily be created by a third party to allow for couples to set up anti-impulsive divorce procedures. For example, a couple could set up a rule that a person would have to desire a divorce for one week, month, or year straight, so as to prevent impulsive divorce. Additionally, the legal matters of redividing bank accounts and negotiating child custody would still come into play, so divorce would still be a lengthy legal procedure. In conclusion, the website proposal would not lead to an increase in divorce.

People currently get married impulsively anyways. Doing so on a website could actually allow for a marriage to end rather easily and efficiently if no children were born and no bank accounts were opened yet, so impulsive actions could be undone, while longer-lasting marriages would still naturally take longer to undo. All decisions made on Legal.gov would still require acknowledgement from all parties involved. Therefore, any marriage decisions would take about as long as normal ones, especially if people choose to hold formal weddings, a tradition that would probably continue, as it has currently done. Government did not create the formal wedding, and is not required for its perpetuation.

Contention 3 : Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by government.

My opponent wishes to subsidize marriage with benefits. However, should these benefits only include the rights already discussed, then they should be avaliable to everybody. Including extra benefits such as tax cuts would be foolish, as huge groups of people would all marry each other without even socially acknowledging it just to receive the most extra benefits possible, which would be a time-consuming (on the part of the people and the government) process with no net benefit for the people overall. However, government would be unable to establish a limit, as that would be discriminatory against extreme polygamists. My opponent then calls marriages stabilizing even without children, but provides no arguments for this statement.

In conclusion, when it comes to marriage:
1. If government does not discriminate at all when it comes to who can be married, as my opponent proposes, then people will marry fifty other people just to take advantage of multiple tax breaks or other discriminatory benefits.
2. Having to marry to receive benefits not necessarily connected to marriage is illogical.
3. It does not make sense to force business partners to have the social connotation of marriage over their head if they do not want it, or a brother and sister to have to marry to handle each other's end-of-life issues.
4. All rights currently given by marriage should either not exist (should it be unwarranted benefits like tax cuts, that harm most of the people in having to pay extra taxes) or be allowed to everybody (should it be something to get by a zero-sum regulation placed by government in the first place, such as hospital visits or end-of-life issues).
5. Government contract is not required for social pressure, as evidenced by my opponent's own analogy.

In conclusion, marriage should have no legal value in and of itself.

Again, thank you.
Freeman

Pro

Thank you, Mongeese, for the debate. I'm going to try to keep this round short.

Neither of my opponent's attempts to discredit the constitutionality of legal marriage nor his attempt to show that legal marriage is discriminatory can withhold scrutiny. Reiterating my old arguments would simply be belaboring the point. However, Mongeese has conveniently packaged some new assertions in one neat bundle, so I will try my best to unpack them.

::Case Pro- Rebuttals::

In conclusion, when it comes to marriage:

1. If government does not discriminate at all when it comes to who can be married, as my opponent proposes, then people will marry fifty other people just to take advantage of multiple tax breaks or other discriminatory benefits.

At no point in this debate have I argued for polygamy or that the government should recognize all marriage arrangements. Your assertion misrepresents my position. [1] Moreover, the conclusion you draw (from information unknown to me) is nothing more than a non sequitur. [2] There is nothing about legally sanctioned marriages that necessarily implies that we allow polygamy. If anything, financially motivated polygamy would be an inevitable component of the quick and easy internet marriages Mongeese has beckoned us to.

2. Having to marry to receive benefits not necessarily connected to marriage is illogical.

Why would it be illogical? Marriage carries many responsibilities (that I have already outlined) that are not associated with being single.

3. It does not make sense to force business partners to have the social connotation of marriage over their head if they do not want it, or a brother and sister to have to marry to handle each other's end-of-life issues.

I fail to see the logic that connects either of these assertions to what we have been arguing about. If I want my brother to handle my end of life issues then I can legally have that arranged without having to marry him.

4. All rights currently given by marriage should either not exist (should it be unwarranted benefits like tax cuts, that harm most of the people in having to pay extra taxes) or be allowed to everybody (should it be something to get by a zero-sum regulation placed by government in the first place, such as hospital visits or end-of-life issues).

It would appear as if Mongeese can't see the contradictory nature of his own arguments. My opponent may think his proposal would lead to an egalitarian society. But his arguments are inegalitarian in the extreme. They essentially mandate that people should all be treated equally even if they clearly deserve more than other people. Married couples need to look out for each other and their kids, if they have any. This alone is reason enough to give them certain benefits that single people don't receive.

5. Government contract is not required for social pressure, as evidenced by my opponent's own analogy.

"If two people go about saying that they are, for all practical purposes, married, then society would view them as such, and therefore, the social pressure would exist. Why do we need government to tell us what do do with our social pressure?"

Social pressure is an aspect of society and it exists to different degrees in different areas. Of course, people can pinkie-swear to get "married," but such arrangements (including those done over the internet) are inherently unstable. Legal contracts tighten social contracts (e.g. marriage) in a way that non legal contracts often do not. Moreover, the system for marriage you have outlined would most certainly lead to heavy abuse. Your proposal is, in fact, nothing more than a giant loophole for greedy people who don't want to pay taxes. Sure, people can get married just to receive benefits, but the legal implications of getting married makes the process just difficult enough to discourage hordes of unscrupulous people from abusing the system.

=======
Conclusion
=======

Throughout this debate we have seen no good reasons that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution. If anything, the problems inherent to my opponents own position far outweigh the perceived difficulties he sees with legal marriages. Marriage is a bonding agent for society. It helps people provide a safe environment to raise a family, among other things. Encouraging marriage is therefore a key component of any functional society. Consequently, the government should encourage marriage by making it legal and subsidizing it with benefits. This approach, it would seem, is more apt than my opponent's to produce a maximally healthy and functional society. For these reasons I strongly encourage everyone to stand with me in affirming this motion. (Vote Pro)

---References---

1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
Freeman, I didn't realize that you didn't vote on this debate. Are you unable to vote?
Posted by King094 7 years ago
King094
Agree Before: Pro
Agree After: Con
Conduct: Tie
Convincing Arguments: Con
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Dislike is now a justification for a seven-point vote?
Posted by Aprille_marie 7 years ago
Aprille_marie
....hahah i dislike this post!
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
C: Tie
S/G: Tie
A: Con - Pro did not adequately defend the usefulness of marriage in terms of government benefits. Con's suggestions may be more convoluted than our current system, but are a reasonable solution to the inherently limiting nature of marriage.
S: Pro
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Agree Before: Pro
Agree After: Con
Conduct: Tie
Spelling/Grammar: Tie
Convincing Arguments: Con
Sources: Pro, mongeese, you should try to find other sources than wikipedia.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
RFD:

Although I agreed with Pro that this issue has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, all of Con's other points were right on target.

Every possible benefit that legally sanctioned marriage can give, can be provided through other means. Meanwhile, Con showed that without the legal sanction of marriage, individuals can decide for themselves what marriage means, thus removing the entire issue (gay marriage, polygamy, or any other sort of marriage that has been practiced by humans,) as a legal issue.

I can't help but wonder if my own opinion on this matter isn't clouding my judgement. I agree with Con, but I wouldn't have made the same argument. I would have established that marriage is a religious institution and then cited the separation of church and state...

I give arguments to Con. All others Tie.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
tBoonePickens
It already is.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I did in my first debate here, and on the one debate I forfeited dealing with the Mafia.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Have you ever given arguments to your opponent, mongeese?
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 7 years ago
spinnerclotho
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 7 years ago
Kahvan
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Thade 7 years ago
Thade
mongeeseFreemanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Pote 7 years ago
Pote
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
mongeeseFreemanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by kristoffersayshi 7 years ago
kristoffersayshi
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeeseFreemanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
mongeeseFreemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:07 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
mongeeseFreemanTied
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:32