The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sexal orientation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,181 times Debate No: 14901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

socialpinko

Pro

My argument as pro will be that anyone of age should be allowed to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Marriage: the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities

Sexual orientation: the clear, persistent desire of a person for affiliation with one sex rather than the other

My argument will go as follows:
-Not allowing two people to marry each other solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination and is inherently wrong, just as it it wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.
-Marriage is about two people making a commitment to each other and not about what their sexual preference is or whether or not they want to have kids.
-Marriage provides a more stable environment for couples who do choose to raise children.
-Marriage is a civil right for consenting adults that is taken for granted everyday by straight couples.
-Prohibition of marriage based on sexual orientation is the same thing as the laws passed before that prohibited interracial marriage.
XStrikeX

Con

Thank you, socialpinko, for starting this debate.
I will be negating the resolution, "Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, regardless of sex[u]al orientation."
I would like to limit this debate to correspond only for the United States and I would like to set the age of consent to 17 because it is the average age for most US states.

Refutations

First of all, as the resolution is titled, "...regardless of sex[u]al orientation," all arguments my opponent has about sexual orientation can be ignored. This includes contentions #1 and #5.

After a quick scan of your arguments, I realize that these are only statements and that this is solely the opening round. So, I ask you, my opponent, to expand on these in Round 2 so that I may more effectively refute them.
I will present my refutations and arguments in Round 2, as well.

That's it for this short round. Hope to hear back soon.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

I accept your terms that we only debate about marriage in the United States and the age o consent be 17.

My resolution says that anyone of age should be able to be married regardless of sexual orientation. So there is no reason why arguments 1 and 5 should be thrown out. My resolution states that sexual orientation should not come into the equation. However, this clearly happens so it is only natural that I should argue against it.

I will begin with a definition of marriage.
Marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.
http://marriage.about.com...
I propose that the definition of marriage does not include specifications on the sex of the individuals partaking. Marriage is about two people that want to legally bind themselves together. It does not matter if there is one guy and one girl or two guys or two girls. Marriage is about love and commitment and not sexual orientation.

Not allowing two people to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. I may use this argument because my resolution is that sexual orientation should not factor in the decision to allow two individuals to marry. It however is and I am arguing against it. No one will argue that discrimination is not wrong. laws have been passed that protect people form being discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation. You cannot be prohibited from marrying because you are black or asian, so why is it okay to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference when it comes to marriage?

Marriage binds two individuals together both economically and legally. So to be married is to provide a more stable environment for any children that two individuals may care for. If two people have a kid but are not married, there is no laws deciding that one parent may see the child if the couple breaks up. Marriage brings the law into the matter thus making the lives of the couple and their child more stable in the process. There is no reason why a couple should be prohibited from having this kind of security.
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for the response.

Refutations

"My resolution says that anyone of age should be able to be married regardless of sexual orientation. So there is no reason why arguments 1 and 5 should be thrown out. My resolution states that sexual orientation should not come into the equation. However, this clearly happens so it is only natural that I should argue against it."

Alright, it's fine if you argue against it, but once again, as this debate does not include sexual orientation, it's not a valid argument for this particular conversation. This debate is specifically about age, not homosexuality. But, if it makes you feel better to vent your anger about sexual orientation, that's perfectly plausible, just not arguable.

"I will begin with a definition of marriage.
Marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally."

Please use one of the definitions you presented. I'm confused which one you would like to be the standard.

"Not allowing two people to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. I may use this argument because my resolution is that sexual orientation should not factor in the decision to allow two individuals to marry."

That's very good. I agree about homosexuality like you, but this is irrelevant.

"Marriage binds two individuals together both economically and legally. So to be married is to provide a more stable environment for any children that two individuals may care for. If two people have a kid but are not married, there is no laws deciding that one parent may see the child if the couple breaks up. Marriage brings the law into the matter thus making the lives of the couple and their child more stable in the process. There is no reason why a couple should be prohibited from having this kind of security."

Here is a valid argument.
However, by examining the resolution thoroughly, especially the "age" part, one can find the flaw.
How can people under 17 ears of age be in good economic stability? No one can get sustainable jobs, and if they decide to have a child, it's even tougher. The economic portion has been refuted.
Concerning the legal issues...
What's wrong with the lacking of a specific law? There is no security involved. Marriage is collapsible, and that's not going to change by giving someone the right to marry under 17. And that leads into my arguments.

Arguments

I know it's relatively abnormal for the Opposition to bring in points, but I want my opponent to refute this.

1. Younger relationships are fickle and often fallible. Many kids go through several boy/girlfriends until they meet that "special someone." When in adulthood, it's easier to find the person you want to be with your whole life. But through childhood, personalities of people often change, especially through adolescence, and you might just find yourself not liking your fiancee. The problem with this is that if younger kids begin to marry and discover their hatred for each other, they have to go through the legal system. They have to go through courts to get that divorce and be separated from their loved one. This clogs our court systems and wastes valuable time.

2. Marriage increases the chance of having a child. By feeling you are bonded to someone, the natural urge emerges. But people who are younger than 17, or even some number older, are not economically secure. They don't have a stable income. They don't make much money. And certainly, with a kid, both parents are going to have to work much harder. But one of the parents has to take care of the child. Therefore, you have one, young person with little job experience trying to raise a family. It's extremely difficult and would force many people into debt. It is not economically stable, and we should not encourage marriage.

I await the response.
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

socialpinko forfeited this round.
XStrikeX

Con

How unfortunate my opponent forfeited for this round.
Extend arguments and refutations.
Hopefully, you will respond soon.
Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

"this debate does not include sexual orientation" If you would read the resolution it says, "Marriage should be legalized for anyone of age, REGARDLESS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION". That is to say that as long as someone meets the legal age requirement, they should be allowed to marry. The main point of my resolution is that sexual orientation should not be taken into account when a couple applies for marriage. This happens. My resolution is against these occurences so it is natural that I should argue against them. Just like if a debate was that god does not exist, my argument would clearly be against all arguments that say that he does exist. My argument is that if a person fulfills the age requirement, 17 as you stated they should be allowed to marry my major point is against sexual discrimination. It is in my resolution.

"This debate is specifically about age, not homosexuality. But, if it makes you feel better to vent your anger about sexual orientation, that's perfectly plausible, just not arguable." It is not specifically about age it is specifically about sexual discrimination. You put emphasis on the wrong part. I'm not venting out of anger, I am trying to have a debate against sexual discrimination. My resolution mentions age but only as the qualifier for marriage. The main point is that people who are of age should be allowed to marry without sexual orientation coming into the equation.

I'm sorry if I provided more than one definition of marriage. Consider this my official definition.
Marriage: a social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically and emotionally.

"Not allowing two people to marry on the basis of their sexual orientation is discrimination. I may use this argument because my resolution is that sexual orientation should not factor in the decision to allow two individuals to marry." As I have already shown my argument is against sexual discrimination. Age is not my main point. Therefore this statement is relevant.

"Marriage binds two individuals together both economically and legally. So to be married is to provide a more stable environment for any children that two individuals may care for. If two people have a kid but are not married, there is no laws deciding that one parent may see the child if the couple breaks up. Marriage brings the law into the matter thus making the lives of the couple and their child more stable in the process. There is no reason why a couple should be prohibited from having this kind of security."
Your refutation to this argument is age related and my resolution focuses on sexual discrimination.

Your two arguments all put an emphasis on age. And I am not arguing that anyone should be able to be married as I think you are arguing against. The main point of my argument is that people of age, 17, should be allowed to marry regardless of what their sexual orientation is. I am not trying to debate about age.

It is unfortunate that we went the entire debate without actually debating about my resolution. We just debated about where to put the emphasis on my resolution. I apologize if my language may have been unclear or vague. If you would like to debate my actual resolution as I have recently explained I would be glad to. Please answer in the next round.

Although this has pretty much been a pointless debate since I missed a round and we just argued about what the resolution meant, I wish you the best of luck in the voting period.
XStrikeX

Con

I now see what you meant in your resolution.
I took 'regardless' as 'without regard to' and believed that you meant it should have no place in this debate.
Next time, if you could make it more clear, this debate would have actually been debated.
Sexual orientation is basically 'gay marriage,' so it would have be clearer if you stated that.

Unfortunately, I feel the same way as you do about gay marriage, so I most likely will not debate you for this reason and also because I don't think I can put up a good Opposition fight. :P

Anyways, since it is the final round, I don't have much place to refute my opponent's points, and plus, I wasn't sure about the resolution. Therefore, it's up to the audience to vote... somehow.

Thank you, socialpinko and readers.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
If you read the debate, you'd know that I intended it to be on gay marriage, not pertaining specifically to age of consent.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
If you read the debate, you'd know that I intended it to be on gay marriage, not pertaining specifically to age of consent.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
What if the groom is 2 the bride is 45?
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
Sorry that I couldn't post my argument for round three. I was actually really busy.
No votes have been placed for this debate.