The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 4 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,672 times Debate No: 21429
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

kenballer

Pro

In this debate, make sure you include in your argument the following:

1. Show how there is a right to same sex marriage and how traditional marriage laws violate the equal protection clause.
2. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it.
3. Show that gay marriage would benefit state interests.

Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time, if you want.

What is CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it:

"Sexual unions of male and female are unique: they alone can make new life, and when they do so will either connect (or disconnect) children from mothers and fathers [ to form a family unit]. It is this biological reality that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history.

This global consensus on marriage formed the foundation of our common law, animating the laws governing marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States. The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt."

Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married (man and woman) and the purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children). As a by-product, it provides a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, remarriage, step parenting, divorce, etc. can be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for kids or families as a result. Then, the law steps in to reinforce that meaning of marriage to simulate a part of reality for people.

Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives;
the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts.

"Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations.
With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood. "

References: Page 3,4,5,6,7
http://nomblog.com...............

In conclusion, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven or self-evident act and people will do it either by choice or on accident. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps in to establish family stability (Although, as a secondary effect, family structure does still play a role as well).

The state uses the institution of marriage, primarily, as an insurance policy, just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support.
The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children simply by obtaining a marriage license.

In addition, there is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. This means its warranted for the state to continue using the traditional notion of marriage to achieve that purpose.

Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com...............

Or google "Hewitt trial marriage": www.melbourneinstitute.com/.../cp/Hewitt_Trial_Marriage.pdf
Stephen_Hawkins

Con


Seeing as I have been challenged to this debate, without being told the rules, I shall create them now:

1 - There shall be an additional round in which my opponent and I do not post. This shall be in case someone has to forfeit a round. In the case of none being needed, none shall be used.
2 - The debate is "gay marriage should be illegal"; not a double-debate. Apart from that, there are no other constraints.
3 - We shall assume that all countries [should] abide by the UN declaration of human rights.

I shall address my opponent's points before furthering my own, but shall show the points as seperate clash points.



What is marriage and the purpose of it?

My opponent cites a quotation from...somewhere. I tried 'googling' it and working out the location, but the best I can come up with is a youtube source. If I assume this is part of the next source that appears, NOM, I think that NOM is wrong on this issue. They seem to have the idea that sexual unions are to create life. Well, I want to just show a simple table:

Married?

Not Married?

Having Sex / IVF treatment/ equivalent?

Can conceive children

Can conceive children

Not Having Sex / IVF treatment/ equivalent?

Cannot conceive children

Cannot conceive children


The fact is simple: People have children when they have sex. Unless my opponent is proposing some argument of storkism of some sort, where when you get married, and wish really hard, you get a child, then it is obvious that marriag does not 'make children'.

Also, my opponent cites some very patriotic American promoting arguments. I would feel like I needed to refute them, except for the fact that I am not American and I do not care. Proposition 8 could be reverting to the stoning of homosexuals, but no homosexuals in my country will be victim to your laws. However, if we look at the UN, the treaty of which all countries [should] follow, article two states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. (1)
When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)

It is clear that international laws dictate clearly that both it is in coincidence with law, and it is wholeheartedly promoted. In fact, it is an offence to not grant Same Sex Marriage.

Also, I'd like to refer to a source: my opponent's source, smartmarriage, is an ironic one: the source supports my case that marriage is based on love, not procreation. I thank my opponent for doing my work for me: "The way we
have it set up now a couple gets married and we send them out there to win based on "love and commitment."" which shows how empirical sources trust love over procreation. And let's be honest: wanting children is a terrible reason to get married. All it leads to is unhappiness, and getting into a relationship that you don't want, and cannot get out of easily. It's even worse when you believe marriage is a commitment to God: you've just got married into a loveless relationship, where you have to stay together because of the promise to God. But if you are happy, and want to get married out of love and respect for your partner, I cannot say that you can't.

Also, Sheri and Bob Stritof, happily married for 48 years and major contributors to about.com's marriage section,[2] write about what makes a good marriage. I have yet to find an article which says desire for children is a strong basis, but a fair few saying it is not.

What about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children!

But my opponent('s source) brought forth an interesting point. "marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt." I wholly agree with the beginning and end, that is, it should read "marriaeg provides a mean to help society ... so that children do not get hurt". It should be to help the children, so that leads into my second clash point.

Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. In fact, the very few studies that do contradict this claim are from the Family Research Institute, or the FRI. I can only say about them what the CPA (Canadian Psychologist Association) has said: The FRI "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism". Or the ASA go into much more depth:

"It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron's writings that his claims
have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda.
Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the
subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work."


Also, I would like to 'steal' my final argument from Bluesteel, simply due to the brilliance of his point:

"The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim.

After all, it is quite a simple one to do: get the 84,000 homosexual couples living in California[8], reduce it by, say, 50% for those who won't get married. Then, separately, work out the average married person's money return every year based on marriage tax returns, and divide it by 2 to make it per couple, then multiply it by 3 to compare it to the 349 million dollar cost that the study states. That would provide the comparison. I would very like my opponent to do this if he uses this argument.

In conclusion, there is no reason to ban homosexual marriage. My opponent's case rests on the idea that marriage is based on pro-creation, but his 'proof' comes in the form of bloggers. I present my arguments which state that marriage is about love, then marriage promotes the health and lives of children, and finally that the banning of marriage is a financial burden. I shall create more arguments next round, in order to strengthen my case.

1 - http://www.un.org...
2 - http://marriage.about.com...
3 - http://www.livescience.com...
4 - http://www.time.com...
5 - http://www.tandfonline.com...
6 - Careful with that Gun: Lee, George, Wax, and Geach on Gay Rights and Same-Sex Marriage - pages 4 to 5.
7 - http://www.debate.org...;
8 - http://online.wsj.com...;
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

1."People have children when they have sex. Unless my opponent is proposing some argument of storkism of some sort, where when you get married, and wish really hard, you get a child, then it is obvious that marriag does not 'make children'. "

Either CON is deliberately strawmanning my argument or he failed to understand my argument because he did not CAREFULLY read my first response. I NEVER said that marriage is for making children or encouraging procreation. My argument was that marriage is the regulation of procreation , which means its there to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear children within a socially and legally recognized situation. I explained how the concept of marriage regulates adult choices and provided evidence in the form of studies showing that this concept does encourage people to have successful marriages.

2."When we bear article two in mind, and view article 16:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation ... have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (1)"

Well first off, Article 2 of the UN Declaration does not mention sexual orientation. Secondly, CON is putting Article 16 out of context. Here is what he left out:

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Article 16
1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

3.The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "

(If you noticed, In article 16, it never said without any limitation due to GENDER or the ARTIFICIAL family.)

From the European court of charter of human rights in 2010:

"Seven judges at the European court ruled unanimously that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention. "

(This European Union of Charter of human rights, along with the United States and the UK where CON lives, originated from English common law which defines marriage between a man and a woman)

The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson regarding same sex marriage in 1972:

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend."

Therefore, it is clear that international laws (or U.S.) do not include same sex marriage and there is no right to it.

3." let's be honest: wanting children is a terrible reason to get married. All it leads to is unhappiness, and getting into a relationship that you don't want, and cannot get out of easily. It's even worse when you believe marriage is a commitment to God: you've just got married into a loveless relationship, where you have to stay together because of the promise to God. But if you are happy, and want to get married out of love and respect for your partner, I cannot say that you can't. "

There are a number of problems with the love hypothesis marriage view. Here CON asserts what the definition of marriage is that includes same sex couples but he does not explain on an empirical level where that definition came from. CON never explains why the state would marriage there you never explain how including same sex couples into the definition would strengthen the bond and love between heterosexuals in marriages, which would create a better environment for children.

Not to mention, if empiricism is an important element as well according to you, then where is the body of law that mentions how this is an actual state interest. This quote is from Bertrand Russell :

"But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex.....

...it is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."

Moreover, The revisionist view of marriage is overinclusive and still somewhat underinclusive. Douglas Allen , in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws" said it best :

"Many people love one another in both sacrificial and sexual ways (for example, cohabitants, polygamists, homosexuals), but are not married. At the same time, there are loveless marriages in which love, though once present, no longer exists, and arranged marriages in which love is not present at the beginning. Historically, love played almost no role in marriage; matches were arranged between kinship groups. (24) Ultimately, however, theories of marriage must be tested empirically. As this Article argues, at least in the context of nofault divorce laws, evidence does not support the love-based marriage hypothesis."

4."The gay marriage ban costs California $1 billion every 6 years. Marriage is a big industry that stimulates businesses (bakeries, photographers, DJ's, etc) in the state and generates tax revenue. $1 billion is a lot in California. Cutting $1 billion from the University of California's budget is ultimately what forced them to triple student fees over the last 10 years"[7]. I'd also like to state, in case my opponent uses the same rebuttal that he uses against bluesteel, that, if my opponent wishes to claim that " Including same sex couples into the legal definition of marriage would increase the tax burden", I would like to see the mathematics behind this claim. "

CON forgot to mention the other part of my rebuttal I made to another opponent. Even if experts could show that the economy boost would overcome the social security survivor benefits tax burden and ultimately help the country in the end, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. We don't know how many many same sex couples would get married, have weddings, buy this/buy that , etc. when/ if the opportunity arises. Its entirely unknown. However, the specific governmental budgetary impact would be almost guaranteed in terms social security, so there is no need to bring up the numbers on this . At best, it is a zero-sum argument that cancels itself out making it a non-argument.

5."Many studies show[3] that[4] homosexual[5] parents are either equal to or stronger than heterosexual marriage. In fact, the very few studies that do contradict this claim are from the Family Research Institute, or the FRI."

I find it interesting how CON mentions that same sex parents are superior to heterosexual married parents to argue why they should have legal marriage. However, at the same time, their children and relationship is suffering from not having access to marriage and the benefits that come with it compared to heterosexual married parents. If they are doing just fine without it, then what's the problem? I like to call this fallacy a "Reductio ad absurdum" where the argument ultimately obliterates itself .

The fact is vast majority of gay families do not have the status of marriage or the benefits for that matter and are doing just fine. CON admitted this with his studies showing how gay families who are mostly without the protection of marriage are just as healthy as heterosexual married parents.

In conclusion, My opponent's case rests on the misrepresentation of my argument or strawmanning of it and my proof based not on bloggers but U.S. and international laws. CON did not fully demonstrate how CIVIL marriage is just about love, he obliterated his own argument about the gay parent studies, and finally that the banning of marriage is a financial burden. I will fully explain how its 100% justified to uphold only Natural marriage , in order to strengthen my case.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Procreation

My opponent claims that his source he never said that marriage is for child-rearing, but is instrad for regulated childrearing. His source he says that marriage is "responsible procreation and rearing of children", however. He also said "[sexual union to produce new life] that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history". The difference between regulated child-rearing and child-rearing is also quite strange: with the knowledge of not just IVF, but also adoption, this leads us to the next question:

The children

If my opponent has changed his stance to becoming the legal protection of children, then I wish to point create a simple syllogism:

P1 - The purpose of marriage is "to...rear children within a socially and legally recognized situation" where rear means "to take care of and support up to maturity". (disputed)
P2 - Homosexual couples can do this just as well, if not better, than others.
P3 - Many children, such as those in orphanages, would be better in a loving home.
P4 - Some homosexual couples want children
C1 - If some homosexual couples want children, and they have a happy home to bring the child up in, then they should be allowed to take care of the children.
C2 - If marriage is to "rear children", and homosexual couples want to do this, then they should be allowed to get married.

Breadown:

P1 is something my opponent argues is true, so it is a given. P2 is shown by many sources (see round 1) and is undisputed by my opponent. P3 is a given[1], P4 is a given, and so the rest of it seems to logically flow.

Furthermore, my opponent says "they are doing fine without it", pointing to the idea that if they are doing equally well without marriage, then they do not need it. Well, let's think about this. If marriage consistently makes child-rearing better, which my opponent affirms, then it does not matter how well they are doing now, as long as it is not abysmal, then it can only be a good thing that they get married.

Finally, if we wish to help children, we should allow SSM couples to rear children. But if marriage is to rear children, then SSM couples should be allowed to get married.

International Law

Before anything, I wish to point out my opponent has not questioned the authority of the UN, so the UN as an authority stands.

My opponent claims "the UN Declaration does not mention sexual orientation". let me just check... oh yes! Without any limitation means without any limitation. If you're limiting it for "race, colour, sex, language, religion...or any other status" of any kind, you are in breach of Article 2 of the universal declaration of human rights[2].

The context of the limitations are irrelevant, due to the important part was "Men and women of full age...have the right to marry and to found a family". When we then add in Article two: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...", then it becomes clear what the appropriate solution is. Furthermore, I wish to point out the second half of Article 2:

"Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

This law, the one used to condemn and punish those in Nazi Germany for war crimes, is one that is essential to evaluation of the arguments. If we agree that without any limitation means any limitation,then the conclusion is obvious.

Other Courts

I do not accept their authority. The US system, as I've previously stated, is not affecting myself, and I do not accept the ECHR on three grounds:

1) Fairness. If I do not accept authorities that do not effect me, then you should not have to accept authorities that effect you.
2) The EU's ECHR has, in my eyes, misinterpreted Article 12, which states: "Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right". Men and women means all people, men and women, not men to women.
3) I would not be accepting their authority: I'd be accepting their interpretation. I could equally throw out a few dozen judges and officials who agree with me: but arguments from authority aren't strong ones.

Also, if we were going to use other courts, I would point to this month (Feb 7) where the courts stated that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Again.

Financial Cost

"the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and prediction". So is all attempts to work out the amount of money in any system, or any per year cost analysis. That doesn't change it from happening. You know the public deficit? That includes educated speculation and reliable. The valuation of an industry? Speculation and reliable. The valuation of legalising homosexual union? Education prediction and reliable.

Also, my opponent's rebuttal is that "We don't know how many many same sex couples would get married". What's the equilibrium then? If we know that 84,400 couples are homosexual, how many would need to get married in order to actually cost the state more than the money it brings in?

But let's try and calculate it now I have the wordcount. First: work out the average savings. Congressional Budget Office[4] states that 51% of couples save on average $1300 dollars a year, while 42% lose on average $1380. so 1300x51% - 1380x42% will give the average savings. This makes 633 - 579.6, or average 53.4 dollars saved per couple per year. triple it, that's 160 dollars a couple, every three years. Now, how many couples would need to get married to make this cost above that of the 349 million?

349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money.

All we need is love, love love.

I don't think my opponent understands empiricism. A source, such as smartmarriage, stating how they empirically run tests on what makes a strong marriage and compiles them into published papers? Empirical, and promote SSM. A quote by a philosopher who was an empiricist? No, that's opinion. Also, that quotation is regarding how children should have a normal family life, which I'd agree with, just not to his level of conclusion. Russell stayed with his infidelous wife because of the children, and their deserving of a family life.

Furthermore, Allen in his paper misses the point. If divorce is easy-access, and SSM marriage is legalised, marriage becomes based on love, not historical pro-creation[7]. This relates to the point of love. Historically, maybe marriage was for children, but my opponent is yet to cite his own argument against SSM. If my opponent wishes me to argue with Allen, then I am sorry but I shall not: the debate is between me and him, not third parties.

In conclusion, the love hypothesis remains strong, seeing as the only counterargument is one that promotes child rearing. My opponent has cited other people's opinions on the issues repeatedly, evident from his argument in R1 being mostly quotation and R2 being more of the same, although uncited. Finally, he has tried to dodge the financial argument in a veil of agnosticism, yet somehow claiming uncited that SSM is a financial burden.

1 - http://international.adoption.com...;
2 - http://www.udhr.org...;
3 - http://articles.latimes.com...
4 - http://money.msn.com...
5 - http://www.law.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

1. GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL

First, let me make something very clear to the audience before I start. These arguments against same sex marriage are ACCUMULATIVE. Not one argument should be evaluated on its own merits. They are pieces of related arguments that, when put together, become one big reason to not allow gay marriage.

Second, this is not a family structure argument or about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family STABILITY. There is a difference. Family structure is about how the child is raised by the parents (stepparent, cohabit parents, etc). Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience and, thus, its about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children in a legally and socially recognized situation (i.e. stable environment called marriage).

Now, when I say this , I am not saying the family structure is not important for the child or is not part of the state interest because it is part of it. I am just saying that its not the argument I am promoting or conveying in this debate. So make sure when you read my arguments that you program your mind to think in the context of family stability NOT family structure.

CIVIL marriage:

The state uses the institution of marriage as an insurance policy; just in case a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice WITHOUT legal and social support.
The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children just by obtaining a marriage license. In addition, there is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory in terms of the selection process:
google "Hewitt trial marriage"

Marriage:

Since the name and meaning of it is the institution, a explanation as to why the state allows the infertile and others to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself.

Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate.

Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous.

"How exactly, in more precise terms, does same sex marriage interfere with the state's purpose in marriage"

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated.

This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general.

Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process.

"Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage"

Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as previously explained, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible.

Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.

The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and its comparisons to no-fault divorce, in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws".

Children of gay parents

2. "P1 is something my opponent argues is true, so it is a given. P2 is shown by many sources (see round 1) and is undisputed by my opponent. P3 is a given[1], P4 is a given, and so the rest of it seems to logically flow."

Furthermore, A different name, (like civil unions) would be reasonable in order to continue advancing the state's interest of publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

Financial Cost

3. "the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and prediction". So is all attempts to work out the amount of money in any system, or any per year cost analysis. That doesn't change it from happening. You know the public deficit? That includes educated speculation and reliable."

CON again misunderstood what I said. What I was actually trying to say is that because We don't know how many same sex couples would get married, divorce, have weddings, buy this/buy that , etc. (or when) if the opportunity arises, Its entirely unknown. Therefore, the overall economic impact of same sex marriage is pure speculation and predictions. Besides, you don't need to redefine marriage to get the kind of economic impact CON speaks of. Civil unions will do just fine, so he has only been able to argue for civil unions NOT gay marriage: http://www.cbo.gov...

Other Courts

4. " I do not accept the ECHR on three grounds:

1) Fairness. If I do not accept authorities that do not effect me, then you should not have to accept authorities that effect you."

CON is flat out wrong when he says that the ECHR does not affect him. CON is part of the United Kingdom which is directly influenced by the ECHR. Just read page 14: http://www.consilium.europa.eu...

5. International Law

CON continues to put the UN Declaration article 16 out of context:

1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "

NOT artificial family. Thus, Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children. Equality
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

As per the (unchallenged) rules in round 1, I'll post my argument next round and use up my free additional round here, as I cannot finish this round within the time limit, due to other commitments and debates.
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

Extending all arguments to the next round
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

"This is not...about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family stability" (emphasis removed).

Alright, accepted. I also accept my opponent's definition of family structure. However, my opponent states "thus, its about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children..." which I disagree. It is simply a way to show love and commitment between two people. It is not a "tool" or anything so pragmatically cold. It is a gesture, a way to show someone your love, not a "sign here" deal. If it is about stability though, and "not...about encouraging procreation and rearing of children", then my opponent should make this clear by not using the terms he said it is not about.

In addition, my opponent says it is not about "family structure". What falls under "family structure" if SSM does not? I would ask for an expansion and explanation of this point.

Marriage and the definition

There are only three points my opponent makes that I wish to address:

"The purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children)" and "the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without ... acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage" both imply that marriage is for encouraging procreation and rearing of children. Responsible or no, this contradicts my opponent's original claim.

In addition, my opponent ironically tells us to refer to the "Hewitt trial", which shows the state that does not recognise a "family relationship" (as the judge called it) which included procreation and rearing of children because there was no real marriage involved. Clearly, these two factors are therefore irrelevant.

Thirdly, my opponent claims, again, that it is not a marriage because they must be able to procreate. I refer my opponent to surrogate mothers[1] and adoption[2] are both ways for homosexuals to have children and rear them. Therefore, marriage can include SSM as it rears children and promotes stability of families. If my opponent still disagrees, then I would like a explanation why SSM does not promote family stability.

What happens to Marriage? The Gays will DESTROY it!

My opponent's argument is simply from tradition. Evolution of laws is a natural process, which happens because the state recognises people and society change, and changes with it. After all, the State represents the view of the people, and should be subject to them, not ignoring the people, in order to be democratic.
SSM USA Poll.

Multiple polls show that SSM is what the people want. It is democratically required to legalise SSM, in these locations at least, which refutes my opponent's argument if left unchallenged. If this is not clear enough, this is a turn argument.

In addition, my opponent states that "If the traditional notion of marriage...continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible."

I wholeheartedly agree. It reminds me of 1960s South Africa, where the conservative bloc in power argued that "if marriage is legalised for blacks, then what's to stop them legalising beastiality?" I contend that this is not a criticism except in its wording. I'd argue the acceptance of homosexual marriage leads to a more libertarian, tolerate society where we can promote progress, not limit it. Again, this is a turn argument.

The Financial Issue

I understand my opponent's problem: we do not know the opportunity cost exactly that results from the ban. But we can work out the "break even" point: where the cost of banning SSM is equal to the amount of benefit money saved. The equilibrium is "349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money."

International Law

Let me try and make this clearer than last time: in order to remain geographically objective, I shall not take into account any regional legal body for more than what it is: an opinion. The UN is an exception, because all but an extremely small number of countries abide to it, so it is the best standard for being geographically objective. All that I see the EU as is an opinion (albeit a loud one) on an issue. In addition, Parliament is legally sovereign, and has been called up over 50 times to the courts for breaking the treaty. We haven't budged an inch on the issues.

Also, my opponent claims that I am taking it out of context. I contend my opponent is. I refer, for the third time, to Article two:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

When this is taken into account, and we notice:

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Then unless my opponent contends that sexual orientation is not a status or opinion, then my argument is sound.

The value of nature

My opponent finally makes a statement regarding nature of humankind and society. In the words of Hobbes, the natural human life is "brutish, nasty and short". With artificial medicine, life is longer. With artificial superficial goods and desires, life is not nasty. And with desire, enjoyment, and pleasures being fulfilled through artificial means, life is happy. Nature is not a de re good thing. In fact, many times, the natural option is poor. In addition, my opponent has not backed up the idea that "family" does not include SSM, but further has accepted my definition accepting SSM in families previously.

In conclusion, I wish my oppont luck and request that he cite his argument. In addition, I remind my opponent that the next round is the final one, and that no new arguments should be made, as per fair conduct.

1 - http://www.gaysurrogacyagency.com...
2 - http://www.newfamilysocial.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
kenballer

Pro

1. "my opponent says it is not about "family structure". What falls under "family structure" if SSM does not? I would ask for an expansion and explanation of this point."

I explained the difference between them already. These are the two means for which the state uses to ensure the well being of children: family stability and family structure

Family structure argument is about encouraging procreation and rearing of children within the optimal partnership. The responsible procreation theory or family stability is about encouraging couples to procreate and rear children within a marriage.

I am specifically promoting the family stability argument in this debate.

2. "my opponent claims, again, that it is not a marriage because they must be able to procreate. I refer my opponent to surrogate mothers[1] and adoption[2] are both ways for homosexuals to have children and rear them. Therefore, marriage can include SSM as it rears children and promotes stability of families. If my opponent still disagrees, then I would like a explanation why SSM does not promote family stability.

I have explained this already. I agree that recognizing same sex relationships would maximize the state's intention to ensure the well-being of children in the form of CIVIL UNIONS with all the same benefits. However, CON has yet to explain how and why going a step further to redefine marriage or same sex marriage is necessary and beneficial. Again, CON needs to explain how on earth same sex marriage promotes family stability when he is arguing that marriage is not about family but promoting the love hypothesis view of marriage. On the other hand, I explained exactly how and why redefining marriage would not only be harmful but interfere with the state's objectives. I will AGAIN explain how SSM does not promote "family" let alone family stability:

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated.

This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general.

Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process.

3."I wholeheartedly agree. It reminds me of 1960s South Africa, where the conservative bloc in power argued that "if marriage is legalised for blacks, then what's to stop them legalising beastiality?" I contend that this is not a criticism except in its wording. I'd argue the acceptance of homosexual marriage leads to a more libertarian, tolerate society where we can promote progress, not limit it. "

CON agrees with my argument that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road because the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest.

The Financial Issue

4. "I understand my opponent's problem: we do not know the opportunity cost exactly that results from the ban. But we can work out the "break even" point: where the cost of banning SSM is equal to the amount of benefit money saved. The equilibrium is "349 million divided by 160... a couple million? That's what, all of the American LGBT community getting married? The financial argument strengthens my case: in these rough economic times, when we need to scrimp and save, we need to save money."

Again, CON misunderstood my argument, so I am going to allow WIKIpedia summarize it better:

Economic impact on the federal government

The 2004 Congressional Budget Office study, working from an ASSUMPTION "that about 0.6 percent of adults would enter into same-sex marriages if they had the opportunity" (an assumption in which they admitted "SIGNIFICANT UNCERTAINTY") estimated that legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the United States "would improve the budget's bottom line to a SMALL extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years". This result reflects an increase in net government revenues (increased income taxes due to marriage penalties more than offsetting decreased tax revenues arising from postponed estate taxes). Marriage recognition would increase the government expenses for Social Security and Federal Employee Health Benefits but that increase would be more than made up for by decreased expenses for Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income.[94]
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In addition, CON has yet to explain how and why going a step further to redefine marriage is necessary when Civil unions can potentially produce the same effect. He needs to explain why civil unions is not a viable alternative.

International Law

5. "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

Again, CON is supposed to argue and explain why CIVIL marriage is about promoting love first and foremost not family. If CON is going to continue arguing that marriage is about family first, then it would argue against the notion that gay and lesbians are being discriminated in the first place. This is because Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children. Thus, they have equal rights to marriage unlike to blacks and Jews when they were actually being segregated based on their status, and prohibited from procreation and rearing of children within a marriage. The natural way of doing it, which is what the UN Declaration specifically is referring to in Article 16 on the third line:

Article 16:

1.Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a FAMILY. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

3.The FAMILY is the NATURAL and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. "

Therefore, CON is going to have to explain how gays are being discriminated in the first place when I just explained how they are not.
In addition, sexual orientation is not considered a status in every country either.
Stephen_Hawkins

Con

Civil Union definition

My opponent defines civil union in a way that I cannot possibly refute. He defines it to mean the exact practical & legal definiton as marriage. He states that Civil Union has the same definition as marriage (stating it will have "same benefits" as marriage, with "no difference"). In fact, the definition of Civil Marriage is: "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to those of marriage"[1]. However, my opponent wishes to replace "with rights similar" to "with rights the same as". This makes the definition "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple", with union meaning the same thing as marriage[2] sans opposite sex.

In short, my opponent has simply attempted to define civil union and marriage into a position which is impossible to refute, regardless of arguments.

Marriage

I feel my opponent is flogging a dead horse with marriage being intwined with procreation. I have stated repeatedly that I disagree, and repeatedly that I would like some reason to believe this to be true. Sadly, my opponent has not done so. Maybe to some marriage is intwined with procreation, I accept that. But the opinion of the minority does not outweight that of the majority on politial issues. I provided multiple sources last round that it would be in favour of democracy if we legalised SSM. Sadly, my opponent dropped this argument. My opponent, in addition, argued that marriage would "harm their own family and society in general". Again, this is an unsubstantiated claim, and I disagree. Again, my opponent makes an ubsubstantiated claim about the 'nuclear family'. Again, I disagree. Times change, we need to change with them. It's just a part of modernising our values with our new knowledge: just a part of the betterment of society.

The 'bigotry' of SSM

My opponent states that I 'concede' the argument that it would change the definition of marriage, and view marriage as bigotry. Again, in the 1960s, marriage was seen as white-white only. This view is blatantly seen as bigotry now by the vast majority of people. I feel that promoting only man-woman marriage will fall into the category of white-white marriage if we legalise it. And I think that it is a good thing, not a bad. My opponent, in short, has not made an arguement here.

Scrimping and Saving

My opponent concedes that it would save money to legalise marriage. It would save a more than 100 million dollars in california alone by my source, and by his it would save a billion (both per year) for the country. I'm not sure of the criticism to be quite blunt. I feel this is a concession that it would save money, and therefore it should be legalised. Maybe it is a 'minor' amount of money, but this improvement of efficiency is greatly beneficial. In addition, his source is from '97 (the citation linking from wikipedia): it is incredibly likely that the facts have changed over time, and more likely than not nearer my favour (as my sources being both more modern and promoting my argument more strongly).
International Law

My opponent states that "sexual orientation is not considered a status in every country either", to which I refer him article 2 (which he has failed to address) "no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

Furthermore, the UN Declaration was set up to be able to legally punish the nazis for war crimes (as they broke no laws at the end of WW2 because of the holocaust being legal in germany). The entire basis of its existence is to criticise countries where something "is not considered a status in [a] country".

Miscellanious and terrible spelling of the word missileanymoose

"Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children". I contend that homosexuals can do so without: a surrogate, or adoption, allow the rearing of children with great ease.

Arguments dropped by my opponent include the libertarian argument in R4 (clearly stated as "a turn argument") and the democracy argument in R4 (also stated as "a turn argument").

My opponent repeatedly flip-flopped on the definition of marriage, and has attempted to define civil union to make the debate fruitless. In addition, he had ignored my asking for reasoning behind the definition of marriage. By the end of the debate, my opponent's only argument which harms my case (his only remaining offensive argument), the argument that it would weaken the institute of marriage, is based on unsubstantiated claims of what marriage is, while I continue with the offensive arguments:

SSM promotes democracy, SSM promotes financial wellbeing of the state, SSM promotes children's wellbeing (see R2), SSM is recognised and promoted as per international law.

Finally, I wish to point out the resolution holds an "or" in the title. This means that I have had to prove either "Marriage should be redefined" or "gay marriage should be illegal" to be false. I have focused on the second, not the first, debate issue.

In light of these points, I thank my opponent for debating with me on this issue, but urge a vote CON.



1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
2 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Personally, I don't like sources for definitions, but the comment was more rhetorical, and the symmetry has gone anyway... thanks.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
source RFD:

CON had many more sources from highly credible sites. UN.org, wsj, time.com, all great sources that are very credible. Pro used nomblog? wtf is that? CON also had Harvard, msn, and other great sources. Con had many more (did I say that?) CON went all out with sources, as even his dictionary sources where highly credible from the oldest dictionary oxford.

^ Good bad?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
sources... let me look then RFD it.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
16kadams, no source points? I thought the symmetry would have been nice...
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
hope I was thorough.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro mainly focused on a secular case but seemed not to press the procreation argument to its full effect. Con refuted this by proving gays can raise children too, so based off of pros arguments gays should be allowed to marry. Pro misworded and said marriage made children. He should have said the state wants marriage to create children, but he didn't. His argument had the potential to win the debate but he never used it to that effect. CON easily refuted the arguments presented by PRO.

CON had a very diverse case ranging from spending and popular support. Although I disagree the spending aspect, he kept the argument running. He also showed its popular support (weak argument but still stood). He then painted marriage as a right and won the argument, although one could have easily refuted this as there is a right to marriage, but if marriage is defined as a man and a woman then there is no discrimination, but he didn't.

CON refuted the majority of the case presented by PRO and PRO never refuted the entire case by CON.

Conduct as pity points mostly and a temporary FF. Mostly pity points.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I only debate 3 round debates, or four round debates with first round acceptance / definitions.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
kenballerStephen_HawkinsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument for civil unions was not well refuted by Con. But this debate was not about civil unions. It was about marriage. And every argument about gay marriage itself went in Con's favor. Con shows that gay marriage would promote equality and democracy, produce revenue for the state, as well as promoting family values and children's wellbeing. Arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
kenballerStephen_HawkinsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: comments
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
kenballerStephen_HawkinsTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had a very good point in his argument but as he said, " These arguments against same sex marriage are ACCUMULATIVE. Not one argument should be evaluated on its own merits." I have to chose who had total more convincing arguments, and that I believe goes to the Con who sounded very convincing to me. Sources go to the con too, conduct to the Pro for the missed round. Cool debate
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
kenballerStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for forfeting round 3. Arguments go to stepen, as he provided a lot sources to back up his arguments, with spectacular organization skills, and illustrious points. Children Arguments was structured well and proved it's point. Given the flexibility through the use of the word "OR" Con succesfully upholds his burden of refutation throughout the debate. Good job to both debaters!