The Instigator
MysticEgg
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
NJPatriot
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points

Outside of religion, are there any arguments to ban gay marriage/civil unions?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
NJPatriot
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,958 times Debate No: 36025
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

MysticEgg

Con

The topic of gay marriage has been hotly debated. It is the latest flair after rights for women and black people. Now it's rights for homosexuals (gays). This is often argued with religion. Therefore, I have decided to invoke this debate specifically designed to exclude religion from the equation. Thus:
Outside of religion, are there any arguments to ban gay marriage/civil unions?
If we conclude no, then surely we can say strongly that religion is the main cause of opposition? but that is another matter. The first round is not acceptance; just jump right in!

Throw up any arguments you find to be logical. (Logical to deny gays rights and thus make humanity divided in equality.) Allez!
NJPatriot

Pro

I accept this debate. I will preface my main argument by saying that I am supportive of gay marriage and the rights of homosexuals; however, the opposing side to this issue is not solely based in religion. Opponents of gay marriage have made the following secular arguments:

Contention 1: The federal government does not have the right to marry any individuals, gay or straight.

The tenth amendment states the following,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As such, the federal government has no ability to recognize the institution of marriage. This includes the recognition of homosexual marriage or civil unions. Any marriage benefits provided to heterosexual couples are unconstitutional and as such should not be recognized by the federal government.

Contention 2: If homosexual marriage is permitted, the government will be forced to provide benefits to new marriages, putting a further strain on government spending.

Assuming that the current system of benefits provided to married couples remains the same despite Contention 1, it is an undeniable fact that extending marriage to homosexuals will force the government to increase spending. According to Human Rights Campaign.org, the following benefits will be extended to married homosexuals:

1) Social Security Benefits for the Family
2) Tax Breaks
3) Employer Provided Health Benefits
4) Recognition of Homosexual Couples under Immigration Law [1]

Regardless of your feelings of whether this is a human rights issue, it is undeniable that providing these benefits to thousands of new couples will provide an added strain on our entitlement system. "The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Dec. 17, 2009 that extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would cost the federal government $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019." [2] [3]

Contention 3: Legalizing same-sex marriage will provide justification for other types of marriage such as incestual, polygamous, and bestial marriages. [4]

The justification for homosexual marriage is that it is a civil right because homosexual couples love each other. I contend that the purpose of marriage is simply for pro-creation - nothing more. The same justification can then be used to justify incestual,polygamous, and beastial marriages, all of which, if legalized, will provide a further strain on our economic system.

I would like to remind the voters that this is not a debate as to whether marriage should be legalized or extended to homosexuals, but that there exists logical arguments against homosexual marriage that are found not within the context of religion. If you find any of these three contentions a logical concern, not matter how minor, I have fufilled my burden of proof.

Sources:

1: http://www.hrc.org...
2: http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
3: http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
4: http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Debate Round No. 1
MysticEgg

Con

Thank you to Pro "NJPatriot" for his arguments and his reminder to the voters.

I will now make the following refute(s):
For number one, while I agree with it, the majority of gays aren't American and this argument works for, and only for, the USA. I realise that I didn't say "excluding laws in specific countries" such as the tenth amendment but I would appreciate it if we treat it as such.

The second argument also is issued to the US government only; but I will admit this will apply to many other countries as well. I do not deny this fact but I urge my opponent to note the debate topic. This is referring to countries and states that have gay marriage/civil union as legal and trying to find any arguments to make it illegal - without religion. The second argument is trying to counter making gay marriage legal, almost the opposite of this debate. If you would like to re-phrase for later rounds, I will happily address them then.

The third argument follows much the same way but I invite my opponent to re-phrase as to make it appropriate to the debate topic.

I await the response and next proposal. I also urge my opponent to make his arguments fit the debate topic. I stress, this is about making gay marriage/civil unions illegal outside of religion; not making it legal.

Another thank you to "NJPatriot" for accepting this topic! I await your response!
NJPatriot

Pro

Before I continue my contentions, I would like to clarify that there had been confusion as to whether this debate was about keeping gay marriage illegal in some countries, such as the United States, or outright banning it in general outside of religious context. Considering the shift in the focus of the debate, I will revise my two of my three contentions, although these two contentions will still follow the same general principles of the first round. Keep in mind that if you find either of these two contentions grounded in logic - no matter how minor - you should vote Pro as I have fufilled my burden of proof.

Contention 1: The federal government does not have the right to marry any individuals, gay or straight.

I am going to concede this point, as my opponent has asked that we limit the debate to simply arguments in favor of outright banning gay marriage universally. As such, this contention would not apply in this context.

Contention 2: Keeping homosexual marriage banned provides increased revenue for the government by not having to provide economic benefits such as tax breaks and social services.

As mentioned in Round 2, the following benefits would not have to be provided by the government of the United States:

1) Social Security Benefits for the Family
2) Tax Breaks
3) Employer Provided Health Benefits
4) Recognition of Homosexual Couples under Immigration Law [1]

This reduces the strain of entitlement spending on behalf of the government of the United States. But economic benefits in banning gay marriage exist throughout the globe as well. For example, the UK's inheritance tax would not apply to homosexual couples if gay marriage is banned. This would allow for the government to collect more taxes from gay couples that are living together, as they would be unable to transfer inheritance onto their spouse. Additionally, homosexual couples would be unable to legally transfer ownership of assets and personal wealth to each other, which would allow for increased government revenue through higher tax rates for capital gains tax and income tax. [2]

Contention 3: Banning gay marriage prevents future arguments as to the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages.

Marriage has been defined by gay rights activists as an attack on their civil liberties. However, marriage is purely an economic benefit provided to couples that are living together - if this debate was truly about love, who cares whether or not your marriage is recognized by a third party?

As demonstrated in Contention 2, there are great economic benefits to the governments of the world in keeping marriage for homosexuals illegal. Keeping marriage banned as much as possible provides a greater benefit to the financial stability of a country. The justification used to allow homosexual marriage (by making it a civil liberty instead of a tax break), will provide justification for more types of marriage such as incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages. This of course will lead to future economic strain as tax breaks would have to be provided to homosexuals as well as people in other types of relationships.

Debate Round No. 2
MysticEgg

Con

To clarify for voters and for my opponent; this debate is:
In countries that have gay marriage/civil union legal or undecided/indifferent, are there any arguments that follow logic (not religion or religious commands) that indicate that making gay marriage/civil unions illegal is the most logical thing to do. (PLEASE NOTE: This is universally, meaning a law(s) specific to a country should not be seen as an argument for voters.)

I hope this clarifies once and for all and I will now continue with my responses.

Argument 1: My opponent conceded at my request and my clarification; I thank my opponent.

Argument 2: My opponent makes the argument that banning/keeping gay marriage banned help reduce the strain on the economy of many countries.
While I will not deny this fact, I will say that the same can be said for many things in many different forms and identities. For example, instead of wasting paper and ink on printing food labels (sugar %, fat % etc...) the governments could make a universal database online. This is deviating from the topic slightly; I'm aware; but the point I am trying to make is that the governments could change other, less-ethical matters to help reduce the economic strain. This leads me to believe that banning gay marriage is not logical when compared to other
a) less ethical and
b) easier
changes that could be made.

Argument 3: My opponent makes the argument that banning gay marriage helps to prevent future arguments of incest, polygamous, or bestial marriages.

I counter that gay marriage, when compared to these three examples is physically and mentally safer. This is because:
a) Family to family (heterosexual) allows "inbreeding" which has been proved as dangerous* to the health of the child physically and mentally developing.
b) Bestial marriages have again been proved as dangerous* to both partners' physical and mental health - and thus should not ethical. It is to be noted that in 100% of cases of bestial marriage the animal cannot express it's opinion through any means other than basic emotions which could be interpreted as anything without clarification from the animal (which is not possible).
c) Polygamous marriage is another hotly debated topic which should be debated in the future. However I personally do not see the idea of taking many husbands/wives as unethical if both partners consent and are happy. I do not see, therefore, why the act of polygamous marriage is considered "bad" without any proof of physically or mentally dangerous* activities.

Therefore, gay marriage, unlike the first two, has no dangers* whatsoever and therefore should not trigger more debate. On the third one is mainly a matter of personal preference and a debate for another time.

* more dangerous than would be considered "normal" (every marriage has its risks, after all)

I respect and wait for my opponents responses.
NJPatriot

Pro

Allow me to defend both my contentions.

Contention 2: Keeping homosexual marriage banned provides increased revenue for the government by not having to provide economic benefits such as tax breaks and social services.

"While I will not deny this fact.."

My opponent concedes that banning homosexual marriage provides increased revenue by means of lessening entitlement spending. Instead he uses a red herring fallacy to misdirect away from the benefits of banning gay marriage,

"...but the point I am trying to make is that the governments could change other, less-ethical matters to help reduce the economic strain."

But this is truly irrelevant to the debate of gay marriage. The bottom line is that there are economic benefits to banning gay marriage (as my opponent has admitted), and these economic benefits should be pursued. Providing alternative ways to cut entitlements does not change the fact that governments will now have to provide for thousands of new couples in the forms of tax benefits.

Contention 3: Banning gay marriage prevents future arguments as to the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages.

I will refute his three main assertions to this contention,

A. "Family to family (heterosexual) allows "inbreeding" which has been proved as dangerous* to the health of the child physically and mentally developing."

But of about homosexual family to family relationships? You also mention child - why not two consenting healthy homosexual adults?

B. "It is to be noted that in 100% of cases of bestial marriage the animal cannot express it's opinion through any means other than basic emotions which could be interpreted as anything without clarification from the animal (which is not possible)."

Animals can in fact give consent, albeit not verbally - but the danger in this is that it changes the definition of marriage from tax benefits for furthering the population to love of the other individual. By changing this definition of legal marriage, you allow justification for these three types of marriages as well. Marriage's sole purpose in the state is to promote procreation through tax benefits - changing this definition gives tax benefits without the benefit of increasing the population.

C. "...I personally do not see the idea of taking many husbands/wives as unethical if both partners consent and are happy. I do not see, therefore, why the act of polygamous marriage is considered "bad".

My opponent demonstrates my point by conceding that, under his definition of marriage, "both partners consent and are happy" that the justification for homosexual marriage can be extended into arguments for polyagamous relationships. Besides the added tax strain (as I have already previously stated multiple times), polygamy itself would create a multitude of issues with property rights - but that is not the subject of this debate.

I will summarize my argument as follows:

I demonstrated in Contention 2 that banning gay marriage saves the government revenue. My opponent did not deny this fact.

I demonstrated in Contention 3 that banning gay marriage prevents arguments for the legalization of other forms of marriage, which my opponent concedes by admitting that polygamy may also be eligible for tax benefits.

I have demonstrated that there are two logical, rational reasons outside of religion to keep gay marriage illegal - it increases government revenue and prevents further arguments for other forms of tax benefits through the institution of marriage.
Debate Round No. 3
MysticEgg

Con

I will repeat that, I do not deny the fact presented by my opponent in argument two and, despite my counter, I feel that my opponent has proved this fact as logical. I therefore consent the debate to my opponent that there is at least one logical reason to ban gay marriage. The reason of:
"Contention 2: Keeping homosexual marriage banned provides increased revenue for the government by not having to provide economic benefits such as tax breaks and social services."

Congratulations, NJPatriot, you win!

However, for the remaining rounds, I will try to refute contention 3:
"Banning gay marriage prevents future arguments as to the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages."

I will state the implication of my opponent's contention:
At the moment, arguments about the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriage are being prevented by the fact that gay marriage is banned.

I deny this implication as true.

The banning of gay marriage is not preventing arguments about these things, as demonstrated by many-a-webpage on the Internet. I ask my opponent to provide links or references to information stating that this implication is true.
My arguments in round three were refuted; I'll admit to this fact; but I now challenge my opponent to prove his contention 3, which I deny as being truthful.

"Contention 3: Banning gay marriage prevents future arguments as to the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages."

Or, to re-phrase this:

Contention 3: At the moment, banning gay marriage is preventing arguments from the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriage campaigners.

I deny this fact and ask my opponent to provide evidence for this.
NJPatriot

Pro

I thank my opponent in conceding this debate. In the spirit of the debate, however, I will continue to defend my third contention.

Contention 2: Keeping homosexual marriage banned provides increased revenue for the government by not having to provide economic benefits such as tax breaks and social services.

My opponent has conceded that this point is logical.

Contention 3: Banning gay marriage prevents future arguments as to the rights of incestual, polygamous, or bestial marriages.

Allow me to clarify this contention. I am not saying that the ban on gay marriage prevents arguments for the other types of marriage (after all, you have the freedom to argue anything you believe), I am stating that the ban on gay marriage prevents future justification for these marriages.

The key here is that the premise behind support for gay marriage is the following.

1. The state marries people because they love each other. [1]
2. I love another consenting adult (of the same sex in this case).
3. Therefore, I should be able to be married by the state.

If these three points were proven correct, the following would also be proven correct.

1. The state marries people because they love each other.
2. I love two or three consenting adults (sex is irrelevant in this example).
3. Therefore, I should be able to marry these adults by the state.

This premise is flawed because the state does NOT marry people because they love each other. The state marries to provide a couple with a tax incentive and to handle inheritance affairs and taxes. If these incentives did not exist, there would be no reason to legally get married.

Sources:
1:http://carm.org...
Debate Round No. 4
MysticEgg

Con

I thank my opponent for this clarification.

I agree with my opponent that marriage is not solely about love. However, I never said that it was.
As I understand my opponent's argument:
"Gay marriage should remain banned because it gives future justification for other immoral practices such as bestial, polygamous, and incestual marriages." (I assume my opponent views these practices as immoral; otherwise I fail to see how they could be used as a counter-argument)
However, I do not see this as the case. I do this on the assertion that:
1) How does gay marriage (once recognised as not solely for love - which I always did.) give future justification for these practices? Certainly, bestial marriage is removed from this. But I feel like I am missing something:

Gay marriage should be banned because it provides future justifications for bad things (see above) OK, but how?
If it is solely for love then people could argue that so is polygamy, bestial, and incestual marriages.
OK, but now that we've clarified that I did not at any point say that marriage was solely for love, how now?
It does remove bestial marriage because no other benefits could be reaped from it. But what about polygamy and incestual marriages?
OK, incestual marriage would imply sexual relations which have been proved to be very bad for children who have no say. This is immoral. However, homosexual sexual relations cannot directly result in a child and thus anything they might do they do at their own (and only their own) risk.
However, we're talking about marriage here and not sexual relations - so sexual morality is removed.
Now we're down to only polygamy. I do not see how polygamy needs justification in the first place if all partners involved are happy and content.
To conclude:
We recognize that marriage should not solely be for love. This removes bestial marriages as now they need to justify it in their own set of rules.
We recognise that marriage, if sexual, is only (potentially) harmful to the active participants in the sexual activity who would do so at their consent (as no children could be conceived.) This removes incestual as now they have their own set of rules.
Polygamy is subject to opinion only as (as far as I'm aware) there are no physical or mental attributes that could cause people to view polygamy as immoral if all partners are happy and consent. Opinion does not justify an argument.

Finally, I would like to thank my opponent, NJPatriot for debating with me today and I consent to losing this particular debate to him. All voters, in our opinions, should vote for him.
Kind regards,
J
NJPatriot

Pro

Thank you for the debate, MysticEgg.

Ultimately my point comes down to Contention 2, which essentially states that one logical argument in favor of banning gay marriage is the economic benefits of the state. This applies in the same way to Contention 3, in that polygamy, incestial, and bestial marriages would also harm the revenue of the state.

In fact, under Contention 2 , it could be extended that there should not be any state recognized marriage at all. (Something that I wouldn't entirely be opposed to - it would certainly definitively end the 'right to marry' debate).

I thank my opponent, MysticEgg, for his arguments and for this intellectual debate. I encourage the voters to Vote Pro, as MysticEgg conceded his argument to Contention 2 in Round 4.

Good debate,

-NJPatriot

Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
Considering the sexual system, a number of conclusions can be made.
Fact1: The sexual system "indicates" that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs.
Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX.
The only objective conclusion that can be reached is that the sexual system indicates that homosexual behavior is not a proper, expected or acceptable sexual behavior for the human sexual system. This same criterion in fact 2 allows us to reject other unacceptable forms or sexual behaviors. However, we can use other aspects such as "consent" to determine whether one form of sexual behavior is more egregious than the other, even as the sexual system indicates they are simply or still unacceptable for the sexual system.
Marriage is traditionally been understood to be principally focused on sexual love between sexual partners. However, even the marriage definition is a current source of controversy. In any case, here are the relevant facts:
1.Marriage is still regarded as a legal union that CAN be used to establish a commitment of sexual love between sexual partners.
2.If marriage is a legal union that (in some instances) establishes a commitment of sexual love between homosexual partners, then marriage AFFIRMS that the sexual love of homosexual partners is proper, acceptable, and legitimate while the OBJECTIVE CRITERIA indicates that sexual behavior is guaranteed to be improper, unacceptable and illegitimate.
3.Therefore, a "marriage equality" or "gay marriage" law is flawed and should be rejected.

If Civil unions are established outside of aspects of sexuality and can be used for all, there appears to be no logical reason to ban civil unions if they are all-purpose and not specifically designed for homosexual unions.
Posted by jusfacts 3 years ago
jusfacts
Here is a persistent non-religious argument which always seems to be conveniently excluded when considered by proponents of "marriage equality laws".
It first objectively establishes that sexual behavior of homosexuals is logically guaranteed to always be unacceptable sexual behavior based on objective criteria.
It then shows that if a marriage law can somehow be used to affirm that a logically guaranteed unacceptable sexual behavior is acceptable behavior then the marriage law is flawed and should be rejected.
The sexual system provides a set of facts about features and functions associated with the sexual system. We do not need any expertise beyond the facts indicated by the sexual system.
The sexual system comprises physiological and psychological components. They are expected to be harmonious in healthy, properly functioning human systems. In order words, the physiological and psychological components are "normally" or expected to be consistent and compatible with each other. The same is true for the digestive system. In particular, we have, included within the digestive system, a physiological component to process food that we eat. With respect to the psychological aspects of the digestive system, we naturally have periodic desires to eat "real" food (which is targeted by the physiological digestive system) and some foods more than others. Furthermore, we don"t naturally desire "unreal" food such as paper when we are hungry.

to be continued...
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
My apologies, my friend, if there has been any confusion. I think we both agree on the outside of religion aspect. That is, no religious arguments, please. The rest is "to ban" meaning (in this sense) "to make illegal gay marriage/civil unions". I hope this clarifies.

To keep illegal and to make illegal are different things (as I'm sure you're aware) and I thought that "to ban" would be seen as "to make illegal". My deepest apologies if it came across as anything else.

When making the next round, I will mention the confusion caused by the first three posts, as to make the voters more aware. Thank you for notifying me of your confusion.

Regards,
J
Posted by NJPatriot 3 years ago
NJPatriot
I would like to ask for clarification on the debate topic, since I am utterly confused. I have read and re-read both the first debate round and your rebuttal, and have no idea what exactly you want me to debate.

To paraphrase, I interpreted the topic as,

"Excluding religious arguments, are there any logical secular arguments that exist to keep gay marriage / civil unions illegal?"
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Merrit 3 years ago
Merrit
MysticEggNJPatriotTied
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: Conduct to Con, as he politely conceded. S&G tied. Pro made a more logical argument, and refuted Cons arguments. Pro used sources, while con did not.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
MysticEggNJPatriotTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debaters presented good positions. I give conduct to pro for his good conduct (round 2, contention 1) as he could have opposed CON's clarification but was a gentleman. I give arguments to pro for CON's concession of the financial cost.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
MysticEggNJPatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Good job pro.
Vote Placed by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
MysticEggNJPatriotTied
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: Well I thought there would be no arguments against gay marriage, which I was wrong about. Albeit these were ridiculous and should not be taken seriously, but there are really secular arguments against it. I gave Con the conduct not because Pro had bad conduct, they were both good. I just thought Con showed exemplary conduct in conceding the debate when proven wrong. Pro of course had the arguments, and Pro got sources as he was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by Piccini 3 years ago
Piccini
MysticEggNJPatriotTied
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: Easy debate to Pro, as it was whether there are ANY arguments, however bad, as long as logical. Conduct to Con for conceding the debate when defeated (hey, that's rare haha). Arguments and sources to Pro.