The Instigator
Willoweed
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
shift4101
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Pick your own issue.

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 3 votes the winner is...
shift4101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,050 times Debate No: 19394
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Willoweed

Pro

Basically the idea is look at my profiles issues list and pick a issue you want to debate me on. State the issue your position and either make your arguments or let me make mine first. However Due to the fact that I am currently in two debates about the border fence/immigration I will not accept debating anyone else about the border fence/immigration.
Have fun.
shift4101

Con

The topic will be Gay Marriage.

My position is that the state should leave Gay marriage unrecognized.

What is marriage

For this debate, I will use this rather open definition of marriage:

Marriage - A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts http://www.google.com...

The first question we have to ask ourselves is why the state should recognize any social union. The obvious reason in this case would be procreative ability, along with other more subtle reasons. The state recognizes this union by providing them licences and special community along with civil recognition. Couples with marriage licences also will recieve a handful of benefits, including:

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
And many more in the link (1)

So the state recognizes this unique union of two persons with procreative ability with quite a few tax benefits. Now lets deal with the topic at hand; Gay marriage.

If the state were to recognize gay marriage, it would literally be pouring money into something that would create nothing for the state, much like the union between me and my clothing, television, or postage stamp collection (2). Now, it would seem rather silly for the state to give me all of these benefits just because I desired a union between me and whatever I would like for the sake of happiness. So, gay marriage shouldn't be recognized unless my opponent can answer the following question:

Why should the state recognize something (Gay marriage) if it does not stand to benefit from it.

This can be answered in two possible ways:

Directly answer the question.
Show how the government would benefit from recognizing homosexual union.

I do expect he will answer it in the second way.




Around this point, I still have around 5,500 characters left. So I will presume some of your arguments and present the slipery-slope argument.

Should infertile couples be allowed to have marriage licences?

Realistically, no. The state doesn't benefit from an infertile married couple. However, who decides who is infertile? Should the government preform checks on each individual who desires a marriage licences? Of course not. It would be incredibly expensive, much more than it would cost for the state to just let them marry anyways, and dehumanizing.


Gay people do benefit the government; they take children out of foster care.

This is absolutely true. Except this argument forgets the entire reason of state recognized marriage and perverts it. Marriage is for procreation. Another union can be initiated for couples who want these same benefits by adopting. (Like, a civil union?)

Even if the government did recognize a gay marriage for it's adopting ability, shouldn't the government require gay couples to adopt immediately? Or if it became appearent that there are no children in foster care, should the government stop recognizing gay marriage? Either way, this isn't a very convincing point.

Slippery-slope?

Lets legalize gay marriage, simply because two people who consent desire the government to recognize it. Then we should also recognize polygamous marriage, because those persons also desire the government to recognize it. What if two brothers want to be married? It isn't as if their incestual practice will result in demon offpsring anymore. Shouldn't we have their marriage recognized as well? Then what about heterosexual incestual siblings? Under the 14th amendment they have equal protection like their homsexual counterparts. Then we end up legalizing all incestual marriages.

So homosexual marriage would lead to the marriage of widely accepted awful things, such as incest and polygamy.

Ok I'm done now.
Debate Round No. 1
Willoweed

Pro

1) My opponents first argument is that we can't have gay marriage because it would allow gays to have the same rights and privileges that straight people have. One example of one of these rights is being able to make medical decisions for your spouse. I disagree with this argument because I believe that discrimination is wrong. I don't believe the government should tell one group of people that they cannot have the same rights as everyone else.
2) My opponent argument is that gays, infertile people, and people who don't want children should not be able to have the same rights because they wont produce offspring via there own sex cells. This begs the question, what happens to all the children in orphanages? Gays people can adopt a child and studies show that children with gay parents turn out the same or better than children with straight parents.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
3) My opponent is wrong when she says the only reason for marriage is to have kids. People don't get married to have kids they get married because they love each other.
4) My opponent then argues that allowing gays to have the same rights as straight people will result in "incest and ": polygamy" being legalized. First off my opponents slippery slope argument is dis-proven by reality. No country that has legalized gay marriage has legalized polygamy or incest. Second my opponent is using a logical fallacy, gay marriage has nothing to do with incest and trying to link the two is absurd.
5) The government banning gay marriage and recognizing straight marriage is an attack on religious freedom. Some churches recognize gay marriage so the govenrment only choosing to recognize certain churches marriages is tantamount to a government backed religion and violates the first amendment
shift4101

Con

I think my opponent for his neatly orginized responses and arguments.

1. Discrimination

My opponents first claim is that by not allowing homosexual marriage to be recognized, you are discriminating against them. This is not so. The government does not provide welfare for the rich, or student aid for 40 year old businessmen who do not plan on attending college. Is this discrimination? No, it is the government being careful with it's funds.

He also claims that the government should not deny rights to people. This is absolutly true, with the exception of when the government is providing rights to the people that are not their natural rights, like marriage.


2. Adoptions

My opponent is having me repeat myself:

"This is absolutely true. Except this argument forgets the entire reason of state recognized marriage and perverts it. Marriage is for procreation. Another union can be initiated for couples who want these same benefits by adopting. (Like, a civil union?)

Even if the government did recognize a gay marriage for it's adopting ability, shouldn't the government require gay couples to adopt immediately? Or if it became appearent that there are no children in foster care, should the government stop recognizing gay marriage? Either way, this isn't a very convincing point."


3. Marriage is for love!!!!

No it is not. Sure, people can devout to eachother and declare themselves inside a wed-lock, and call that marriage, but it is not the marriage we are talking about. We are talking about a rational government making decisions with it's money, and honoring heterosexual union. And, so coincidentally, the government does not care who loves who unless some sort of presidential sex scandal is involved.


4. Slippery-slope

There are a ton of variables in reality. Logically speaking of course, there is no reason to reserve marriage to monogamous matromoy if it's cause is not procreation, but instead adult gratification.


5. Religious freedom?

This is silly. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This obviously takes religion out of the argument. In fact, you were the first person to mention it. I have so far said nothing on those grounds.
Debate Round No. 2
Willoweed

Pro

1)My opponent is comparing apples to oranges. The fact remains that she wants to make it so that a minority of people do not have the same rights as the rest of society. The pro position is about making it so under the law that all people are created equal.
1.1)My opponent also argues that the reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is because married couples get tax breaks; this means my opponent want to make it so that gays pay more taxes then straights just because they are gay.
2)Marriage isn't for procreation; people don't get married to have kids; in modern society marriage hasn't been about procreation in decades; when my opponent say it is she is simply trying to ignore modern history and the facts surrounding what marriage is about.
3)Again my opponent is ignoring the reason actual people get married, just because she thinks that every marriage is about having sex and kids does not make it so. My opponent is advocating that if you get married you must immediacy have sex and then have kids or else you cannot not stay married and have the same rights as married couples.
4)Considering the fact that marriage hasn't been about procreation in decades I find it safe to say that marriage not being about procreation isn't going to result in incest.
5)Exactly. The first amendments says that congress shall make no law respecting a religion; if congress only recognizes marriage institutions from certain religions then it is recognizing those religions over others. The reason my opponent has not mentioned religion is because she realizes that her position results in the government deciding which religion get to have their ceremonies and ideals supported by the government.
shift4101

Con

My opponent has again misinterprited my arguments and told everyone that I believe in some hainous thing. I will now refute.

1. Apples to oranges?

Yes, I suppose I am discriminating. Just like how discriminating how the rich should not recieve financial aid, or how the homeless should not have to pay estate tax. The point is, the government gives people things not because they are required to, but because they understand how they (the government) will benefit in the long run.

Even if Gay's are born gay, although nothing points to this, they are not equal. They have a mental defect, like people with down-syndrome. The government does provide people with down-syndrome aid, but it is still separate. Like separate schools and medical aid.

1.1. Paying more on taxes?

I am not saying that Gay's should pay more taxes. I'm saying they are not willing to enter a heterosexual monogamous relationship to recieve the same breaks that are available to everyone. Strait's do not recieve tax breaks, they recieve tax breaks for entering a relationship with the intent of procreation.

2. Modern society marriage isn't about kids!

My opponent states that modern marriage is no longer about marriage. I do not believe this, but even if it were so, then we should no longer recognize marriage at all, which still makes my position victorious in this debate. In other words, if marriage is soley about love the state shouldn't give a sh1t in the first place.

3. What about people who don't get married?

For my opponents initial statements in "3)" see my "2.". My oponent now says that people who do not have children are still allowed to be married. This is true, except most people do eventually procreate. The government is just throwning spaghetti at a wall in this case.

4. Incest?

My opponent says he doesn't think it gay marraige will lead to incest. I simply stated that there is NO reason for marriage not to be extended to incestual union. He has yet to debunk this.

5. Marriage is a religious thing.

No it is not. Marriage is a state sponsered social union that, believe it or not, does have a legitimate purpose. So far I have said that purpose must be procreation or nothing at all (in which case marriage should no longer be recognized by the state). So far, my opponent has not answered my initial question:

Why should the state recognize something (Gay marriage) if it does not stand to benefit from it.

I now turn over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
Oh sh1t the debate ended. Well this was pretty awful, actually.
Posted by shift4101 5 years ago
shift4101
Forgot citations.

(1) http://www.nolo.com...
(2) I do not actually own a postage stamp collection
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jimtimmy 5 years ago
jimtimmy
Willoweedshift4101Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter votebomb teafood. He is voting for Willoweed on all debates for some reason.
Vote Placed by Teafood 5 years ago
Teafood
Willoweedshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: It is hard to wina debate when you are pro-dsicmrination
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Willoweedshift4101Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con successfully showed that gay marriage causes economic negatives for society. Pro tried to counter with a rights and emotional argument but failed. Winner: CON