The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
BennyW
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Resolved: The United States ought legalize same-sex marriage.

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 2 votes the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 18186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and I firmly stand on the PRO end of the resolution of it thereof. Before contiuing in this debate, I would like to define the key term in this resoMessengerlution:


Ought (v): [a term] used to indicate obligation or duty (The American Heritage Dictionary)


With this single definition, the burden of the debate for either side to prove that it is an obligation by the United States to make recognition of same-sex marriage in the society. From there, we can build up my contentions for this debate:

Contention 1: Legalization of SSM benefits society
It is both morally and practically correct to make improvement to society through the utilization of moral methods, and by legalizing same-sex marriage in the United States, we would be doing exactly what the government is required by society and make improvements on it as such. The main improvement to society lies within the betterment of the population with regard to homosexuals and heterosexuals in relation to homosexuals as well as economically.

Sub 1a: Acceptance of same-sex marriagereduces negative statistics in the homosexual population, homophobia, and other negative acts as a result of homophobia.
The affirmative understands the conditions at which homosexuals are subjected under when it comes to the question of health in the gay community. The rates of HIV and AIDS as well as alcohol and drug abuse in the gay community have been known to have been larger than the amount in the heterosexual counterpart of the society. By reducing these numbers, we would be in a way benefitting the community, and thus showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be correct. The following evidence shows that the high statistics in the gay community are strongly connected with homophobia/rejection of homosexuals and that same-sex marriage aids to the improvement of the gay community.
http://userwww.service.emory.edu......
http://www.avert.org......
http://shared.web.emory.edu......

Sub 1b: Legalization of same-sex marriage is economically beneficial
Alongside the betterment of the homosexual counterpart of society is the betterment of the economic status of the society as a whole, meaning that the legalization of same-sex marriage would be beneficial to the community as a whole.
http://services.law.ucla.edu......
http://services.law.ucla.edu......
http://services.law.ucla.edu......

Contention 2: Denial of same-sex marriage does not uphold equality.
One of the essential tenets of a legitimate government is to uphold equality in the society, which is not provided by the denial of same-sex marriage in the country as of currently. Because it is not upholding equality by denying same-sex marriage, it ought be legalized as such.

Sub 2a: Same-sex marriage denial inherently does not uphold equality.
http://australianmarriageequality.com......
http://beingliberal.net......
Sub 2b: Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.

Contention 3: Majority opinion now supports SSM.
In addition to the obligation to uphold the country, we must uphold the governmental style of the United States: a democracy dedicated to the people. A democracy must uphold what is both moral/practical and most supported by people in order to be valid to be upheld by the government. The following recent polls show that the new majority of people support SSM.

http://www.gallup.com............


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com............

http://www.pollingreport.com............


BennyW

Con

I thank my opponent for presenting his arguments and I will now begin to refute them.
My opponent claims that legalizing same sex marriage is morally right but doesn’t give evidence for this claim. It is his opinion that it is the moral duty of the government to do so but I will attempt to prove why that is not the case.

You cannot legislate against homophobia, just with anything else; you should try to change people’s minds.

My opponent claims legalizing same sex marriage will decrees HIV and AIDS but doesn’t explain how that will work. Marriage is not a cure for STDs.

My opponent claims Homosexual marriage is economically beneficial; This is not the case, largely due to the fact that homosexuals do not have kids they have no vested interest in the economy or the future. In Fact Hans Hoppe uses the concept of time preference to demonstrate this point. [1]

My opponent also brings up civil unions and claims they do not have the same legal rights, however, in many states such as California civil unions have exactly the same state benefits as marriage.

Contention 3 is just an argument ad populum and holds no water.

In the end though, Government has no authority in the marriage business whatsoever.

It is often spoken of tyranny of the majority but there can also be a tyranny of the minority [2], and Homosexuals make up less than 10% of the US population. [3] This is just as bad as the afore mentioned ad populum fallacy. I know that is not reason enough to deny things to them, but they are also in no place to demand special privileges, such as those they request in terms of hate crime laws and the like. When they do that they are bullying the majority into taking their side. Also their effort to redefine what marriage is, but since marriage is a religious and not a legal concept they have no authority to do so.

Thanks again to my opponent.

1 http://mises.org...

2 http://www.humanevents.com...

3 http://www.gallup.com...


Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I was too busy to make a response this time. I forfeit this round.
BennyW

Con

I extend my arguments and hope my opponent can respond in time.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for being so courteous even in this time of my forfeit, and I will now address his case.
My opponent brings up the question as to why same-sex marriage is moral. However, before I respond to this question, let's look down the flow at my arguments and his arguments.

Sub-point 1a: We begin at the start of my argument, where I stated that same-sex marriage will overall aid toward the betterment of homosexual society because it reduces STD rates. What my opponent questions is that he doesn't understand why this would be so, but the exact explanation is iterated within my evidence. In case if my opponent or the judges were not able to access the information I posted in URL form on the debate, I will provide it at the bottom of my rebuttal so that the judges and the opponent can find exactly where my evidence is located. However, moving on, in the evidence about the study from Emory University, the two professors giving the study actually found that homosexual marriage reduces rates of STDs in th general gay population, and they explain that it is because of the reduced amounts of discrimination against homosexuals as a result from the passage of same-sex marriage that boosts the morale of the gay population and leads them to become more stable lives. Not to mention that the concept of marriage promotes stability and loyalty, which is a key component toward the betterment of the homosexual population. This study is not the only one that agrees as such, as I have shown with the multiple pieces of evidence that argue for the same thing. The evidence of this will be provided, meaning that any point that my opponent tries to make here is dropped. [1], [2], [3]

Sub-point 1b: From there, we look at what my opponent provides: a piece of evidence about how an economist said that the passage of same-sex marriage will not aid to the economy--or so my opponent believes. If you actually look at the evidence he posted, you will see that the economist said nothing about same-sex marriage. He just explains how he is a conservative professor and he was criticized for making a criticism of some sort against homosexuals. It said nothing to rebut what I am saying, and my opponent did not argue my own empirical evidence showing us how same-sex marriage aided to the economies of the states that passed their respective legislations. Therefore, extend this point. [4], [5]


Sub-point 2a: That goes completely unargued. Extend across the flow please. [6]


Sub-point 2b: What my opponent argues here is that civil unions can be made to be equal to same-sex marriages. For one thing, he's acknowledging that there should be some level of equality, so at the point where we're trying to make civil unions equal, why can't we just make them marriages? That point alone destroys the entire reason why my opponent is arguing against this sub-point. In addition, to give him the benefit of the doubt that some states are trying to make it equal, the problem is that civil union laws are too flexible to 100% guarantee equality. Sure, some states make them equal, but others sure don't, and to the eyes of the law, that's totally fine because civil unions don't necessarily have to be equal to marriages according to government. Marriage has one standard that is placed at equal level and consideration, or should be. Also, when it comes to the benefits of civil unions at a federal level, they simply do not match in equality. The federal government doesn't recognize marriages as states would, and considering that maybe equality can be established at the state level, but not the federal level shows us that there really is no equality with civil unions.


Contention 3: My opponent pulls out the old ad populum attack against my evidence about the statistics, but I have shown you how same-sex marriage promotes social welfare and equality. It places marriage at a level that would be considered moral because of the essence that it does all of this, and the fact that the majority of people support it only adds to the obligations of government with this matter considering that our government is a democracy--looking at the people's ideals and representing them in government. I'm not saying that because of the mere essence that the people support it, we should legalize it, as an ad populum fallacy would entail, but because I have proven that same-sex marriage is moral and it is what the majority of the people in America want represented by the government. Therefore, this argument still stands.


Miscellaneous: So, now, we can look at other things other than what my opponent directly said about my case and analyze them as such as well as my opponent's own argument.
1. My opponent doesn't have a case of his own, or none that I was able to spot in his original rebuttal against me or previous rounds. He doesn't have a structured statement like I have provided that outlines his own evidence and his own reasonings as to why same-sex marriage ought not be legalized in the United States. He can write a case if he'd like in the next round, but at that point, the judges should give the conduct point to me for my opponent waiting so long to provide a case. Therefore, you should already look at my case because it actually exists.
2. My opponent also says that government shouldn't have any business with marriage. I guess that would mean that he would argue against heterosexual marriage as well.
3. Then, we look toward my opponent's argument about "tyranny of the minority." Let me explain to the judges exactly what that means: "Minority wants equality. Majority doesn't want equality for the minority. Minority demands for it through protest and dissertation. Majority calls them tyrants." That's it. What my opponent is trying to say here is that the minority is pretty much just a bunch of tyrants because they want equal rights, and as I have explained to everyone, same-sex marriage does aid toward equal rights (which my opponent has not argued). It's not tyranny if it's trying to achieve equal rights. This is nothing but rhetoric.


Thank you, and I await my opponent's rebuttal.


[1] "HIV, AIDS, and Young Gay Men."--Avert (check Google)

[2] "Study Links Gay Marriage Bans to Rise in HIV Rates"-- Emory University (Google)

[3] "Tolerance and HIV"-- Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon (Google)

[4] "The Economic Impact to Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples in Vermont"-- UCLA, Williams Institute (Google)

[5] "
The Impact of Extending Marriage to Same-Sex Couples on the California Budget"--UCLA, Williams Institute (Google)

[6] "Of Marriage and Monarchy: Why John Locke Would Support Same-Sex Marriage."-- William B. Turner (Google)
BennyW

Con

BennyW forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Alright, since this is the end of the round, I'm going to explain why the judges should vote for me over my opponent in this debate.
When it comes to conduct, it looks like my opponent and I were kind of on equal grounds here considering we were both forfeiting rounds, so it looks like we're tied for the vote on conduct. I think that'll be the best thing to do in the voting aspect. Also, my opponent hasn't argued against my previous arguments which defended my position, so extend those across the flow. Because he still doesn't have a case of his own to look at and because he made a pretty poor rebuttal against my case, you should vote for me in the argument aspect.
Just to be sure that the judges understand what I'm talking about here, let's just do a quick run through my case:


My contentions 1 and 2 are extended because I substantiated my points with more evidence than my opponent has, and I have better supported my contention 3 than my opponent has attacked it. I have also responded to all of his points.


Vote PRO.
BennyW

Con

Thanks to my opponent for responding and I would like to apologize for forfeiting however since we both forfeited a round, I agree with my opponent that we should disregard it when it comes to voting on the debate.

Sub-point 1a:

Nowhere in your sources (those which I can access, some such as those from University sites where I need a special login I cannot) does it suggest marriage as a solution for the prominence of AIDS in homosexuals. It seems to blame it on low self esteem. The reason they are affected in a larger scale may have a lot to do with the fact that in general they are more promiscuous. [1] Marriage is also not a solution to this as it does not guarantee fidelity. However blaming promiscuity on a lack of acceptance of a lifestyle as my opponent’s sources do is irresponsible and ignores the real issues.

Sub-point 1b:

My opponent questions the validity of my source’s claim. The fact behind it is that homosexuals have no vested interest in the future because they will have no offspring. While it may appear that there may be temporary economic benefits to the state by allowing same-sex marriage, in the long run it is detrimental.

Sub-point 2a:

The question that must be addressed when it comes to equality is, to what extent are people equal? Certainly we all are equals as humans but we are not all equal in other respects? Some people are smarter, richer or more talented than someone else. When it comes to homosexuality vs. heterosexuality, they are different by the very nature of what is essential to procreation. Since homosexuals by nature cannot reproduce then they are already inferior in that regard. This is not to say they are inferior in every regard.

Sub-point 2b:

Same sex marriage cannot be considered a marriage by the definition of what marriage is. Marriage has been redefined by some dictionaries, but the danger in redefining words is that their fundamental meaning is lost. Dictionary.com offers this as its first definition marriage
“the
social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” It does then go on to talk about homosexual marriage and Merriam Webster does similarly, I will explain why doing so negatively effects the meaning of the word. [2] [3] If I pointed at an apple and said it was a banana because the definition of what a banana and what an apple was had been changed that would not change the fundamental nature of each and it would in fact be dishonest to do so; just as how the word Gay was adopted by the homosexual community when it used to mean happy.

Contention 3:

My opponent contends that his argument was not ad populum because he claims that homosexual marriage is a moral right. The only thing more that I can offer that hasn’t already been said is that

Miscellaneous:

I hope that my opponent now sees what my case is. When I said I didn’t want marriage to be a Government Issue that is exactly what I meant, however that does not mean marriage would be eliminated, it just means it would be private and recognized by churches. However this argument is independent of the others because if this were accomplished the other arguments I mentioned would not be as necessary. In fact my opponent’s source that references Locke makes mention of there being no need for human governments, which would despite its slant inadvertently support the proposal I am making here. I brought up this argument as my opponent had agreed that I could use whatever means I wanted to attack his resolution.

My opponent has also misrepresented what tyranny of the minority means. It does not mean that every time a minority wants equality it is tyranny and certainly even an individual who has been legitimately wronged should justly seek to get whatever solution they need. It means that a minority uses underhanded methods to try to forcefully get their way whether or not they are morally entitled to it.

Thanks again for this debate; I only wish we could have both been more productive with the rounds so we could have had a fuller debate.

1 http://factsaboutyouth.com...

2 http://dictionary.reference.com...

3 http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
I was busy this weekend and I apologize for not being able to respond in time.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
Oops I put that in the wrong place.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
I extend my arguments and hope my opponent can respond in time.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
You want me to wait to respond to give you more time to prepare for next round as I won't be making any new arguments this round?
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
OK in that case i will address several of the main arguments.
Posted by ScarletGhost4396 3 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
I believe that when it comes to any sort of the debate, other than the more technical rules about behavior and formalities, there are no arguments that you can and can't use. What matters is that you answer the question.
Posted by BennyW 3 years ago
BennyW
I think I will accept this but first I want to know what angle you are approaching this from, is it a purely equal rights argument or does nature vs. choice play into it at all?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 2 years ago
Ron-Paul
ScarletGhost4396BennyWTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, good job this time. I can't make you lose.
Vote Placed by kohai 3 years ago
kohai
ScarletGhost4396BennyWTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The equality argument goes unchallenged. Both forfeit a round and both isse fairly good sources.