The Instigator
JacobAnderson
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
jvava
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Same-Sex Marriages Should Be Legal In America

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 1 vote the winner is...
JacobAnderson
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 41286
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

JacobAnderson

Pro

I wanted to debate you again and I have noticed that you said you are against same-sex marriages on yuor profile. If so, please accept this debate.

Round 1- Acceptance and Rules
Round 2- Opening Statements
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Cross Examination
Round 5- Rebuttals and Conclusions

Rules:
- Use evidence for claims, unless common knowledge
- Be logical
- No references to the Bible or other religious books may be used
- No personal attacks

Cross Examination Rules:
- At the beginning of Round 4, I, the Pro will give a series of questions (Max 5) for the Con to answer in their turn of Round 4. As the Con replies, he may ask a maximum of 5 questions that will be answered in Pro's Round 5 argument. No rebuttals, simply questions and answers.

Thanks!
jvava

Con

Hello. I am glad to be debating with you once again.

I must ask a question - may I take the Libertarian stance on gay marriage, which is that government needs to get out of marriage (homosexual and heterosexual) completely? I believe that it is the best compromise out there.

Thank you - looking forward to a great, and very controversial, debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JacobAnderson

Pro

You may take that stance. To my understanding though, based on [1], a Libertarian stance believes that if you want to get married, get married. But I think I see where you are going with this.

Argument 1: Civil Rights
As we all know, citizens of America are born to three inalienable rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Pursuit of Happiness is a right given to us in the Declaration of Independence and can be summarized as "man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. [2]" Man gets to choose his own happiness, he has the rights to work for its achievements as long as he respects the same right in others. You do not see same-sex couples petitioning/protesting heterosexual marriages. They respect the heterosexuals' right to marry, so does that not entitle them the right to get married themselves under a foundation of the American nation- The Declaration of Independence, Pursuit of Happiness?

Argument 2: Times Change
I don't think I have to extend very far on times changing. There was once a time when women were not allowed an education or a proper job. There was once a time when blacks were not treated as humans but as property. And there was onec a time when blacks and whites could not get married. Fast-forward a few decades and we have come to refute all of these statements, we have allowed women to get proper educations and occupations, we have allowed blacks and whites to marry. People used to believe that blacks and whites were not supposed to be married, as shown in [3]; a source that also shows that same-sex marriages had higher acceptance rates than interracial marriages. Now, because same-sex marriages have higher acceptance rates than interracial marriages, why must we continue to decline same-sex couples the rights to marry?

Argument 3: Homosexuality it Natural
Homosexuality is a trait shared between humans are 450 other species of animals [4]. Some may argue that gay is a choice, and although there is nothing of the sort of a "gay gene," there are epigenetics that show homosexuality is indeed a trait, sometimes hereditary, rather than a choice [5]. (Epigenetics- refers to external modifications to DNA that turn genes "on" or "off.") A "gay gene" is not concrete in a body's DNA, but epigenetics show that certain catalysts can trigger this trait of homosexuality in a man or woman.

Argument 4: With Same-Sex Marriages Legalized, Same-Sex Couples Will Enjoy More Rights As A Married Couple

"Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by theNew York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [7]" This quote sums up the lack of rights that same-sex couples face when unable to get married. This source has gotten it's information from other sources, which I will include below.

In Conclusion,
Same-sex marriages should be legal because marriage is a basic human right, and although many people and dictionaries define it as a union between a man and a woman, times are changing and more people are accepting that same-sex couples should be married. It is not only morally sound but also should be lawfully sound. Who are we to take the basic rights of happiness and marriage from homosexual couples?

Sources:
[1] http://www.examiner.com...;
[2] http://principlesofafreesociety.com...;
[3] http://thinkprogress.org...
[4] http://www.yalescientific.org...
[5] http://healthland.time.com...
[6] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
[6.6] Freedom to Marry, "Marriage 101," www.freedomtomarry.org (accessed Sep. 15, 2010)
[6.7] Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber, "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple," www.nytimes.com, Oct. 2, 2009
jvava

Con

jvava forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jvava

Con

jvava forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JacobAnderson

Pro

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
jvava

Con

jvava forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JacobAnderson

Pro

JacobAnderson forfeited this round.
jvava

Con

jvava forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Babayetu 3 years ago
Babayetu
"a marriage between 2 men and 3 women? Or say a man who wanted to marry his biological sister? Or say a 13 year old who wanted to marry a 50 year old?"

nobody really asked... or cares, but I'm for all of these being legal, as-well as same sex marriage of course, as long as there is sufficient proof that nobody is being coerced in any way shape or form, I don't see why not.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
But we are debating this at the time that same-sex marriage is a norm. All extremes are irrelevant as I have stated my opinions.
Posted by CynicalBrit 3 years ago
CynicalBrit
You see though, Jacob, that was precisely the point I was trying to make.

40 years ago to discuss same-sex marriage would have been an "extreme" point of view, considered by most people to be "nowhere near the norm" - much the same as my "extreme" examples of a man wanting to marry his sister, or a 13yr old marrying a 50yr old, which you consider to be "nowhere near the norm" in the present day.

I merely meant this as an exercise to consider your own prejudices. Just replace the premise of same-sex marriage with any of the three "extreme" marriage examples I proposed, and compare your internal reaction - then hopefully you can see what I'm getting at. The very fact you considered that I am going to extremes exposes your duplicity to my mind...
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
Times can change to redefine marriage into >2 people, but its a matter of, will that really happen?
The law does not say that same-sex couples cannot marry or there would be 0 states that have same-sex marriages where there are 16 that allow it.
You are going to the extremes. I base this off of civil rights. I never said that they can't marry, I said I do not believe that they should. I find it funny that you bring up these topics as they are nowhere near the norm.
In same-sex marriages, we are debating the conflict of the two norms. We do not debate the legality of a 13 year old marrying a 50 year old. But just because they're under 18 does not mean that I am denying them their human rights.
As I would like to state in close, this is not a debate on how I feel but a debate on the legality so our mini-debate has not been worthless, but in a way irrelevant. Although I do see where you are coming from. I really would like to debate you on another topic as we already see eachother's views on this topic.
Posted by CynicalBrit 3 years ago
CynicalBrit
You make very good points, I'll be sure to think them all over.

Without any prejudice towards you personally, I would just point out that you are potentially in danger of being duplicitous with some of your own arguments in a couple of places though:

Firstly I don't see how you can agree with same-sex marriage, yet disagree with polygamous relationships. As I see it, this is purely a value judgment on your part. Every argument you have used to support same-sex marriage so far would equally apply to polygamous marriage - hence my being genuinely perplexed at your very different attitudes towards each. The number of people involved is irrelevant. Just because most people think of marriage between two people is irrelevant. Your second argument is precisely that attitudes change: people used to think marriage couldn't be inter-racial (your point); people used to think marriage was only between one man and one woman (your point); so why can't marriage be re-defined further to include >2 people?

Secondly, people are considered adults at 18 in the US only because the law currently says so. That's like me saying that people in same-sex relationships can't marry because the law currently says so. You can't use the current law as a "self-proof" in its own right. That was kind of the point I was trying to make.

By the way, many countries around the world have a lower age of consent in law - in Saudi Arabia, for example, the legal age of consent is 13 (another reason I picked this age as an example). I'm not saying that the age of consent in the US should be lower, I personally think 18 is a sensible cut-off for many sound reasons. All that I'm saying is, on the basis of your arguments, I don't see how YOU can argue that you can have an arbitrary cut-off for age of consent! - because to reiterate your own closing argument from the first round of the main thread back to you [paraphrasing] - "what right do you have to dictate to others who they can marry?"
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
When debating same-sex marriages, people are usually on the premise that marriage is between two individuals. Some argue that it is only between a man and a woman, but obviously others believe that it can be between two men, two women or a man and a woman.
When looking at polygamy, I do not believe that we can compare the two because there are more people involved in this marriage. However, I do not personally think that a marriage is traditionally between two individuals, regardless of gender. I do realize that polygamy is customary in some regions and cultures, but I do not necessarily agree with it. This does not mean that I am willing to take their rights to practice this.
We cut the age of at 18 because legally, people are not adults until the age of 18. We cannot really compare an 18 year old to a 13 year old as there are many developments, mental and physical alike that take place between the ages of 13 and 18. I mean, a 13 year old and a 50 year old is extremely hypothetical whereas same-sex marriages, and even polygamy, are actually existent on a higher level, same-sex more than polygamy.
America is based on majority rule, so I do believe that popularity constitutes laws. During slavery, there was a distinct division of the North and the South in the US, and because the South had a majority toward slavery, that is what they instituted. Because the majority of the North did not believe in slavery, they did not have slaves and had laws against slavery. However, we know that the Civil War was a direct effect of the slavery issues. Lincoln did not believe in stopping slavery or ending it, he believed that slavery should not be expanded.
So, we, as a nation, depend on popular votes when it comes to things like bill/law making. Congress makes bills and laws with majority 2/3rd votes, which can overrule a presidential veto because it is a popular vote.
And maybe we can debate this or some other topic soon.
Posted by CynicalBrit 3 years ago
CynicalBrit
Good answer.

I don't want to detract from the main debate too much here, but do you mind my asking why you don't think 2 men and 3 women should marry?

Also I deliberately put 13 rather than 18 to make a point, because following from your opening arguments it raises the further question at what point does the state have the right to impose a limit on who can marry based on age - and on what basis is that age cut-off selected? I personally believe the state does have the right to dictate a cut-off age by the way, but based on your arguments so far I wondered on what basis do you? If you say "who are we to take the basic rights of happiness and marriage from homosexual couples?" - then by the same token, who are we to say that 13 year olds can't marry for those very same reasons?

I find your closing statement below particularly interesting. Do you think laws should be based on popularity and/or widespread acceptance then? I agree with you that it is plausible that same-sex marriage will probably become legal soon precisely because of this - my point is, is that sufficient? For instance slavery was widely accepted a few centuries ago. Not that I intend to compare same-sex marriage to slavery; merely I intend to suggest that societal popularity at a given point in history is not sufficient a motive for a sound premise.

I feel like I'm possibly hijacking this debate a little, so maybe I should leave it there :o)

Perhaps we could debate this separate topic further ourselves at some point? I'm new to this though, so you'd probably have to show me how...
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
That is an interesting question. Do I believe that 2 men and 3 women SHOULD marry? No. Do I believe they have the RIGHT to marry? Yes. It goes the same with both others; well, if you increased the age from 13 to 18 as we have laws forbidding that (we do not have national laws forbidding same-sex marriages, mind you). I do not agree with the examples that you have put, but they will in no way affect any future relationships I am in, so they might as well do what they want.
Do I think your examples will become legal? With the exception of polygamy, no. Same-sex marriages have an upward trend toward acceptance of legality, so I do see that it is plausible that same-sex marriages will become legal soon.
Posted by CynicalBrit 3 years ago
CynicalBrit
Interesting points from JacobAnderson.

Something I've been musing on though, using all of his opening arguments as they stand, couldn't you equally just about argue any kind of relationship as being valid for "marriage"?

Just out of curiosity, I wondered if JacobAnderson would be supportive of polygamous relationships qualifying for marriage also - eg a marriage between 2 men and 3 women? Or say a man who wanted to marry his biological sister? Or say a 13 year old who wanted to marry a 50 year old?

And if you personally disagree with any of the above, on what basis would you deny those people if they genuinely wanted to enter into these types of relationships of their own free will?

Please know that I don't intend to be flippant here; this is a genuine question.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
JacobAndersonjvavaTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: More forfeits on the part of con than pro. Convincing and elaborate contentions on the part of pro win him this debate easily due to con's lack of participation.