The Instigator
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
chainmachine
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Same Sex marriage should be lagalized in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/19/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 763 times Debate No: 21267
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

16kadams

Con

1st round = acceptance
chainmachine

Pro

Challenge accepted please state your opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Con

Thank you for accepting.

The secular case against gay marriage:

1." Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust."[1]

P1: Procreation

Heterosexual marriage laws the ground work for a relationship that creates and raises children. (sperm + egg). Now, the goverment gives many benefits economically, tax wise, etc to married couples. [2] The reason they only give them to traditional couples is because of their ability to procreate. Having children is the only way to continue society and advance our culture and race. As the heterosexual couples are the only people who can advance society in this way, and well pay back the benefits they get through marriage, then they deserve a state recognition. The goverment makes laws based of of interests, and their interest in this case is procreation. Therefore allowing gay marriage would be unjust as it debars the special recognition the heterosexual couples deserve.

P2: Is marriage about love?

People who are pro gay marriage usually have the claims that marriage is about love, but this is far from true. If marriage is about love, then why is the state involved? They are involved due to some sort of interest. If the goverment cared about love, then they would attempt to regulate and control friendships or non marital relationships.

The reason they regulate marriage over these other relationships is because marriage is where you are meant to produce a larger workforce. The reason they do not regulate other relationships is because they have no good reason to do so, at all.

The goverment in marriage needs two things: 1) legal commitment, 2) procreation and the ability to raise a child. A boyfriend girlfriend relationship may produce offspring in the process, but as they are not legally binding situation it is easier for them to break apart, and they will not be able to raise the child. A homosexual relationship will be lacking the legal bind, and the ability to produce offspring. Even if we did give them a legal bind, they would not be able to create children therefore not fulfilling the states interest fully.

P3: Infertile couples

One argument used against the procreation argument is the infertile argument. This objection is a misunderstood rebuttal, they do not understand the debate at point. The argument is not fully based of of the ability to reproduce, but rather a type of relationship in which procreation is possible to start off. It is not an argument fully based of of the argument they can make kids, but also an argument based of of the ability to have the similar effect, a procreative type union.

P3: Benefits

My opponent without a doubt will start to argue as marriage has benefits isn't it fair homosexuals receive them too? Any society, goverment, or institution that distinguishes marriage in a certain way will prohibit some types of marriage. A prohibition of SSM does not violate the equal protection clause as we must first have a definition of what marriage is. You cannot confirm that a SSM ban is unconstitutional unless we determine exactly what marriage is, and what it is for. [3]

It is only unconstitutional if they are unjustly debarred the right. Ex: Is it unconstitutional if we debar a murderer from a gun? No. That is a just cause, and with my secular case against gay marriage I have proven they are justly debarred the right. By saying it is unconstitutional you are saying it discriminates without just cause, and that this group deserves the right. As murderers do not deserve a right to a gun, then it is constitutional. In the states eyes homosexual couples cannot produce offspring therefore do not fulfill states interest, and do not deserve the right.

Just because something may have inherent good effects does not mean they deserve the legal benefits. The challenge to my opponent, and the argument he needs to press is: What are the states interest in giving these couples rights? If the State has no reason to give you benefits then why should they? Marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, and no one else, and the states interest is in a procreative type relationship, a gay couple does not entitle to these benefits.

I urge a Con vote.

sources:

http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...... [1]
http://www.nolo.com...... [2]
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" [3]
chainmachine

Pro

My argument is simple, sex life. Your business. Marriage your business.
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Con

Thank you for the very insightful response. extend arguments.

R1: Marriage is your business.

Your argument, well your only argument, is the goverment should leave marriage. The first question you must ask: Can the goverment escape marriage? The answer is no they will likely stay in marriage. [1] New society has linked marriage as a civil legal matter, which now regulated by the state. [1] Also as the resolution states the word LEGALIZE. This implies there is a law, and laws = goverment. But I will argue the non related point anyways:

The state began regulations of marriage the 16th century in Europe.[2] Now I will argue why the goverment is in marriage:

As I have proven the goverment is involved in marriage for a purpose: Procreation. They are involved in marriage to try to... encourage procreative- type unions. These Unions ensure that the state gets what it wants: More souls to tax, and a larger workforce. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the reason they are in marriage is procreation. [3] So they regulate for a purpose, and will never leave marriage.

Conclusion:

SSM should not be legalized, also the resolution implies the goverment is involved in marriage as I used the word legalized, so his argument is invalid, and my arguments stand. VOTE CON!





http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... [1]
http://vigilance.teachthefacts.org... [2]
William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) PDF [3]
chainmachine

Pro

Why does it matter if people want to get married?? Marriage is a union by law but still, how does it cause harm? Same sex couples commonly have fertilization and adopt so they can raise children. I think encouraging the union of two people who want to start a family is perfectly fine. Your argument is how its not "Beneficial" to society. Two people wanting to spend the rest of their lives together and raise a family and live like everyone else is wrong?

My opponent does not seem to understand that marriage is not about "making babies" its about bonds. Vote Pro, vote for love!
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Con

My opponents whole case is basically saying marriage is about love... >_<
R1: Marriage is not about "making babies"

Marriage in the states eyes only cares about 2 major things: A procreative type relationship and child rearing. This is the only reason the state gives heterosexual couples the benefits the goverment gives them. The goverment makes laws due to their interests, and they are giving away benefits to heterosexual couples. This indicates they have some interest in these couples, or have some service they can utilize. The service they want is more people. Due the fact they can create children, the goverment ought to give them some recognition, should they not? The most common state interest discussed in the debate over SSM is the states interest in marriage. [2] The courts have held that the only reason they are involved in the SSM debate is because the states interest in marriage is to ensure the future of the human race, and a procreative-type union. [1,2]

One common pro SSM argument is that marriage is about love, not procreation. Well this argument is totally false! The majority of relationships that are heterosexual marriages end up with children. If marriage is about love, then why would the goverment regulate it? IF they cared about love any relationship that involved this quality would be regulated! If you had a girlfriend, and the goverment cared about love, then it would be regulated. Further more what interest does the goverment have in ensuring love? None, therefore this common claim is false, and marriage should not be legalized as the state cares about ensuring procreation, not love. Also ask this: If marriage was about love, then bestiality, polymory etc. would be allowed. So marriage is not about love.

Conclusion:

I have refuted my opponents arguments and he has only refuted 2 of mine. He also drops my refutations to his arguments. The state has no reason to legalize SSM, therefore it should not be allowed. He claims "it is fine" Well sure they can be together, but not in marriage as marriage is in nature between a man and a woman. Historically, and by its nature, marriage is between a man and a woman, as this is the case, no right is being deprived. It cannot be discrimination unless we find the definition of marriage, as historically and naturally (procreation) it is one man and one woman, then it is not discrimination as nothing is being deprived. So his arguments are false, NO SSM VOTE CON!





"THE STATE INTERESTS IN MARRIAGE" William C. Duncan, AVE MARIA LAW REVIEW, 2004, PDF. [1]
Singer v. Hara, 522 P.2d 1187, 1195 [2]
chainmachine

Pro

There is nothing left to say really, I have no arguments left except why the state should care if same sex couples want to get married?
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
I think the answer to that question can be summed up here in the words of the great Alan Keyes.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
No. That's a misenterpreted response. The argument is about procreative type relationships.
Posted by ahopele 2 years ago
ahopele
If marriage were about pro-creation, are you insinuating that straight sterile couples can't get married?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Yep 2 years ago
Yep
16kadamschainmachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not debate, plain and simple
Vote Placed by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
16kadamschainmachineTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't seem to be taking this debate very seriously, his answers were all one liners that barely touched on the issue.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 2 years ago
KeytarHero
16kadamschainmachineTied
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: Pro didn't even debate, really. He certainly didn't adequately address Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 2 years ago
RougeFox
16kadamschainmachineTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- pro didn't try S/G- pro had run-ons "Challenge accepted please state your opening argument."- needs punctuation. Pro also had fragments "Your business. Marriage your business." - No verb in those two sentences- when your argument is that short, then these mistakes are more than half of what you are saying. Args- Pro didn't develop one Sources- Con had good ones, pro had none.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
16kadamschainmachineTied
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: Pro didn't even try.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
16kadamschainmachineTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made much better arguments with examples. Con also used sources. Con spelled legalized in the title wrong, so I gave spelling to Pro.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
16kadamschainmachineTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Im suprised that the Pro hasnt won a single debate despite his very well structured argument style....
Vote Placed by Maikuru 2 years ago
Maikuru
16kadamschainmachineTied
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: Pro presents no evidence and does not fully address Con's arguments.