Same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Debate Rounds (5)
In this debate, make sure you include in your argument the following:
1. Explain what CIVIL marriage and the purpose of it is and how this view of marriage is true (if you can of course)
2. Explain how the due process and equal protection clause are being violating.
3. Show how having gay marriage is more beneficial then banning it.
Also, you can cut and paste information from other debates you have been in to save your time.
"Sexual unions of male and female are unique: they alone can make new life, and when they do so will either connect (or disconnect) children from mothers and fathers [ to form a family unit]. It is this biological reality that has given rise to the marriage relationship, not just in America, but across all cultural, ethnic, religious and tribal lines throughout recorded history.
This global consensus on marriage formed the foundation of our common law, animating the laws governing marriage not only in California, but throughout the United States. The vast majority of children are conceived through acts of sexual passion; marriage provides a means to help society regulate this [biologically driven sexual act] so that children do not get hurt."
Our marriage laws regulate opposite-sex relationships by establishing a baseline definition of who is married (man and woman) and the purpose of marriage (responsible procreation and rearing of children). As a by-product, it provides a shared framework from which concepts such as out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, remarriage, step parenting, divorce, etc. can be understood. Moreover, We come to know how these choices and situations can be detrimental for kids or families as a result. Then, the law steps in to reinforce that meaning of marriage to simulate a part of reality for people.
Although, as a secondary effect, marriage does provide incentives and disincentives;
the idea of marriage and the other social institutions that are associated with it do not require people to use them. Primarily, it is the very existence and understanding of these social institutions, the social exchange, and the government's reinforcement of these social rituals that combine to make it seem reasonable and even natural for people to apply these concepts.
"Apart from marriage, there is also a body of law that assists in the determination of parental status, then provides for legal actions to establish support obligations and then government agencies stringently enforce those obligations.
With marriage, the narrative is different, but the aims clear. The husband of the child's mother is considered the father of the child and is presumed to adequately support the child. With only rare exceptions, his paternity cannot be challenged and not by any third party. With the automatic parental status come enforceable responsibilities and the spouses cannot abandon one another or their children without some formal decree and even then, the support obligations that began with marriage continue, between the spouses for a time and for the child until adulthood. "
References: Page 3,4,5,6,7
I fail to see how marriage regulates baby-making. Since the beginning of time, countless babies have been born out of wedlock and often still do. Marriage has never "regulated" baby-making. On the contrary, allowing for same-sex marriage will help reduce the amount of unadopted children.
Out-of-wedlock pregnancies, adultery, step-parenting, and divorce will not become hard to understand or disappear if same-sex marriage becomes legal as Con seems to claim. Con also claims all these things are harmful to children. While they can, they are no innately. Some couples choose never to be married and just stay together and have children and never break up. Step parents can have very positive influences on children. Even so, I fail to see how same-sex marriage even relates to this.
Same sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Many states are denying a basic right to a huge portion of our population. Two consenting adults love each other and want to have the legal benefits of marriage to help start their life together. We have found no negative effects of same-sex marriage, so who are we to tell them that their love is not equal to that of heterosexual couples?
PRO's only attempt to argue for the love hypothesis view of marriage was not an attempt at all. PRO just argued that CIVIL marriage is not about the well-being of children because we allow infertile couples. Even if this were the case, it would not prove her view of marriage to be true but just negate the child-centered view of marriage. Nevertheless, its not a valid argument against the state's view of marriage for several reasons.
When it comes to infertile couples, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and long-term fertility may reverse the prognosis (even in post menopausal women). Not to mention, we would have to check almost every single couple that wants a marriage license. This clearly would take a large amount of resources to accomplish.
For the sake of argument, even if it was possible to detect infertility in couples without state intrusion, it still wouldn't matter. Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right. This means a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable and would not pass strict scrutiny because it would be overinclusive. Thus, it's costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
I will again entertain PRO for the sake of argument and pretend there is a fundamental right to gay marriage even though PRO did not cite a single U.S. supreme court case showing her claim is true. Unlike the infertile, the traditional marriage laws would still constitutional muster. To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
Before I start, let make something clear here to the AUDIENCE. This is not a family structure argument or about encouraging procreation and rearing of children. This is about family STABILITY. There is a difference. Family structure is about how and who the child is raised. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience and encouraging couples to procreate and rear children within a legally and socially recognized situation (i.e. stable environment called marriage).
Now, when I say this , I am not saying family structure is not important for the child or is not part of the state interest because it is a part of it. I am just saying that its not the argument I am promoting or conveying in this debate. So make sure when you read my arguments that you program your mind to think in the context of family stability NOT family structure.
1. First,"The [s]tate must show at least that the [challenged] classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. (United States v. Virginia)"
As explained previously, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps. The state uses the institution of marriage, primarily, as an insurance policy, just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support.
The name and meaning of Marriage is there to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children simply by obtaining a marriage license.
There is also empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.
Just go to this website http://www.smartmarriages.com..................
2. Second, "the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest". These are the over and under inclusive arguments:
See section, "infertile couples"
Since the name/meaning of it is the institution, an explanation as to why the state allows the infertile and others to get a marriage license more directly involves the institution of marriage itself.
Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can procreate and fulfill this particular state's objective; unlike same sex couples who cannot by definition procreate.
Thus, infertile heterosexuals do not change the definition nor challenge the intention of the institution of marriage. This is because the definition of marriage (man and woman) and the purpose of it (responsible procreation and rearing of children) are synonymous.
"How exactly, in more precise terms, does same sex marriage interfere with the state's purpose in marriage"
If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation, natural parenthood, and connecting children to their own mothers and fathers.
Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent for couples to disdain from, would decay and eventually be eliminated.
This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. As a result, heterosexuals, from FUTURE generations, would most likely formulate those choices that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general.
Thus, the state would no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments where the nuclear family could be intact during the child development process.
3. Finally, " the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to to effectively achieve the compelling government interest."
Furthermore, regarding same sex couples, Society need not worry about the effects of their sexual activity in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own.
Therefore, since same sex couples are not similarly situated, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable and warranted. The only means the state uses is the term marriage in order to continue publicly encouraging responsible procreation and rearing of children to each generation of heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.
JUSTICE is applied EQUALLY in each case.
In my next response, I will give a clear cut argument against gay marriage in terms of public policy
rogue forfeited this round.
As I said before, Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven act that happens regardless of state intrusion. What happens after procreation and during the child development process is where the state steps.
The state uses the institution of marriage ,which is the name and meaning, as an insurance policy just in case; a couple naturally procreates either by accident or by choice without legal and social support.
The Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory
A. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process.
B. Family structure is about how and who the child is being raised with during the child development process.
There are two approaches in which the state attempts to maximize and ensure the well being of children. One way is through the responsible procreation theory which involves establishing family stablity within heterosexual relationships. The state uses the idea of Marriage to encourage couples to procreate and/or rear their children in a stable environment that is best situated to raise children (i.e. Civil marriage licence). Another way is through the optimal partnership theory which involves family structure. The state uses marriage to promote the ideal partnership between two biological married parents, but it also involves another set of laws regarding the determination of parental status or natural parenthood.
There is empirical evidence that supports the responsible procreation theory. Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. ( see round 2)
There is also empirical evidence supporting the optimal partnership theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement. They are less likely to be poor, to exhibit behavioral problems, to struggle in school etc. than children in any other living arrangement.
Responsible procreation and Optimal partnership theory has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times:
In Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
"[C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to rank as one of
the coordinate state of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one MAN and one WOMAN in the holy state of matrimony; the sure
foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of the reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement."
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965):
Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute "operates directly on an intimate relation of HUSBAND and WIFE," 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of "the traditional relation of the family--a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization." 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688
"Gay Marriages Will Destroy Marriage"
Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as previously explained in round 3, but it could end up discouraging them as well. If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be almost impossible.
So if my opponent agrees that the natural view of marriage will be viewed as a form of bigotry which will discourage people from holding and practicing that idea to the fullest, then PRO would have to accept that heterosexuals will eventually cohabitate and/or divorce much more down the road as a logical consequence.
Remember, the studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation.
The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and its comparisons to no-fault divorce, in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws".
rogue forfeited this round.
Funny how advocates for no- fault divorce implied and made similar claims that the current law hurts a group of people (those in "dead" marriages) and that its social impact was minimal or non-existent etc.; But, we now know otherwise: divorce rates have skyrocketed since and children have been the most adversely affected. PRO is exhibiting similar hubris. So why don't you cut the pretense, because PRO does not actually know when the unintended consequences of changing the structure of marriage will be.
The fact is this is reasonably a new phenomenon. When we changed the divorce laws to no-fault and reduced all barriers, it was at least 10 years of research before they began to accumulate data that indicated the impact of that change on an empirical level. Therefore, it is not realistic to find evidence of a causal link (or possibly even a correlation) between redefining marriage and the weakening of marriage.
rogue forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.