The Instigator
FourTrouble
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Nosaj5q
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Same-sex marriage should be legal in the United States

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...
FourTrouble
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 898 times Debate No: 23124
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

FourTrouble

Pro

In this debate, I will argue for the position that the United States government should legalize same-sex marriage. I am well-aware that the topic has been beaten beyond death, so in my desire to breathe some life into it, I will be offering a traditionalist/conservative defense of same-sex marriage.

For the purposes of this debate, same-sex marriage will be defined as a legally recognized contract between two individuals of the same gender that grants the same legal benefits found in heterosexual marriage. I do not define marriage in the abstract or offer the traditional man-woman definition of marrage, as that is what this debate is about: what marriage should be, not what it is or has been.

That said, I would like to thank whoever accepts this challenge. The first round is for acceptance, although my opponent is welcome to use the space to ask any questions he/she may have or to offer a brief opening statement. I assume the burden of proof for this debate, and look forward to a thought-provoking exchange.
Nosaj5q

Con

at the present time the word marriage is paired with Christianity and the bible. simply put you cannot implement legislature such as marriage under "the bible" just as you can not pass legislature under the constitution if it blatantly disregards its rules. for two people of the same gender to be paired legally it must be done in a manner that is not affiliated with Christianity.
Debate Round No. 1
FourTrouble

Pro

Note: I am unsure whether my opponent's bizarre opening statement merits a response or not. Suffice it to say, because the definition of same-sex marriage I provided explicitly refers to a legal contract established by the United States government, it was implied in the context of this debate that religious affiliation was irrelevant. Perhaps my opponent can clarify how Christianity is related to arguments about the legal definition of marriage in the United States?

The liberal defense of same-sex marriage (hereafter SSM) typically invokes abstract ideals like liberty/equality and draws out the consequences of banning SSM in relation to these abstractions -- gays get put into a suspect classification based on sexual orientation, the 14th Amendment is violated (specifically the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause), and so on.

I quickly point out the liberal case because in the rest of this debate I will ignore it. My defense of SSM will proceed from a traditionalist perspective: the legality of SSM depends not on legal abstractions (liberty, equality), but on a proper interpretation of the traditional values informing the institution of marriage, in the light of our present-day political context.

The key to my argument is the need to revise the definition of marriage, not because the traditional definition conflicts with liberal abstractions, but because the traditional man-woman definition is no longer compatible with the traditional values it was originally supposed to reflect.
As support, I offer a compelling set of reasons to believe traditional values interpreted in the light of present-day circumstances are not compatible with a traditional man-woman definition of marriage.

1) Because sexual orientation is a characteristic of a person's biological existence, it is not a conscious choice that can be changed voluntarily. What's more, there is no reason to believe sexual orientation affects an idividual's ability to function, perform, or contribute to and within society, their communities, or their families.


2) When the man-woman definition of marriage first developed, it was intended primarily to do two things: to encourage, recognize, and reinforce loving relationships; and to provide a stable environment for raising children with love, commitment, honor, integrity, etc. Marriage, as an institution, is primarily a way of signaling the commitment of a family to each other, and the commitment to pass on family values to their children.

3) From the perspective of traditional family values, gay culture is typically characterized by a series of pathologies:
too much promiscuity, too much drug use, too much alcohol abuse, too little personal responsibility.

4) Given (1), it follows that gay couples are able to perform everything implied by (2). There is no reason gay couples cannot commit to a loving relationship in which they encourage traditional values and signal this commitment to their community. There is also no reason that gay couples could not raise children. That alone seems reason to extend access to marriage to gays.

5) Now, consider (4) and (3), and it becomes clear that SSM is not only permitted but, from the perspective of a traditionalist, it is imperative that SSM be legalized. Gay life and culture in general would benefit immensely from marriage, as marriage could have the sort of traditionalizing effect on gay culture and individuals that is clearly needed.

6) Not allowing gays to marry is denying them access to an institution that would encourage and reinforce traditional values. Is it any wonder gay culture is promiscuous and self-destructive? It goes against all the family values and traditional valus on which marriage is predicated to deny gays the right.

7) Another fact: one million children are being raised by gay parents. By denying gay parents the right to mariage, we do not only gays access to traditional values, we also deny their children access to marriage. This is a problem, as many of the arguments against SSM rely on the fact taht marriage is primarily about child-rearing.

8) The issue is a pragmatic one: is it better to allow children to be raised in families that are not stable and reinforced by the traditional values encouraged in marriage, or is it better to extend the right of marriage to gays and their children, hereby also encouraging and reinforcing traditional values?
Nosaj5q

Con

Well I'm would like to apologize to you for not offering a significant rebuttal as I find myself agreeing with you.
Debate Round No. 2
FourTrouble

Pro

It seems this debate is over, my opponent was convinced by my opening arguments and has therefore offered no rebuttal. This could be taken as a concession, and as such, the resolution is affirmed.
Nosaj5q

Con

Nosaj5q forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
FourTrouble

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. Please vote Pro.
Nosaj5q

Con

Nosaj5q forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
I just realized, Nosaj5q might have said that to discourage me from putting any effort into my argument. It worked.
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
lol, Nosaj5q, marriage is not restricted to Christianity; plenty of other cultures have promote marriage throughout history (go read the Odyssey or the Iliad if you want proof; Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, etc. also all promote marraige). That statement is idiotic.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
The liberal critique of SSM is basically a "marriage is bad" argument, and if you are interested in arguing that, you definitely are welcome to take this. It would definitely be interesting.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
true, your arguments have improved, some other time this summer we'll debate
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
LOL, I was thinking about accepting the debate and running a "Marriage is bad" argument, but I'm sure that you wouldn't appreciate that :p
Posted by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
I don't think that there is a liberal critique of SSM.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
No that's when my argunments sucked
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
lol 16k, I already debated you on SSM, better someone else.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I can't accept new debates now sorry! ( leaving soon, yesterday was my last day of accepting debates)
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
FourTrouble
Also, just a thought: because my defense of same-sex marriage will be a conservative defense, it would be somewhat apropos if my opponent were a liberal offering a strictly liberal critique of same-sex marriage. I'm not expecting it, but putting the challenge out there for any liberals itching to make the argument that same-sex marriage is incompatible with tolerance and other such liberal notions that I know nothing of. It could turn out to be a really interesting debate. Or something.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Xerge 4 years ago
Xerge
FourTroubleNosaj5qTied
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: Concession..
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
FourTroubleNosaj5qTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
FourTroubleNosaj5qTied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Con conceded and Pro had better grammar.