Should Gay Marriage be legalized?
Debate Rounds (4)
I am very pro gay marriage and I strongly believe any society that does not have it cannot claim to be egalitarian.
Good luck! :)
It's just that, equality. Lets say homosexual marriage is banned, if a person is born homosexual then they are not able to marry, whereas if they were born heterosexual they would. This is textbook inequality.
I know a few homosexual couples and although there are a few differences between them and heterosexual couples they are essentially the same. They are committed to each other, they love each other and they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Except they are unable to do that because they both have male genitalia, legally the state will not recognize their love on something entirely arbitrary. Marriage should be between two people who love each other, what they have between their legs is entirely irrelevant.
Marriage is for two people who love each other. If two men or two women love each other then they should be allowed to marry and should not be restricted to a life of watching their heterosexual friends getting married while they have to remain as just boyfriend or girlfriend.
The first argument considers those who are already married. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman overseen and given legal substance by the state. The state has defined it as between a man and a woman for centuries (1). When two people agree to marry they sign a contract.
These three facts may seem irrelevant, but let me link them together:
When a man and a woman sign the marriage contract, they are legally bonded with each other and the state. However, if the state changes what marriage is, then the contract is changed. What this means is that the husband and wife are now signed up to a different form of partnership than what they agreed to. What right has the state got to force already-married couples to be in a partnership different to what they signed up for?
Legalising same-sex marriage fundamentally changes what marriage is, and as this would change the marriages of millions of people, it violates the contractually autonomous nature of marriage.
My second argument is that same-sex marriage endangers the validity of sacramental marriage. Note that this is not a religious argument as it does not involve accepting the axiom of religion's veracity, only the welfare of those who happen to be religious.
Millions of people have sacramental marriage and coincidentally take the security that is offered by a civil marriage. The reason that people can justifiably be both married sacramentally and civilly is that civil and sacramental marriage have roughly the same meaning.
If same-sex marriage was to be legalised then it would fundamentally differentiate civil marriage from sacramental marriage; this would mean two things:
1. The state is asserting that their definition of marriage is correct, thus implying that sacramental marriages are incorrect. This questions the validity of the marriages of millions of people.
2. If civil marriage was different to sacramental marriage then the state would be less inclined to see sacramental marriage as a valid marriage at all. Again, this could jeopardise the security of sacramental marriages.
The above two consequences of same-sex marriage show that it will negatively affect the millions of people who have sacramental marriage. Therefore it should not be legalised.
My third argument is a variant of the slippery slope argument.
The quintessential maxim of the same-sex marriage lobby is that 'you should be able to marry someone if you love them'. But this would logically entail that one should be able to marry multiple people, or siblings for that matter.
Supporters of same-sex marriage highlight that incest causes defects in offspring, but this would not distinguish between same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage if the latter used contraception. I would also argue that being raised by homosexual parents is not preferable for children, but that's another debate.
To conclude, if we allow same-sex marriage because of love, then this would also allow polygamous and contraception-using incestuous marriages.
Marriage is beneficial to society, children and couples. However, marriage must be respected and valued in order for people to choose to get married, otherwise they will dismiss it as simply a piece of paper or a financial predicament.
Due to this, it is beneficial to society, children and couples to maintain the respect that marriage has.
The issue with same-sex marriage is that legalising it is a direct act of the state changing marriage by bowing under public opinion.
My premise is that a constant institution or concept is more respected, valued and trusted than an institution or concept that is equivocally elastic and malleable under current public attitudes. This comes from our innate psychology; we are less likely to trust in something that is easily changeable because we are not sure what we're putting our trust in. For example, a political party that sticks to its principles despite public opposition can be more easily trusted (and is more respected) than a political party that changes what it stands for in order to please a few people.
It is the same with marriage; if it is changed under pressure from public opinion then it will be ultimately less respected and more suspiciously regarded than if it is not changed. This would mean that less people would get married and society, children and relationships will suffer.
Consequently, legalising same-sex marriage would negatively affect people and society, as doing so involves changing what marriage is.
My final argument explains why same-sex marriage is unnecessary.
The only practical reason why it could be construed to be needed would be to give homosexual couples the financial security, spouse recognition, inheritance and other benefits that heterosexual married couples receive.
However, the ideal solution to this is to allow homosexuals to have civil partnerships that give the exact same legal benefits as a marriage, but does not affect marriage.
I may be missing some other practical benefit that same-sex marriage could give, but at the moment I cannot see anything that civil partnerships wouldn't solve.
These are my five arguments, which together show that legalising same-sex marriage could most likely be harmful to society and those within it; and would bring no tangible benefit.
I will now respond to my opponent's arguments:
'if a person is born homosexual then they are not able to marry, whereas if they were born heterosexual they would. This is textbook inequality.'
Not really, the marriage laws are equal. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex, and neither homosexuals and heterosexuals are allowed to marry a person of the same sex. So, in theory, there is no inequality. It's not that homosexuals are not allowed to marry, they just aren't allowed to marry someone of the same sex. This rule equally applies to heterosexual people. The law is equal in this regard.
'They are committed to each other, they love each other and they want to spend the rest of their lives together. Except they are unable to do that because they both have male genitalia, legally the state will not recognize their love on something entirely arbitrary.'
It is entirely possible to have a life-long, legally-recognised partnership without getting married.
'Marriage should be between two people who love each other, what they have between their legs is entirely irrelevant.'
Gender is a lot more than different genitalia; it is defined in the brain, in the body and in behaviour. Gender is, in reality, rather significant. And if you are saying that marriage should be between two people who love each other, then you are also saying that brothers and sisters should be able to get married if they love each other.
'should be allowed to marry and should not be restricted to a life of watching their heterosexual friends getting married while they have to remain as just boyfriend or girlfriend.'
Civil partnerships are an option. Furthermore, it is a poor argument for gay marriage to just appeal to the whimsical desires of some homosexual people.
My opponents first argument is that legalizing same sex marriage would be unfair to heterosexual couples as it would change the nature of the document they signed.
My response to this in a shorter form for anyone unwilling to read any further would be A: No it doesn't and B: So what if it did?
My opponent seems to be under the impression that once signing a marriage certificate the couple have signed some vastly important document that will lead to serious legal changes and the fact they wrote their signature on the piece of paper means its akin to signing some important legal document. A tax form for example, and legalizing same-sex marriage would be like forcing a person to pay more tax than they signed up for.
There are two problems with this argument, first of all marriage certificates are not as soul-binding as my opponent seems to believe. Of course marriage certificates are different for different places but simple Google search shows that by and large all that marriage certificates seem to mention are the names of who are being married, when and where it happened, who married them and who witnessed it. That's it. How will allowing same-sex couples the right to marry change any of the things I have listed?
Secondly, even if there was anything on marriage certificates that would be changed by the legalization of same-sex marriage why would it matter? Will the slight altering of something on the document affect them in any way? Will they fall out of love? Will all their happy experiences be invalidated? Will it change the nature of their marriage? I fail to see how even if legalization would make a difference to the document they signed, how this affects them. Why are hundreds of thousands of couples denied the right to have their love recognized by the state simply because of some bureaucratic nonsense that is entirely unimportant and irrelevant?
My opponents second argument is that as marriage performed by a government official would have a different definition to marriage performed by a religious official this would lead to invaliding religiously conducted marriages.
First of all why does the difference in who can get married mean the government is implying that religious marriages that don't allow same-sex couples are incorrect? Having a difference in opinion does not have to imply this, the government could just as equally be saying that they have a difference in opinion, but they still respect the religious opinion. He has in no way backed up this claim.
Secondly, once again why does the difference in who can be married mean the state is going to be less inclined to see religious marriages as valid? There are an enormous amount of differences already present, and the state doesn't take issue with them. There are no hymns sung at civil marriages, but the state doesn't fling its arms up and proclaim that this means that religious marriages are somehow less important. A difference in the gender of the two being married is just another slight difference, its not going to cause the state to act like a religious marriage is like being married by a tramp over a dead horse.
The third argument is the age old anti marriage equality argument. If we allow two men to marry whats next?? A man marrying his brother? His mum? His dog? His pot plant? Yes, its the famous slippery slope fallacy. This argument has been debunked thousands of times by people far more intelligent than me, but I'll have a go.
Setting aside how incredibly offensive it is to compare homosexual couples to incestual 'relationships', as I've previously said. Same-sex couples are not all that different to heterosexual couples. They are in essence two adults who have mutually consented to signing a document that means the government will formally recognize them as a couple. Saying that polygamous or incestual marriages will come after gay marriage is just plain wrong, there is no link between them. This argument would only make sense if homosexuality had some link to polygamy and incest, they are not. And also look at the places that have legalized gay marriage. I live in the UK and I am yet to see some big group advocating horse marriage (we just prefer to eat them). Maryland legalized gay marriage in 1973 and although I've never been there I am pretty sure there isn't a mass incest problem arising there.
Also lets go over the problem with the slippery slope fallacy in general. The problem with it is that it avoids answering the actual question and instead shifts the focus on a baseless unlikely hypothetical possibility, usually without providing any proper link.
I could come up with something equally ridiculous, aka not allowing same-sex marriage will result in the not allowing of interracial marriage. Which of course is stupid, but funnily enough In 50 years people will look back on critics of same sex-marriage and feel the same shame we do when we look at the people who held signs outside congress saying "Race mixing is communism"
Argument four is essentially when Con started scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments. Change is apparently inherently bad, therefore we can't change the 'definition of marriage'.
This is such a ridiculous line of argumentation that I don't think I have the willpower to go too deeply. Change is bad? No it isn't, not if the change is for the better. Allowing interracial marriage was pretty big change in the definition of marriage. How about making it so both sides actually have to consent to the marriage? In fact I'd argue that making the constitution of marriage more accepting and more open would make it stronger, not weaker.
This is slightly off topic but it has to be said. Marriage is not this holy beautiful thing okay? Its just not. In our society you could have met a person half an hour ago at a bar and drunkenly decide to get married. You could marry someone for their money, then divorce them and repeat. But if you're two people of the same sex who have been in a committed relationship for years, you love each other, you want to spend the rest of your lives together then that's destroying the sanctity of marriage and you're going to lead to people marrying goats.
Finally. The fifth argument is that its unimportant because the only reason gays want to get married is for tax benefits. Okay do something for me, go on Google images and type in 'Marriage'. Is it full of pictures of tax forms? No, society gives us the idea that we find someone we love, marry them and settle down for the rest of their lives. You can argue that that's stupid, but regardless of what's logical that's what a lot of people dream of. A civil partnership is just not the same thing. Imagine living your whole life with the person you love, knowing that you can never truly be connected with them in the way you've been told your whole life is the true communion of two people in love. How would you feel if you received a letter in the post one day saying you're no longer allowed to have a marriage? Maybe you wouldn't care, but a lot of people dream of finding the love of their life and settling down. And we can argue for hours whether marriage is actually important but blocking people from it is just flat out immoral.
And that's all that needs to be said really. Marriage is a human right, not just a privilege for heterosexual people.
Con argues that changing a marriage contract will not physically affect those who are already married. This may be the case, but changing a contract that someone has already signed is wrong in principle. The whole idea of a contract is that it is agreed to freely by two parties. If marriage is definitively changed the the contract is definitively changed. This means that if one got married before marriage was changed then they would be under a contractual obligation that they did not freely choose.
It may not materially affect a married couple, but we have a rightly-established maxim in society that contracts should be agreed to freely. If the marriage contract is changed then it has no longer been freely agreed to.
It also affects those married couples that are against homosexuality, as they object to gay marriage and so, to them, what they signed up to HAS been changed and they would justifiably feel that the autonomous nature of their marriage has been violated.
Finally, Con makes the false assumption that gay couples require marriage to have 'their love recognised by the state'. This is false, their love is recognised by the state if they have a civil partnership.
Pro asks why changing the definition of marriage would negatively affect sacramental marriages. I will elaborate.
The main reason why one can have both a civil and sacramental marriage considered as one is that they are fundamentally similar (the bonding of a man and a woman). If gay marriage is legalised then civil and sacramental marriage cease to be fundamentally similar. It then follows that sacramental marriage and civil marriage would not be as likely to be considered as both valid forms of marriage.
Let me expand on this: changing the definition of a civil marriage makes it fundamentally different to sacramental marriage - is marriage between two people or is it exclusively between a man and a woman? What this means is that there will be dispute over the correct meaning of marriage. Obviously the government will think that the civil definition of marriage is correct, which means that the government will think that the sacramental definition of marriage is not correct. This would threaten the legal support of those who have sacramental marriage as the government would not continue to think that their marriage is wholly concordant to the established definition of marriage.
Finally, the fact that hymns are sung is only a distinguishing feature of a sacramental marriage ceremony. Allowing gay marriage would be distinguishing feature in the very definition of marriage. To say that the gender is a slight difference is simply misguided, as gender is a hugely significant part of one's identity.
Pro attempts to refute the slippery slope argument. I agree that it CAN be a fallacy but it is only a fallacy in deductive arguments. It is a sound argument when considered inductively. This is to say that legalising gay marriage would not necessarily lead to legalisation of incestous or polygamous marriage, but it could increase the probability of it being legalised.
This is realised a priori (using pure reason). It is true that the maxim of the pro-gay-marriage lobby is 'you should be allowed to marry someone you love', this would logically mean that incestous people and polygamists should be able to marry. What grounds would we have to deny them if we assert that marriage is just about love? Legalising gay marriage would show that the definition of marriage is malleable.
Pro presents the case of Maryland, where he says that gay marriage was legalised in 1973 but there is no significant call for legalisation of incestous marriage. However, this is incorrect - gay marriage was definitively banned in Maryland in 1973 (1), it was not legalised until 2012. The first country to legalise gay marriage was the Netherlands in 2001 (2). This is too recent to make accurate a posteriori social assessments.
Pro may dismiss the argument as hypothetical; but this is a show of naivety. When debating whether or not we ought to legalise something it is foolish to not look at likely outcomes. As I have argued, it is rational to suppose that legalisation of gay marriage would increase the probability of incestous marriage being legalised.
Finally, Pro associates gay marriage with interracial marriage. However, this is a poor equivocation - the definition of marriage has always been a joining of a man and a woman. This says nothing about race but it does specify the gender.
Therefore interracial marriage does not contravene the established definition whereas gay marriage does. Besides, Pro does not explain why banning gay marriage could lead to banning interracial marriage, whereas I have explained why allowing gay marriage could lead to incestous marriage.
Pro then commits the straw-man fallacy; as he misrepresents my arguments as saying that change is inherently bad and therefore gay marriage should not be legalised. Nowhere do I say this. What I do say is that respect and value is maintained by that which is not equivocally malleable - which is to say that something is more respected if its essence is not subject to whatever public opinion wants it to be. Change is not inherently bad, but it can be bad if the change is unnecessary, as I have already argued. We should not change things if there is no need to do so; there's a reason that there is a oft-repeated mantra of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof that gay marriage is necessary.
Ultimately, my opponent never actually refutes my sound argument that univocal concepts and institutions are more respected. Therefore these points stand.
Pro also speaks falsely by claiming that allowing interracial marriage was a pretty big change in the definition of marriage. The established definition of marriage has never contained any reference to race.
Lastly, Pro presents cases where people can drunkenly meet in a bar and marry the next day or marry people for money before getting a divorce. However, I would not allow marriage in any of these scenarios so this is a moot point that is not relevant to this particular debate.
In his final rebuttal, Pro rejects the idea of gay couples wanting to get married for tax benefits. Fine - this does not help his argument as it presents even less of a mandate for gay marriage.
Love, whilst it being important, should not replace reason when it comes to legislation. This is to say that it commits the appeal to emotion/pity fallacy (3)(4). It is not a rationally sound argument and so does not prove that gay marriage is necessary, which is what Pro needs to do in order to win this debate.
Finally, Pro maintains that a gay person cannot get married. But this is categorically false. A gay person can marry anyone, so long as that person is of the opposite gender. The same applies to heterosexuals. Therefore calling gay marriage 'equal marriage' is tautological as the current marriage laws ARE equal. The fact that gay people have different marital preferences is irrelevant, as equality is a matter of opportunity and not preference.
Con admits that changing the definition of marriage (as anti-gay marriage advocates love to call it) will not affect those who are already married but it is morally wrong. I suppose the question you need to ask yourself here is what is more morally wrong? Changing marriage legislation, which will make no actual difference to the married couples in any way shape or form. Or keeping the marriage legislation but denying thousands, if not millions, of people from marrying the person they love. I know that question is entirely weighted on my side of the argument but the point stands. Just as a side note Con seems to assume that all heterosexual couples would be on his side here which is a bold statement in a country where nearly 75% of the states have legalized gay marriage (I'm assuming Con is American here but even if he isn't a lot of the argument has been based around the US so it is still relevant)
For the second point I repeat the same thing I said last time, you assume there will be a dispute but give no reason why? Why do you assume leaders would be immature enough to not respect each others opinions and respectfully disagree. Of course I can't claim that it won't happen. But until Con gives a reason why a difference in definition between the two will lead to a dispute I cannot properly mount an argument against it, Con has assumed his point to be true and gone on to explain why it is a bad thing without going into any detail as to why it is true.
I've got to admit Con argued his points well here. First of all I am very sorry for my poor research here, Con is entirely correct in saying I was wrong about Maryland and I agree there has not been enough time to sensibly make a social observation, so for this point I accept I was wrong and Con was right. Con is also correct in saying 'you should be allowed to marry someone you love' could be reiterated by someone in support of polygamous or incestuous marriage (I am personally not against polygamous marriage but that's a whole other topic so for the sake of simplicity lets assume it is wrong). And although he's not technically wrong, why can't this argument be applied to interracial marriage? Replace his first two paragraphs with 'interracial marriage' rather than gay marriage and there is honestly no real difference in points.
Con seems to have misunderstood my fourth point. When I said Con had claimed change is inherently bad I was simply abridging his point. I fully understood he believed universal laws that remain unchanged over time are more respected by the people but I felt that was a bit of a mouthful. You can go read what I said again if you want but this sums it up 'I'd argue that making the constitution of marriage more accepting and more open would make it stronger, not weaker.'
Con then claims I have committed the 'appeal to emotion' fallacy. Yes my last point was based on what I think is morally right, which of course you could say is not a proper line of argument. But if you remember rightly the whole point for his first argument was that although same-sex marriage won't physically change a heterosexual couples marriage it is apparently morally wrong. I don't want to repeat my point but the reason I don't think civil unions are enough was very well summed up by artist Beth Robinson when she said "Nobody writes songs about civil unions". Also, saying denying homosexual couples the right to marry is not an inequality because a man can still marry a woman and vice versa is flat out ridiculous. Just because it's to do with people with a different sexual orientation doesn't make banning it any less an injustice. If you give every kid in the school a carton of milk then the lactose-intolerant ones aren't going to be very happy. The choices for them are drink the milk, drink the dirty tap water or go thirsty.
Now I shall make my arguments
Denying a person the right to marry the person they love is wrong and unfair. Many countries consider marriage an institution. It is true that not all heterosexual people/couples do get married but marriage is an option that is legally available to them. The thing is, marriage is important emotional resonance marriage holds. Marriage represents love being represented by society. It is a way of belonging the culture as a couple. The word 'marriage' has an impact that civil partnership does not. This is a reason why civil partners often refer to their partnerships as 'marriages', rather than 'partnerships'. It indicates that society attaches less importance to civil partnerships. Not to mention the financial benefits of marriage, of course this isn't the reason people get married (unless you are Kim Kardashian... and I hate myself for knowing that). But a same-sex couple over their whole marriage are in essence going to have to pay more money than a heterosexual couple married for the same time period. This isn't just unfair, its discrimination. There many other benefits of marriage, such as not being compelled to testify if a partner gets into legal trouble, but that's my main issue.
It is almost universally accepted that people of the same gender can fall in love, just as much as straight people can. We also know that being gay is not choice, there is some debate as to how much is social and how much is genetic, but it is certainly not a choice. I'm going to make an assumption that Con is heterosexual, as for some unknown reason there never seems to be any homosexual opponents of marriage equality, so in essence he has the full legal rights to meet a woman, fall in love with her, marry her and live the rest of his life with her. Now of course, if Con was gay, and he met a man and fell in love with him etc, he would still be perfectly able to spend the rest of his life with him. Now opponents of same-sex marriage like to say things along the line of 'why do you care if you can get married? You can spend the rest of your life together either way'. The problem (besides financially) is that civil partnerships are not societally romanticized. We are told from birth that when we find the person we love we're going to get married, and all your friends will be there, and it'll be like a fairytale. But oh, the partners have the same genitals. So no you can't have all that.
Even if they have the same legal benefits who cares? Marriage to the person you love is a universal right to everyone, dragging us back to the dark ages is not a good societal view. Everyone deserves a happy life, and marriage is an absolutely key part of achieving that for some people. But all of this is really irrelevant, in droves people are waking up and seeing the truth, that equality is the way forward, which is shown in the ever increasing acceptance of homosexual couples and homosexual couples as a whole as more and more countries accept marriage equality. To be blunt, people like Con are dying out and in their place we can hope for a new generation of love and acceptance.
I'd like to finish with a statement to Con.
Con, I don't want there to be any hostilities between us, and I may have seemed a bit blunt at times but to be honest. People like you are getting in the way of other people's happiness and are proud of it. So when marijuana and gay marriage are legalised worldwide, you are officially not invited to any of the awesome parties I shall be throwing. Peace.
Thanks for the debate!
Pro asks the question of what is more morally wrong - to change marriage legislation to allow 'thousands of people from marrying the person they love' or to keep marriage legislation as it is?
Well, let us think about it. There IS a moral obligation to not change the nature of contracts people have already signed (irrespective if this actually affects them) but there is NOT any moral obligation to allow people to marry someone they love. If we did have an obligation to do this, we would have an obligation to allow people to marry siblings. As this is clearly absurd, it follows that there is no such moral obligation to allow people to marry someone they love.
Therefore, if we are talking about morality, it is more morally wrong to allow gay marriage.
I agree that there are many heterosexual supporters of gay marriage, but there are also a significant amount who are against gay marriage. 669444 people signed a petition against gay marriage (1) in the UK (by the way, I am British).
'until Con gives a reason why a difference in definition between the two will lead to a dispute I cannot properly mount an argument against it'
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. If the government defines marriage as X and the Church defines marriage as Y, then clearly the government will assert that the correct definition of marriage is X and not Y. Definitions are supposed to be univocal.
Of course they could respectfully agree to disagree, but why would the state support a form of marriage that fundamentally differs to their own?
I accept my opponent's apology for his error, as I have made mistakes in the past and know what it feels like.
However, the slippery slope argument cannot be applied to interracial marriage because interracial marriage, unlike homosexual, polygamous or incestuous marriage, is not contrary to the established definition of marriage. As my argument is based on the significance of changing the definition of marriage, this is a crucial difference.
Pro quotes his earlier point, that 'I'd argue that making the constitution of marriage more accepting and more open would make it stronger, not weaker.'
Nonetheless, this is an unwarranted conclusion.
Using an analogy, a nightclub that is more exclusive and selective with its patrons is more likely to be respected and valued than a nightclub that lets anyone in.
In his next point, Pro acknowledges his use of the 'appeal to emotion' fallacy, but nevertheless, the fact that 'Nobody writes songs about civil unions' is not a good enough reason to warrant a change in the law. If we let the law be changed by emotions and not reason, then we would have a less ordered society,
I am aware that it is not a valid argument against gay marriage to argue that 'denying homosexual couples the right to marry is not an inequality because a man can still marry a woman and vice versa', but all I was intending to do was to highlight that there is no actual inequality in the current marriage laws. Of course people will find that unsatisfactory, but they'll have to find other reasons to support gay marriage and not just appeal to equality because equal marriage still exists.
For example, I am free to marry a woman - but if I decide I want to marry my father this does not make the law guilty of being non-egalitarian.
I will now give short rebuttals to my opponent's arguments, I will not refute them extensively as it is the final round and Pro will not be able to defend them.
'Marriage represents love being represented by society. It is a way of belonging the culture as a couple.'
And I do not doubt that civil partnerships could some day be given the same emotional resonance as marriage, the only reason they are currently perceived as so is because they are relatively new institutions.
'This is a reason why civil partners often refer to their partnerships as 'marriages'
This is my point - homosexuals can still get the gratification of being married by simply regarding their civil partnership as a marriage. Actually being able to marry is not needed for this.
'It indicates that society attaches less importance to civil partnerships.'
But that is the fault of the society; not the concept of civil partnerships.
'But a same-sex couple over their whole marriage are in essence going to have to pay more money than a heterosexual couple married for the same time period.'
Source? If this is the case then we ought to make the financial nature of civil partnerships equally rewarding to the financial nature of marriages, it is not a reason to throw out civil partnerships altogether. So long as we make civil partnerships equally rewarding in a material sense then there is no need for homosexuals to get married.
'I'm going to make an assumption that Con is heterosexual, as for some unknown reason there never seems to be any homosexual opponents of marriage equality'
Well, yes I am heterosexual, but that's entirely irrelevant. Also, Rupert Everett (an openly gay actor) opposed gay marriage, calling it 'tragic, a waste of time'. (2)
'The problem (besides financially) is that civil partnerships are not societally romanticized.'
Yes, but since when do we change laws to enable romance?
'But oh, the partners have the same genitals. So no you can't have all that.'
There's a lot more to one's sex than sharing the same genitals... (3)
'Marriage to the person you love is a universal right to everyone'
So, if I romantically fall in love with my sister, do I have a universal right to marry her? Of course not.
'Everyone deserves a happy life'
Nobody 'deserves' a happy life. We are allowed to be happy within certain legal constraints. And, yet again, this is an appeal to emotion fallacy and so it is not a valid argument.
'equality is the way forward'
Agreed, but gay marriage, as I have already argued, does not fall under the bracket of equality.
'ever increasing acceptance of homosexual couples and homosexual couples as a whole'
Don't get me wrong, I accept homosexual couples. But that does not mean that I must therefore accept homosexual marriage.
'To be blunt, people like Con are dying out and in their place we can hope for a new generation of love and acceptance.'
I'm sorry? Opposition to gay marriage and the virtues of love and acceptance are not mutually exclusive. I am very loving and accepting thank you. It is bigoted to attack the character of those whose opinion differs from yours.
'People like you are getting in the way of other people's happiness and are proud of it.'
If I believe that allowing people's happiness will cause a overall decrease in happiness, then I will get in the way of it and I am proud to do so. If Pro believes I am some bitter person who wants to stop people being happy then he has got it seriously wrong.
'So when marijuana and gay marriage are legalised worldwide, you are officially not invited to any of the awesome parties I shall be throwing. Peace.'
How very accepting and tolerant of you.
(Oh, and by the way, saying peace at the end of a sentence does not make that sentence any less slanderous.)
To conclude, I have argued that gay marriage should not be legalised with multiple arguments:
1. Changing a contract that has already been signed by people violates the autonomous nature of the contract.
2. Dispute between the Church's and the state's definition of marriage could threaten state support of those who have sacramental marriage.
3. The same premise used to advocate gay marriage also applies to incestuous marriage.
4. Civil partnerships give all the substantial benefits that marriage does.
However, my opponent has NOT fulfilled his burden of proof that gay marriage is something that is needed in society. Instead, he has resorted to ad hominem attacks and appeals to emotion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 1 year 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:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Lol pro started raging when he was losing and told con to die... Acceptance guys!!!! Hypocritical fvck. I'll read and vote on arguments later
You are not eligible to vote on this debate