Should Same-Sex Marriage Be Legalized in All 50 U.S States?
Debate Rounds (5)
I am for Gay Marriage being legalized. So if anyone wants to challenge me that'd be great.
I accept the challenge. Thank you.
Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?" My answer is yes...... What is your argument.
There are two ways I can take this debate:
1- I can argue that gay marriage should not be legalized in all U.S. states, even if it should be legalized in some U.S. states.
2- I can argue that gay marriage should not be legalized in any U.S. state.
Both would negate the resolution, but I am going to argue for the second one.
As of yet, Pro has not presented any argument for the legalization of gay marriage in any State, let alone all fifty of them. His round-two posting was a summary of the legal situation surrounding gay marriage, not a case for the legalization of it.
I’ve noticed that there are three kinds of arguments for gay marriage:
1- The first kind of arguments says that there is no reason to treat homosexuals any differently than heterosexuals. These arguments say that there is no moral or logical reason to oppose gay marriage because it is equivalent to heterosexual marriage.
2- The second kind of arguments says that there are either societal benefits to allowing gay marriage, or that there is no societal harm by allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage is therefore either moral and logical or non-moral and non-logical.
3- The third kind of arguments says that the constitution allows for gay marriage. These are legal arguments.
Pro has not presented any arguments of the first and second kind, though he has presented
something that resembles the third kind. I will address it below. The red underlined text is my opponent's post.
1- However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country.
1A- Pro says that if one state makes a law, then other states must recognize it. But if we look at it this way, the clause is self-contradictory. Pro says that if one state legalizes gay marriage, other states must follow suit and legalize it as well. But this goes the other way around too. If one state illegalizes gay marriage, then other states must follow suit and illegalize it as well. As stated, it is a self-refuting clause
that cannot be used to support the passing of any law.
1B- Pro then says that if one state allows for a gay couple to be married in that state, and then the couple moves to another state, that state must also recognize the marriage. But what if there were a state where no gay couples were married and no gay couples moved to after getting married? By the very logic of the full faith and credit clause, there would be no reason to legalize gay marriage in that state. The legalization of gay marriage would be contingent upon the decisions of a gay married couple.
What the framers of the constitution probably had in mind when creating the full faith and credit clause was that there should be consistency throughout the country when making laws. All the states should make gay marriage legal or all the states should make it illegal. There is consistency either way, but there is no reason why it should be the legalization of gay marriage in all states.
1C- This is a purely legal argument for gay marriage. The problem with purely legal arguments is that they are never in themselves sufficient to support anything. Merely saying that something is supported by the constitution is not a reason to support it. I support the defense of marriage act, but I have never defended the defense of marriage act because, in itself, it is not a reason to oppose the legalization of gay marriage.
If Pro’s resolution had been “The legalization of gay marriage is supported by the constitution” or “Legalizing gay marriage is consistent with the constitution” then he could have simply argued from the constitution. But his resolution was simply that gay marriage should be legalized in all 50 U.S. states. This calls for logical and moral reasons to support gay marriage. Pro has not presented any moral or
logical reasons for the legalization of gay marriage.
2- Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?" My answer is yes...... What is your argument. [sic]
Ironically Pro seems to be aware of my last point when he says this, so I do not understand why he is presenting what is apparently a legal and political argument for gay marriage. But now his resolution seems to have changed from gay marriage being legalized in all 50 U.S. states (which he bases on the full faith and credit clause) to the basic legalization of gay marriage, regardless of the state or country. I ask that Pro would please pick a resolution and stick with it.
Pro says his answer to the question is “yes”. Well, “yes” is not an argument. I ask that, in round three, Pro please present his argument for why gay couples should be allowed to marry, then I will present mine.
Pro had one grammatical error that I could find.
I have no objection to Pro’s conduct.
-Pro should have laid out the rules in the first round: debate parameters, general rules, rules for the rounds, any necessary definitions, and clarification of the resolution.
-Pro should have presented a case for his resolution in round two.
-Pro should have stuck to one resolution.
-Pro should have provided a source/link for the full faith and credit clause.
Pro has presented a quasi-legal argument for the legalization of gay marriage in all 50 U.S. states. I explained why that does not work. Then he apparently switched his resolution. As of yet, no case has been made for the legalization of gay marriage anywhere. I am eagerly awaiting a response from my
There is no such thing as traditional marriage. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural" in evolutionary terms.
Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court declared in 1974"s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses"
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status."
Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City"s economy and $184 million to the State"s economy over three years.
Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents ."
Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children. In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents."
Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man,"and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles of our time."
Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.
Marriage in the US is a secular and dynamic institution that has gone under several major transformations. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "civil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority.
Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights 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. An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New 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.
Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits and recent research suggests that refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry has resulted in harmful psychological effects. The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support."
In our third round of this debate, my opponent has presented several well-known arguments for the legalization of gay marriage. He has apparently abandoned his defense of the full faith and credit clause and has moved on to other arguments. In my response, I will refute his case and support my own.
As I explained in my post for round two, there are three kinds of arguments for gay marriage. Pro has presented one argument of the first kind (1), six of the second kind (3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10) and two of the third kind (2, 6). Point #8 was a non-argument.
1- There is no such thing as traditional marriage...
1A- Pro argues that heterosexual monogamy is unnatural in evolutionary terms, the implication being that its unnaturalness is what entails the fact that it should not be considered universal and exclusive. This does not follow. Even if heterosexual monogamy is unnatural, that does not make it wrong. And even if homosexuality is natural, that does not make it right. There is evidence that rape is natural. Should we all go around raping each other?
Pro points out the existence of polygamy, communal child rearing, and the use of concubines, mistresses, and prostitutes. But the fact these exist does not mean they should be tolerated. You can’t jump from a description (which says how things are) from a prescription (which says how things should be). This is a well-documented and well-studied fallacy.
2- Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution’s commitments to liberty and equality...
2A- Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is logical, moral, beneficial, or should be supported at all. If the constitution said that everyone must get a tattoo of the fifty states on his back, does that mean we should do it? Of course not. Legality does not entail morality.
2B- Pro cites the words of a judge. This is an appeal to authority. Just because someone in a position of authority says something does not make it true. And this was a non-sequiter from the
first sentence. First Pro brought up the constitution, then switched to the supreme court.
2C- But is gay marriage even protected by the constitution? There is obviously no direct support for gay marriage from the constitution. The constitution does not say that everyone has a right to marry. Marriage is a privilege given to us. But some judges who support gay marriage do some political maneuvering and argue for indirect support from the constitution by relying on the equal protection clause and due process clause. But these clauses only say basically that people ought to be treated fairly. “Fair” and “equal” do not mean the same thing. Our country was founded on the idea that we should treat people fairly, not equally, although we often use the word “equal” when we actually mean fair, and sometimes the two do overlap. Here’s an example to illustrate my point. Suppose one man murders five people and another man steals a watch and they are both put on trial and found guilty. Should we give the two men equal treatment? Of course not. What we give them is fair treatment; we give them treatment that is proportional to their crimes.In other cases, when two people are in the same situation, treating them fairly would also entail treating them equally. In this case the two overlap because the people are in the same situation.
We treat people equally when the differences between them are not relevant to the matter at hand, and we treat them unequally when the differences are relevant. If a gay man got fired simply because he was gay, that would be unfair and the unequal treatment would not be justified as long as his homosexuality was not a problem at the workplace. But if a gay couple is denied marriage, that is unequal treatment but it is not unfair treatment, because homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations. Heterosexual relations can procreate, homosexual ones can’t. Homosexual relations cannot use the body with its intended function, whereas heterosexual ones can. They are obviously not equal, so why should they be given equal rights?
3- Denying same-sex couples the right to marry...
3A- Maybe it does, but it does not have to. It is society’s choice to let that happen. We can learn to oppose gay marriage but not view homosexuals are inferior or second-class citizens. That is our
choice. I oppose gay marriage but I do not view homosexuals as second class citizens, and I have many friends who feel the same way.
4- Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments...
4A- Maybe they can, but this is another red herring. If everyone shaving their heads would lead to a stronger economy, does that mean we should all shave our heads? Believing that we have an obligation to do whatever will bring in the most money is a fallacy.
4B- Pro also plagiarized this argument from another debate, pro side, second round. See comments for source.
5- Gay marriage will make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt children...
5A- Pro provided no argument for why he thinks that it will be easier for same-sex couples to adopt children.
5B- But even if it is true, that is not a reason to support gay marriage. If it is true, it is because of the way our legal system is set up. The real issue here is that we do not allow non-married couples to adopt children, not that we need to legalize gay marriage.
5C- Pro then made a second point in this paragraph. He said that children of lesbian parents have more academic competence and have fewer social problems than those of heterosexual parents, and that children of gay fathers were just as well-adjusted as those of heterosexual parents. He provided no links for these sources and did not argue it.
5D- This contention contradicts common sense as well as research. See comments.
Pro posted this argument twice.
6- Same-sex marriage is a civil right...
6A- This is another legal argument. I already explained why these arguments do not work. And Pro again appealed to authority. Simply calling same-sex marriage a civil right does not make it a civil right. Pro simply quoted people saying that it is a civil right. He did not argue it. And he provided no links.
6B- But is marriage even a civil right? See 2C to see why it is not.
7-Massachusetts, which became the first...
7A- Pro provided no sources or links for these claims. Pro also does not mention what the findings are for current dates or for other states.
7B- Pro seems to be implying that the legalization of gay marriage results in a lower divorce rate. But a correlation is not a causation, and even causation is not necessitation. Pro has given us no reason why he thinks that the legalization of gay marriage is what causes a decrease in divorce rates. There could be other factors that cause the low divorce rate. And even if legalizing gay marriage does cause a decrease in divorce, what reason do we have to believe this causation is logical (inherent) instead of incidental?
7B- And even if gay marriages are less likely to end in divorce, or if a decrease in divorce results from legalizing gay marriage, that still is not a reason to support gay marriage. As I explained before, gay marriage is not deserving of equal rights.
*I did not have enough room to fit the rest of my post. Two reasons for this are that Pro did not number his arguments, so I lose character count by having to quote him instead of just posting the number. And Pro also presented me with too many arguments to respond to in one post. I ask that he please number his arguments and drop a few of them (for he does not need all of them to prove his contention; technically all he needs is one) and focus maybe on two or three of them. Focus less on quantity and more on quality.
I have posted the rest of my argument for round three in the comments, though I would understand if voters did not factor them into the voting. I am very frustrated about the fact that I cannot post all my arguments.
Con is trying trying to compare something irrelevant such as the fifty states tattoo proposition to gay marriage, a much more debatable and justifiable institution.
"Even if heterosexual monogamy is unnatural, that does not make it wrong. And even if homosexuality is natural, that does not make it right. There is evidence that rape is natural. Should we all go around raping each other?"
Animals Do It, So It's Natural, Right?
The reasoning behind the animal homosexuality theory can be summed up as follows:
- Homosexual behavior is observable in animals.
- Animal behavior is determined by their instincts.
- Nature requires animals to follow their instincts.
- Therefore, homosexuality is in accordance with animal nature.
- Since man is also animal, homosexuality must also be in accordance with human nature
Con claims natural and right do not mean the same thing, considering homosexuality is natural as seen in the diagram above that also means that heterosexuality is natural, so does that mean that heterosexuality isn't "right"?
"We treat people equally when the differences between them are not relevant to the matter at hand, and we treat them unequally when the differences are relevant. If a gay man got fired simply because he was gay, that would be unfair and the unequal treatment would not be justified as long as his homosexuality was not a problem at the workplace. But if a gay couple is denied marriage, that is unequal treatment but it is not unfair treatment, because homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations. Heterosexual relations can procreate, homosexual ones can"t. Homosexual relations cannot use the body with its intended function, whereas heterosexual ones can. They are obviously not equal, so why should they be given equal rights?"
Equal in nature does not mean equal in rights, Con is trying to justify the fact that homosexuals can't procreate means they can't be given equal rights to marriage? That is wrong.
"Maybe they can, but this is another red herring. If everyone shaving their heads would lead to a stronger economy, does that mean we should all shave our heads? Believing that we have an obligation to do whatever will bring in the most money is a fallacy."
Again Con is trying to bring an irrelevant proposition into play, shaved heads are not the same things as economic benefits from same-sex marriage.
In his post for round four, Pro has re-defended three of his claims from round three, and has, supposedly at my request, dropped the other points. I will now address his retained points.
1- Con claims natural and right do not mean the same thing, [sic] considering homosexuality is natural as seen in the diagram above that also means that heterosexuality is natural, so does that mean that heterosexuality isn't "right"?
1A- Saying that the naturalness of something does not entail its rightness does not mean that the naturalness of something entails its wrongness. That’s a false bifurcation. My logic is not self-defeating. The naturalness of heterosexuality does not mean it is wrong. My argument still stands.
Pro’s first argument was plagiarized from another debate. See sources.
1B- Pro is now contradicting himself by claiming that heterosexuality is natural whereas before he claimed that it was unnatural.
2- Con is trying trying [sic] to compare something irrelevant such as the fifty states tattoo proposition to gay marriage, a much more debatable and justifiable institution.
2A- My point with this analogy was to show that even if the constitution says that we should do something, it does not mean that we should. The analogy itself does not matter. Pro argued beside the point here. My argument still stands.
2B- Pro did not address my charge of appealing to authority. Pro did not argue whatever logic was used by the judges he cited as coming to that conclusion. My argument still stands.
2- Equal in nature does not mean equal in rights, Con is trying to justify the fact that homosexuals can't procreate means they can't be given equal rights to marriage? That is wrong.
2C- Why is it wrong? Pro does not say, but I will elaborate more on why my logic is not wrong. Marriage is a union. And there are appropriate unions and inappropriate unions. An appropriate union is one that serves society in a fundamental and inherent way. An appropriate union is also one that is coherent, sensible, and balanced. Obviously not all heterosexual marriages are appropriate (people get married too hastily, they get married for the wrong reasons, they don’t love the person they marry etc.) but at least heterosexual marriage allows for beneficial and sensible unions. And homosexual couples may love each other very deeply, but to make a union of homosexuals equivalent to heterosexuals is to make a union that is only beneficial to society in accidental ways (ways based on how our laws are formed and how we treat homosexuals) and a union that is imbalanced (men and women fit each other like a hand and a glove, like a key and a lock. You can’t open a lock with another lock and you can’t use a key to open another key) both in the relationship itself and on those surrounding the relationship,
such as children.
Pro says that the equality in nature does not mean equality in rights. That’s not what the founders believed. They believed the grounding of rights and morality comes from God/nature, not a decision by judges. Judges are only supposed to base their decisions on God/nature. Indeed, what else can you use to ground morality?
4- Again Con is trying to bring an irrelevant proposition into play, [sic] shaved heads are not the same
things as economic benefits from same-sex marriage.
4A- Again, I realize that shaved heads are not the same thing as gay marriage. Pro is completely missing the point, which is that just because something may result in financial gain does not mean it is moral. For me to steal money from other people would result in financial gain for me, but that does not make it right. We must look at whether or not the action is moral, not how much money the action creates.
Pro has brought up some positive benefits that would result from allowing gay marriage. But nearly every immoral action has some kind of positive benefit. You can’t just look at the positive effects of something and ignore the negative effects. My argument still stands.
4B- Why aren’t civil unions just as likely to bring financial gain to state and local governments? Pro might respond to this by saying that civil unions imply a second-class status to homosexual couples and that couples in a civil union do not get all the same benefits as those in a marriage do. But that is a separate argument that does not address my point here. And I have already explained that we do not have to allow the use of civil union to imply second-class status or not allow those in a civil union to receive the same benefits as those married couples.
Pro had three grammatical errors that I could find.
Pro did not address my charge of plagiarism. I thought that his fourth argument was the only one he plagiarized. Then I found out that he also plagiarized his first argument as well as his fifth. Who knows if he plagiarized the other arguments as well? My opponent may only be fourteen, but I think he’s old enough to know better than this. If he does not want to debate honestly, then he should not be debating in the first place.
round two, pro side
Pro’s organization style is very poor. I say this for several reasons:
1- In round one, he presented a wall of text.
2- He never breaks his posts down with introductions and conclusions. DHe never numbers
his arguments or sub-arguments.
3- He has posted multiple points in the same paragraph.
4- He has posted the same argument twice.
5- He posts his response to my arguments out of the order in which I posted them.
6- He plagiarizes arguments.
7- He did not provide any links until I asked him to.
8- He does not reference the links with numbers in the text.
9- He provided a link for his first source, but he directly quoted it while leaving off the quotations. This is partial plagiarism.
I have defended my round-three post and refuted all of Pro’s rebuttals to it.
I'm ashamed of saying this but I concede this debate.......
Unfortunately when instigating the debate, Pro made it so that voters do not have to provide a reason for their vote. This could give some voters an opportunity to vote bomb. Even though voters are under no obligation to provide a reason for their vote in this debate, I request that they do so anyway, as it is the fair thing to do.
Thanks to emospongebob for instigating a great debate and I really hope he enjoys the site.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Concession and plagiarism
Vote Placed by Clash 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:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
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.