The Instigator
Goldmarker
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Goldmarker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,245 times Debate No: 16709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Goldmarker

Pro

Debate: Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA
Side: PRO (It should be legal)


INTRO

Hello, I am Goldmarker, and before I begin I would like to thank my opponent (whoever he may be) for debating with me, I am sure this will be a great debate and we will both have a fun time!

Overview

If a man and a women can be married, why cant a man and a man? Or a women and a women? We are all equal human beings in this world, right? Didn't we learn from the civil rights movement that everyone, no matter their race, personality, or color of their skin, is equal? Well apparently not since there are still people in the government who think that same-sex marriage is "wrong" and "unholy". In this debate, I plan to state my arguments and show that same-sex marriage is as normal as regular marriage.

Arguments
A1: We are all people in this world.
As stated above in "overview", Why cant a Same-sex relationship be married? If a man and a women can do it, a Same-sex Relationship can do it!what is the difference between a man who is gay, and another man who is straight? we are all men in this world, created by science (or god, depending on your religion).

A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the USA economy.
Lets take a step off moral for a second and talk about how Same-Sex marriage will effect the economy. If same sex marriage becomes legal, obviously more homosexual couples would get married. Then those couples will bring money back into the economy by paying for weddings! This will also help a states economy because more homosexual couples will move there to get married!
(R)http://www.monstersandcritics.com...


A3: Reputation of America.
America is know for being the land of freedom, we are the most social, racial, ect. country in the world. If we allow all this, but we don't allow same-sex marriage, it makes are government, and are people look bad.But if we do allow it, it show other country's that we don't discriminate people just because they are different!


Conclusion

If we are so accepting of other religions, races, cultures, ECT. Why aren't we accepting of Same-Sex Marriage? It will help are economy, and make us look more accepting of other people!
socialpinko

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for instigating this debate and wish him the best of luck. Also a disclaimer, I am Pro for homosexual couples being allowed to marry but I'm looking to see if I can argue the Con side. But now on to my oppopnent's arguments.

A1: We are all people in this world.

On A1, my opponent argues that because the right is given to a man and a woman who wish to be married, there is no reason why it should not be given to a man and a man or a woman and a woman. He asks, ""what is the difference between a man who is gay, and another man who is straight?"" Well for starters one is straight and the other is gay. This might be the only difference but it is the only one that matters in this debate.

The reason that a man and a man to not have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples could best be argued in an analogy. In the United States it is recognized that a woman has a right to an abortion. A woman has this right specifically because the fetus grows insider her body and because she has authority over what is done to her body. In other words, she has the right because she is a woman and her body functions how a woman's typically would. Men consequently, do not have the right to an abortion because the fetus does not grow in their body and so they do not have personal autonomy over it. This simple fact is the very reason that a man is not afforded the right to an abortion. So while technically a man is not given the right to an abortion because of his gender, it is not sexist because the gender is specifically what is taken into account when assigning this specific right.

So the context in which an abortion can take place is what assigns who is given that right. We can lookat this example and apply it to marriage to see who has the right to be married. But first we should define what marriage is.

Marriage: a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife[1]

This is how marriage is defined by the American legal system. So for the same reason that a man does not have the right to an abortion, a homosexual couple does not have the right to become a married couple.

A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the U.S. economy

This point is mostly irrelevant. Gay marriage is a moral issue, not an economic one. Just because something could help the economy does not mean that it should be pursued.

A3: Reputation of America

The United States should not make public policy decisions purely based on the opinion of other countries. Perhaps legalizing same-sex marriage would our countrie's reputation but it is a moral issue and the United States should make the decision based on rational moral arguments.

I have successfully refuted my opponent's three contentions and in doing so have brought up an argumet agaist same-sex marriage. Vote Con!


[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
Goldmarker

Pro

Before I began, i would like to thank Socialpinko for accepting this debate

The Argument
Con used an analogy of Abortions to argue.
He said

"In the United States it is recognized that a woman has a right to an abortion. A woman has this right specifically because the fetus grows insider her body and because she has authority over what is done to her body. In other words, she has the right because she is a woman and her body functions how a woman's typically would. Men consequently, do not have the right to an abortion because the fetus does not grow in their body and so they do not have personal autonomy over it. This simple fact is the very reason that a man is not afforded the right to an abortion. So while technically a man is not given the right to an abortion because of his gender, it is not sexist because the gender is specifically what is taken into account when assigning this specific right."

Then at the end of this argument,

He says
"So for the same reason that a man does not have the right to an abortion, a homosexual couple does not have the right to become a married couple."

-First off, The reason men dont get abortions is because it is impossable for a man to have a baby, no law was ever writien that they are not allowed to get an abortion, why? simply because they can't.
But on the other hand, it is possable for gays to get married, there is nothing physicaly stoping them from getting married, so it is possable for a gay couple to get married unlike a man to get an abortion because that is impossable.

So by not letting a gay couple Marry is not because they cant (which they can), its because of discrimination

A2:
Con says that this is an irrelevent argument,
but let me repeate what the title of the debate says.....
"Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA?"
so my point i was making for that argument was,
"Yes, it should be legal because it would bring money to the economy."
I would like to ask Con how this is not a relevent argument?
Is bringing money to the economy not a good thing?

A3:
Con says
"The United States should not make public policy decisions purely based on the opinion of other countries",
Now, if you have read the other arguments i have, you would know that they not purely based on the opinion of other countries. They are mostly based on moral. I didnt put that argument up as an only reason to legalize same-sex marriage


I have refuted my opponents arguments, and i have brought up an argument for same-sex marriage
socialpinko

Con

A1: We are all people in this world.

My opponent writes in response to my abortion analogy, ""The reason men dont get abortions is because it is impossable for a man to have a baby"" This is correct but my opponent misunderstands my argument. In fact, he has shown why I am correct. The reason it is impossible for a man to have an abortion even if he wanted to, is because whatever he does would not fit the definition of an abortion. Now as to marriage, the reason why a homosexual couple would not be able to get married even if it were allowed is because the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would not fit the actual definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. So my opponent is actually wrong when he claims that it is possible for a gay couple to be married because a gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.

A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the U.S. economy

My opponent again misunderstands my argument. Of course, tecnhically, bringing money to the economy is a good thing but this is strictly a moral issue not an economic one. The U.S. could bring money to the economy in a number of ways that would never be considered because when they are considered from a moral standpoint, the U.S. decides that any money brought to the economy is not worth it. An example would be for the U.S. to sell off all of it's nuclear arsenal to the highest bidder. The U.S. would most likely rake in billions but it would never consider doing so.

A3: Reputation of America

This argument only works in my opponent's favor if we also accept his other arguments which I have shown to be faulty. He claims that most of his arguments are moral in nature but, out of his three arguments, one is economic, one based on reputation, and the other based on egalitarianism. One of his arguments is moral in nature and I have shown it to be a faulty argument that makes wrong assumptions on what marriage actually is.
Debate Round No. 2
Goldmarker

Pro

Goldmarker forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

socialpinko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Goldmarker 5 years ago
Goldmarker
or not?
Posted by Goldmarker 5 years ago
Goldmarker
my opponents account has sadly been deactivated
Posted by Goldmarker 5 years ago
Goldmarker
@i8JoMomma

why dont they have rights? are they not people like you and me?
Posted by i8JoMomma 5 years ago
i8JoMomma
no it should not be legal...these fudge packers got no rights...if you want to be a tea bag...keep it behind closed door
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Interesting, two pro SSM proponents debating each other.
Posted by Goldmarker 5 years ago
Goldmarker
I would like to thank Socialpinko for accepting my debate
i am happy to get an experienced debater to challenge, as it would be good for me to learn how to debate.
thank you very much
-Goldmarker
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
GoldmarkersocialpinkoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Hard to vote, as both members forfeited the final rounds (Pro forfeited because Con's account was closed). Argument to Pro because Con dismisses some arguments saying that the debate is a moral one, when really, it should consider and weigh everything. However, Pro should have rejected Con's definition of marriage, since different states define it different, and the point of the debate is not what the definition is, but what it should be.