The Instigator
fnaffan18
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Should gay marriage be legal?

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 6 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 69239
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

fnaffan18

Pro

I believe gay marriage should be allowed.
16kadams

Con

I don't think gay marriage should be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
fnaffan18

Pro

List your reasons.
16kadams

Con


I would like to begin by stating opposition to gay marriage is not about hate, discrimination, or ‘homophobia’. I mean sure, I have debates proving gay parents are worst, or homosexuals are not born that way (to be fair, heterosexuals probably aren’t either), but the reason I oppose gay marriage is fundamentally about what marriage is. It is not about homosexual intimacy or anything in relation to it. I might be personally disgusted by what homosexuals do in their bedroom—but that is not proper grounds to deny someone the right of marriage. Thus, I hope to present a civil and well-reasoned argument as to why gay marriage should not be allowed. And maybe—just maybe—someone will give our side the credit it deserves.


Competing views


There are three competing views as to what marriage is. What—as an institution—marriage is supposed to represent.


The Conjugal view: This is the view I will be defending. The conjugal view is encompassing but also simple: Marriage is a comprehensive union which promotes responsible procreation and a ‘proper’ environment in which to raise any children the union may produce.


The Revisionist view: This is the most common opinion as to what marriage is—and if correct, gay marriage prohibition would be unjust. Revisionists state marriage is a union centered around love between two people. Marriage, at it’s core, is only about love and happiness for both of the people in the union.


And the third view is something I like to call the Monetary view: This view—as I encountered in a debate on this website (bsh1 v Zaroette) is one which stipulates marriage is merely a way of passing down the wealth. The government merely wants to promote happiness and economic success to those in the marriage contract. Marriage, then, is only about its economic benefits.


Revisionist and monetary views suffer basic flaws


If either the monetary or revisionist view are correct, it would be unjust to oppose homosexual matrimony. However, there are good arguments against either of those views being correct.


The revisionist view seems to be over-encompassing as well as under-encompassing. The revisionist view is over-encompassing in the fact that it—in theory—would allow a huge amount of people to marry, however its under-encompassing in that supporters would obviously argue that those it *should* allow to marry should actually not be married.


For example, the revisionist view would require the government to regulate normal friendships. Friends love each other, thus it follows two friends should be allowed to get ‘married’. But obviously friends are not the same as a married couple. But, if marriage was about love, then they *should* get married. But they obviously should not [1].


The monetary view is even weaker. It really falls apart in the way that it is circular reasoning. Institutions—like that of marriage—don’t come up spontaneously. They generally exist prior to government intervention in some way, shape, or form, and the government begins to regulate it in order to foster that good. Monetary transfers only exist because of government intervention—thus there would be no reason for the government to be involved. The government’s involvement in marriage relies upon economic gains—and those gains only exist with government intervention! So it doesn’t make sense! And it also begs the question as to whether or not homosexuals deserve the benefits. Heterosexuals receive the benefit because of the conjugal view—the government wants to promote procreative type unions—but homosexuals are inherently incapable of procreation. Therefore, there is no reason to give these benefits to homosexuals.


The conjugal view


What is a ‘comprehensive’ union, anyway? A comprehensive union unites the couple in every way: mind, body, and soul. Marriage, in its basic form, is “about attaching a man and a woman to each other as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their sexual union produces.” [2].


Marriage is an institution. Institutions are created for a purpose. Institutions are efficient. They exist in some form before the government exists—and become recognized by the government in order to promote specific goals. Marriage is primarily—as an institution—for regulating the procreating behavior of men and women. The counter arguments are always the same: Why can elderly and infertile couples marry? This objection always fails.


This does not refute the idea that marriage is about procreative behavior. The fact those couples will not produce children does not change the intention of the institution, and they remain procreative in type. Indeed, as economist Doug Allen observes, allowing those couples to marry encourages all heterosexual sex. And encouraging heterosexual relations “ensures that procreative sex necessarily occurs there as well” [3].


Allen concludes marriage “create incentives to procreate and to invest in their offspring so that they will be successful members of the next generation.” [3]


Therefore, I have proven marriage is inherently heterosexual—thus gay marriage should not be allowed.



1. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com...


2. http://www.heritage.org...


3. http://www.law.harvard.edu...



Debate Round No. 2
fnaffan18

Pro

fnaffan18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
fnaffan18

Pro

fnaffan18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
fnaffan18

Pro

fnaffan18 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MCB2700 1 year ago
MCB2700
this is stupid, its just going to cause a huge commotion
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
I will later I'm not at a computer I'm on my phone haha
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Chucknorris5799 1 year ago
Chucknorris5799
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually had points, research, and grammar and spelling. Pro also forfeited.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year ago
Paleophyte
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits
Vote Placed by Commondebator 1 year ago
Commondebator
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited multiple rounds. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any arguments whatsoever. This left Con standing unchallenged, thus Con wins arguments. Sources - Con. Pro failed to utilize sources in this debate whereas Con did.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
fnaffan1816kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff