Should homosexual marriage be legal?
Debate Rounds (3)
Since me and Pro are both American, we can assume this debate relates only to American Policy.
Argument I: Right To Marriage.
This argument has been brought up before. It's common in almost every field of debate or topic to pull the "It's my right" card. It might even be a good and truthful argument in most of them; but not with marriage.
The "Right to Marriage" is non-existent. There is no such right in any of the US's top documents (Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence.) Reading through either of the three documents, you will not find the word marriage or (civil) union anywhere (1, 2, 3). Many people have argued that it's in the ninth amendment. This is flawed, and ignorant of the purpose of the ninth amendment.
The Ninth Amendment is a judicial allowance for the courts to extensively interpret the Constitution, not a go-to for every freedom one could desire. The amendment can only allow the courts to grant a right that was implicit, but not actually stated in the Constitution. This view of the ninth was finalized in United States v. Vital Health Products, where they determined the amendment couldn't be the base of a freedom, but that the freedom must find base elsewhere in the Constitution (4).
Before Pro argues that Marriage is a private issue; Marriage is not that thing you keep or do 'in the bedroom' as most would simplify it to be. Gay people can do as they wish in the bedroom, and they have the right to privacy to do so... But Marriage isn't a private matter. One could argue that parts of it is, like sex, but nothing that happens in a marriage is a marriage-only thing. You can do anything (adoption aside) in marriage that you can't do out of marriage. That stuff isn't whats illegal. It's the 'being married' part that's illegal. Marriage isn't protected by right to privacy (while most things you do in marriage is) because Marriage itself is a very public arrangement. It requires Government paperwork, and affects taxes and changes curtain legislation regarding the people involved.
Marriage is a public arrangement, not a private one. While what you can do in marriage may be private, none of that stuff was illegal to begin with.
Argument II: Role of Marriage/Cost of Marriage.
Marriage is not free. The Government pays for marriage a great deal. One benefit that costs the Government is tax cuts. The Governments taxes a household when taxing married couples. Assume the two people earn $25,000 a year each. In the early 1900's, your household would be taxed in full; which would be 17.1% as of today (for $50,000 combined household income.) The government would earn nearly $8,550 a year. After World War II, a tax cut was put in place. Now, at $50,000 total household income, the couple is taxed at only 13.3%; or $6,650. The taxes lost would Be $1,900 a year (Tax rates (5)). The actual average income for marriage households is $69,800 (6), which changes the total taxes lost to nearly $5,800 a year.
According to the census, 85% of married couples will cost the government at least $29,000 in tax cuts without getting a divorce, (5 years of marriage.) From that group, at least 67.8% will cost the government $58,000 in taxes, and at least half of all married couples will cost the government $87,000 in taxes. The perfect marriage, what everyone should aim for, will cost the government $330,600 in taxes (based off average life expectancy - average age of marriage.) But that's not as important.
Marriage also cost tens of thousands in benefits annually to married couples, costing the government vasts amount of money. Marriage can also coast one's employer, since employee benefits are often time affected. The point is that Government has a major inventment in marriage.
Government invests in marriage because marriage produces new children. The children born in marriage will usually grow up to produce income and pay taxes, as well as aid the economy. To invest in a type of marriage that produce no new children would be counter-productive. The government only invests in marriage for that purpose, a purpose Gay Marriage doesn't fulfill. Gay Marriage simply doesn't pay back it's investment, contrary to the purpose of Government investing in marriage.
Marriage is a very expansive investment that pays off greatly by producing new children. Gay Marriage is an investment that doesn't pay off.
Argument III: Constitutionality.
Many argue that keeping Gay Marriage illegal is unconstitutional. In fact, it's the other way around. Because the right to marriage doesn't actually exist, the Federal Government can't force the right onto the states, it is up to the states to decide. 6 States have slightly less than 50% approval, 10 states have quite a large majority opposed to gay marriage, and 4 states are widely against Gay Marriage (7). For these 20 states, legalizing Gay Marriage would be unconstitutional going against the will of the people.
The only way it'd be constitutional to force those 20 states to legalize Gay Marriage would be for the Federal Government to pass an amendment. An amendment requires a super majority (2/3rd) in Congress, not just a simple majority of 51%. The number of people supporting such an amendment in Congress is far from a super-majority. Even if they did manage such a number, they'd then require 3/4th vote of all State Governments. They are also far from that, as it'd require only 12 states to vote against it, but at least 14 are strongly against it, and 6 are only slightly against it.
Passing an Amendment granting marriage as an unrestricted right to anyone would violate the Constitution, as neither of the two super majorities are met. Therefore, forcing Gay Marriage onto the states is also unconstitutional. Therefore, the Federal Government (as the debate is generally speaking for the whole US) should not legalize Gay Marriage against the state's will.
The constitution is against Pro. Only moral principle backs his argument, and the Law may only work on Constitutional or practical principles, not relative morality,
Conclusion: Legalizing Gay Marriage goes against the very reason the Government invests in marriage in the first place. It would also violate the state's rights.
TL_the_consetvative forfeited this round.
TL_the_consetvative forfeited this round.
This was a boring debate...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 2 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited. Clear win for Con.
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.