The Instigator
illuminaughty
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Guidestone
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The government should recognize same-Sex marriages

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 656 times Debate No: 54970
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

illuminaughty

Pro

Acknowledging: the U.S. government gives tax benefits to married couples. The sole reason for these tax benefits is to encourage monogamous relationships which prevent venereal disease, as well as encourage procreation which ensures a future tax base.

Acknowledging: same sex couples contradict the incentive for which these tax benefits are given, and so to validate these couples as sex partners would be a waste of government funds in terms of the tax benefits given.

Arguing:

The state is an entity which should only involve itself in certain matters, and such matters are not the personal endeavors of citizens. Marriage is one such endeavor.

Nowhere is it outlined that it is the U.S. government's responsibility to ensure the prevention of any hazardous disease which might be spread through sexual endeavor.

Nowhere is it outlined that it is the U.S. government's responsibility to ensure that a future tax base be secured through an incentive for procreation.

The U.S. government, aesthetically, should not turn personal matters into matters of state.

Marriage equality is a civil rights issue, denying the validation of sex partners to one type while granting that same validation to another, is akin to denying women the right to vote, while granting men that same right.

Bringing up tax incentive as the main reasoning for the denial of this validation is akin to the denial of women the right to vote due to traditional patriarchal outlooks.

The opposing platform is one in defense of tradition validated by government action.

History has proven time and time again that tradition becomes obsolete, "traditional" marriage is one such tradition. The United States is not a nation that should hinder freedoms such as the validity of sex partners from its citizens.

Such action would better suit more comparably radical nations like the Holy Roman Empire.
Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for proposing this debate, and I hope we both can understand more about this important topic.

1. Government's reason to incentivize marriage
Firstly, I would like to say the true reason the government incentives marriage is because it a benefit to children who are a part of these marriages. Children of intact families are better off than other family structures including divorced, single parent, step families, and more [1].

2. Marriage Public or Private
My opponent claims that the state should not be involved in personal endeavors such as marriage. This is a major problem for two reasons. One, marriage isn't just a personal endeavor. Marriage serves as the basic social unit of a healthy society. The effects of marriage are numerous including better mental/physical health, stronger economically, children are better off, crime is reduced [2]. Also, you can be married without the government approval of sex partners, and two homosexuals can marry each other and commit to each other for life, but they will not get recognition in most states. Two, by saying that marriage is a personal endeavor it makes the government get out of marriage all together, in which case the government would not recognize any marriages including same-sex ones.

3. Role of the Government
My opponent claims that it is not the job of the U.S. Government to ensure the prevention of any hazardous disease which might be spread through sexual endeavor. However, it is the job to promote the general welfare which includes trying to prevent disease and promoting health. Which is why we have the CDC who's mission is "to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same" [3]. Notice, how it mentions diseases at home.

4. Civil Rights
There are two problems about sexual preference being a civil right like women's suffrage. One, comparing women's suffrage to Same-Sex marriage is a poor comparison. Arguments against women's suffrage included that it would cause divisions in families, Women already have influence due to influence over men, and women who take proper care of the house hold don't have time for politics [4]. These arguments are completely different than arguments defending traditional marriage. Two, Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights. The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics" [5]. It might be possible that you could prove widespread discrimination, but it is nothing compared to the 1960s. We have never made Homosexuals sit at the back of the bus, or have separate schools/public areas. Next, we have economic disadvantage. A 2012 study shows that Homosexuals actually tend to have more money [6]. So, there is no economic disadvantage. Third, sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation [7]. There wasn't a former woman, without surgery, so sexual preference doesn't not meet this criteria either. Concluding, sexual preference is not a civil right.

5. Marriage is more than love
"Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [8]. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [8] This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [8] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [9][14] such as Baker v. Nelson [10], Jones v. Hallahan [11], Singer v. Hara [12], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [13]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love.

6. Marriage Historically
"Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are:
1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible:
3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and
5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." [8]

The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [15].

No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [8].

7. The Slippery Slope
If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [16] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [17] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" [18]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [19] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [19]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage.

Sources
[1] http://www.familystructurestudies.com...
[2] http://www.foryourmarriage.org...
[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
[4] http://www.slate.com...
[5] http://www.lc.org...
[6] http://www.leagle.com...
[7] http://www.voices-of-change.org...
[8] http://www.scribd.com...
[9] http://seattletimes.com...
[10] http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
[11] http://www.leagle.com...
[12] http://www.leagle.com...
[13] http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov...
[14] http://www.frcblog.com...
[15] http://www.bbc.com...
[16] http://www.gallup.com...
[17] http://www.nomblog.com...
[18] http://downloads.frc.org...
[19] http://www.brusselsjournal.com...

Debate Round No. 1
illuminaughty

Pro

I commend my opponent for accepting this debate, and doing so in a civil manner. This is indeed a significant issue, and its important that healthy discussions be carried out on all matters of significance.

In the context of direct response:

1. Government's reason to incentivize marriage

Regardless of the justifications behind incentivizing marriage, and regardless of marriage’s societal functions, the U.S. government is not a government that should be incentivizing marriage.

For the U.S. government to incentivize marriage for the purpose of the welfare of its citizens is arguably noble, but also contradictory to its founding principles. I ask my opponent to procure a citation regarding the U.S. government’s role as a welfare state, which until citation is procured, I will argue that it is not.

For the government to use taxes as a means for “family-building” is not only a selfish endeavor, but one that infringes upon the basic rights for people to function how they please within a unit that is a personal domain; the family.

2. Marriage Public or Private

I acknowledge that marriage plays a major role in the structure of a healthy society, however, I am arguing that marriage should not be public at all in this country.

I am arguing that the government should never have defined marriage, I am arguing that the state should not recognize any marriages, because marriage, regardless of societal function, is a personal undertaking. People don't normally marry in the name of King and Country.

3. Role of the Government

In regards to disease: I redact my previous statement and stand corrected. However, denying same-sex couples their sexual validation will not stop the spread of venereal disease.

In regards to a healthy society: my opponent argues that the main reason marriage is incentivized is because of the roles traditional marriage serves in society.

I ask, why must it be the role of the government to ensure that a healthy society be maintained, why can’t the people be allowed to marry, procreate, and maintain a healthy society (in this marital aspect) themselves?

4. Civil Rights

comparing women's suffrage to Same-Sex marriage is a poor comparison.

Acknowledged.

Sexual Preference does not meet the requirements for civil rights.

Fallacious;

(1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination

While homosexuals may not have experienced the same intensity of discrimination as other groups of people have, it does not mean this discrimination does not exist, and it does not justify government endorsement of this discrimination, which is done through the denial of validation.

(2) economic disadvantage

I stand corrected.

(3) immutable characteristics

sexuality is not immutable. There have been many people who have changed orientation

A disgusting fallacy. My opponent uses a self-promoting therapy organization as proof that “many” people have changed orientation. I ask my opponent to procure legitimate statistics that clearly state an enormous number of people who have willingly embraced and successfully achieved a change in sexual orientation, something that has been largely accepted as a biological and environmental predisposition, not an overall choice [1], [2].

Regardless of the debatable objectiveness of sexual preference’s immutability, that does not justify the denouncement of same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue.

5. Marriage is more than love

This ties into one of my previous points. Aesthetically, it shouldn't be the responsibility of the U.S. government to maintain the traditional bridges and support beams of society when it comes down to things as miniscule as marriage in relevance to the validation of sex partners.

Is tax-incentive the only method to ensure people get together and make babies that will fund the government for generations to come? I'm positive it isn't, and my resolution is that the government drop the method altogether, for it results in one group receiving validation and denies it from another. It isn't fair, and it isn't justifiably unfair.

6. Marriage Historically

No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm.

-Ancient Greek city-states, notably Sparta [3]
-Ancient Rome [4]
-Native American societies “Two Spirits” [5]

It's safe to assume that these norms halted in the face of Christianity, (The Roman Empire creating Catholicism, Religious endeavors and conversion efforts of Europeans in the Americas) a religion that explicitly forbids homosexuality; many societies untouched by bigoted doctrine did indeed accept same-sex marriage, relations, whatever, as a cultural norm.

Again, I direct my opponent to the following point: tradition becomes obsolete. Slavery was a tradition, up until the nineteenth century nearly every civilization in the world had practiced some long-term form of slavery, something that would be hard to justify today.

7. The Slippery Slope

Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage.

The only things “wrong” with redefinitions of marriage are purely subjective. It should be up to the individual to define marriage, and if collectives such as the church wish to define marriage, then they should be allowed, so long as their definition doesn’t affect anyone outside the collective. The state, as a collective, should not define marriage because their definition will affect those outside of their collective and agreement. Appeasing one group and infringing upon another is not “good government.”


[1] http://news.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...







Guidestone

Con

I thank my opponent for his unique response.

1. Government's reason to incentivize marriage

My opponent argues that the U.S. government is not a government that should be incentivizing marriage. That is for another debate.

The best argument that can be made for incentivizing marriage is that our "government of the people, by the people, for the people" (Lincoln), and if the people elected our congress men and women to enact such policies they should. In fact to not do what their constituents what is probably a greater insult to the founding fathers than taking a loose interpretation of a dated document.

It is important to note the government is not going into your house telling you how to run your marriage, and it is not infringing upon any right for the people to function how they please.

2. Marriage Public or Private

My opponent concedes the debate right here "I am arguing that the state should not recognize any marriages" and since the question here is "The government should recognize same-Sex marriages" it is clear that he does not believe his own position.

3. Role of the Government

It may be true that deny sexual validation may not stop the spread, but if the government puts its stamp of approval on it, it will become more prevalent which will spread more disease.

My opponent ask "why can’t the people be allowed to marry, procreate, and maintain a healthy society (in this marital aspect) themselves?" and the answer is simple. The already can there is nothing stopping you from marrying any one, but the government may not recognize it. My opponent must understand that a public government issue marriage licence is a choice but not needed.

4. Civil Rights

First, It is important to define discrimination here "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people" [1]. To prove that Homosexuals are discriminated against my opponent must prove they are unfairly treated. I challenge my opponent to prove that there is discrimination currently. Second, my opponent admits that homosexuals don't meet all three of the unify characteristics of the 1964 civil rights act; therefore, sexual preference does not qualify as a civil right. Third, I never claimed that homosexuality is a choice, but I did say it is something that is changeable since it is not genetic like skin color or gender.

This is an often an argument presented. To be "born that way" it must be in your genes, which makes you who you are. "Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings"; and "They found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual. For non-identical twins, the rate was about 22%, showing that about 1 in 5 twins who were homosexual had a homosexual brother also. For non-twin brothers, the concordance rate was 9.2%. Interesting enough, Bailey and Pillard found that the concordance rate in adopted brothers was 11.2%" [2]. First, if homosexuality is genetic then it should be 100% with identical twin, who share all the same genes. Second, "The concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%" [2]. Homosexuality just like those other things are due to heavy environment influence. Further, Homosexuality being genetic poses a real problem with natural selection. Natural Selection is "the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive" [3]. Since, homosexuals can't reproduce with each other how then could they pass on their genes? They couldn't, so natural selection would have "selected" them out of the gene pool. Also,"Joseph Nicolosi, PhD, wrote in a 2000 study published in Psychological Reports, that: Before treatment or change, only 2.2% of the participants perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual, whereas after treatment or change, 34.3% perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual" [4]. Concluding, homosexuals are not born that way any more than people are born religious or racist.

5. Marriage is more than love

The government should be doing what the citizens of the country want if that includes incentivizing marriage then so be it. It is true the reason for the tax incentive is the stabilization and perpetuation of society. The reason they favor this relationship over a homosexual one is rooted in unchangeable biological facts just like having separate sports for Men and Women because they are biologically different.

6. Marriage Historically

In Greece it mentions nothing about marriage.
Even in the article about Ancient Rome "Although in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children,... " [5] Which proves my point.
Then on the Two-spirited it is important to note that this means "individuals who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles in First Nations and Native American tribes" [6]. This does not imply homosexuality little alone homosexual marriage. Today a stay at home dad or a working mother could be considered two spirited since it is not the normal gender role.

Further, to claim that opposition to homosexuality came from Christianity is wrong. Some of the most dangerous places for Homosexuals right now comes from Muslim countries and India which has sodomy laws [7].

I acknowledge not everything traditional is right, but also, not everything traditional is wrong.

7. The Slippery Slope

This is a strange rebuttal to this because my opponent is saying that people should define marriage themselves which would be further re-definitions of marriage. This only confirms the validity of this point.


Sources
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.fairmormon.org...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://borngay.procon.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...


Debate Round No. 2
illuminaughty

Pro

illuminaughty forfeited this round.
Guidestone

Con

It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited the final round, I was looking forward to an interesting conclusion to this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.