The Instigator
tylergraham95
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 37071
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

tylergraham95

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance only.
This argument regards the United States republican party only.
Pro-gay rights is defined as being officially in favor of legal homosexual marriage.
This argument is to be largely based on logic and reason but any relevant facts are encouraged.
No new arguments may be brought up during the third and fourth rounds.
No arguments based on religion or faith may be brought up.
All arguments should focus on the moral benefits/negatives and the political benefits/negatives of taking a pro-gay stance.

I look forward to an interesting and cordial debate.
donald.keller

Con

I accept this debate. BOP is on Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
tylergraham95

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and I would also like apologize for my own slow response.

I would like to begin by stating my main contentions and by defining my position.

As the affirmative I believe that if the United States republican party were to take a pro-gay rights stance officially, it would be quite beneficial to the party in the respect that they would see an increase in support. I will support this with my contentions and arguments.

First, I believe that because the republican party is a conservative party, they should take this stance to encourage less government interference in the personal lives of Americans. Second, the republican party could expect to see more independent voters cote republican during elections. Also I believe that pro-gay rights more so aligns with the traditional ideals of the republican party pre-twentieth century.

Conservatism traditionally has been defined in politics as a sentiment of having minimal government interference in the day to day lives of citizens. Nowadays it is defined as wanting to stick to the traditional system and maintaining only the status quo. I would contend that the former definition is a much more universal and powerful political stance to take, after all it is the stance that the signers of the declaration of independence took and also the stance of political thinker John Locke, for whom many American values are based. I believe that preventing gays from getting married is a regulatory interference in the personal and economic lives of both homosexual citizens and the persons with the power to marry them, and is therefore anti-conservative.

The republican party should take a pro-gay rights stance to increase voter support as well. Gallup polls show that 52% of Americans are in favor of gay rights(1). This may not seem like a very large majority but 31% of republicans are already in support of gay marriage (2). Since the republican party is not a single interest party, changing this one stance in the party could result in an increase in its vote base among all independent and third party voters and possibly even convince certain democratic party members to start voting republican. Many other notable conservatives such as Ron Paul and Former Vice President Dick Cheney and former first lady Laura Bush are all in favor of homosexual marriage.

Before the twentieth century, the conservative parties stood for equality and minimal government interference in the personal lives of Americas. I ask you, why has that changed? I could not tell you for sure why some people think that being a conservative should be about fighting change rather than fighting for individual liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. Are homosexuals people? Yes. Are they citizens of the United States of America? Yes! Should they therefore enjoy equal rights just the same as every other liberty loving individual in America? Yes! Should they therefore be allowed to pursue personal happiness and fulfillment? Yes! Should big government prevent that?
I am a conservative and I say no! So for the sake of equality and for the good of the republican party, vote affirmative.

1. http://www.gallup.com...
2. http://www.people-press.org...
donald.keller

Con

A sudden camping trip as come up. I will be unable to reply this round. I will have to reply next round.

I'll be gone for 4 days. so please wait three days to reply so I can have at least 2 days to make my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
tylergraham95

Pro

tylergraham95 forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

Thank you for the reply.

Rebuttal 1:
"Conservatism traditionally has been defined in politics as a sentiment of having minimal government interference in the day to day lives of citizens."

As accurate as the definition of current Conservatives being about small government and little interference is, it doesn't match up to your resolution. Marriage Rights aren't publicly owned, like Constitutional Rights, but are private rights governed by the Church. Making Gay Marriage illegal may be unnecessary, but is meant to support the decision of Marriage's governing faction, the Church. Making laws that make Marriage a legal right regardless of the Governing faction's opinion would be contrary to the aim of keeping Government interference minimal.

Making laws that interfere in the Church's business and telling the Church who to marry is contrary to the Conservative ideology of minimal interference. Making Gay Marriage legal in the first place is also contrary because Conservatives are anti-Gay Rights.

Conservative
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Oppose same-sex marriage.
Support Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, which affirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.
Requiring citizens to sanction same-sex relationships violates moral and religious beliefs of millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims and others, who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman. - (1)

[1] http://www.studentnewsdaily.com...

Rebuttal 2:
"The republican party should take a pro-gay rights stance to increase voter support as well. Gallup polls show that 52% of Americans are in favor of gay rights."

That depends on the voter. Most would likely see the Republican Party as not being loyal to those it represents. Instead of representing it's Conservative voters, it represents what ever gets it elected. This is disloyal and will lose it a lot of legitimacy. The largest problem is using voters it prior held. That will be brought up in Argument 2.

Rebuttal 3:
"Before the twentieth century, the conservative parties stood for equality and minimal government interference in the personal lives of Americas."

Conservatism in the past is different from conservatism today. In fact, the Conservatives of today of closer related to mid-20th century Liberals, minus Abortion. The technical definition of a Conservative isn't minimal government, although that premise has been common in Conservative values for a long time. The technical definition is an ideology that seeks to conserve the current position and status quo of the Government and Nation.

Conservatives of today are against Gay Marriage and don't believe the Government should make laws telling the Church whom to marry. Everything else you mentioned seemed irrelevant and an Appeal to Emotion. Aside from Marriage, which doesn't belong to Government or Gay People, or anyone besides the Church, Gay People aren't really Oppressed. They can't give blood, but than again, a lot of people can't. They can't adopt, but not many can.

Argument 1: Moral Incentive

Your whole argument is that of opinion and perspective. To whom's morals are right?
The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

While morals aren't subjective... There is for most cases a right and a wrong,(2) although consequences are relative to ignorance, they are still relative in a sense. While you see Gay Marriage as right, I see it as wrong. There is a truth, but neither of us have the divine authority to claim which side is right. Much like how I can't punish a Muslim for oppressing his wife. It's true that he is likely wrong, but he has a moral code of his own that he is following. My code is different, but to punish him would be wrong, as I should hold him to his moral code, not mine.

You say that the Republicans should change their views for morality. Whose morals? Yours? Arrogant.... They are, relative to their position, following what is moral and just.

The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation. It can be used positively to effect change in the law (e.g., promoting tolerance for other customs or lifestyles) or negatively as a means to attempt justification for wrongdoing or lawbreaking. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, which espouses a fundamental, Natural Law of constant values and rules, and which judges all persons equally, irrespective of individual circumstances or cultural differences. - Legal Dictionary.(3)

While there is an absolute, only God knows the whole code. Saying Republicans should change to match morals is a crap assertion. Republicans should change to match Republican Values, not your values. From a Republican perspective, you are the one who needs to change to match morals.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Argument 2: Political Incentive

The Pro confuses himself where. The party can not change for both Political Incentives (as stealing votes and getting ) and Moral Reasons. The two contradict. Abandoning the people you represent to obtain votes is not moral.
The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

Even if we remove Morals from the equation, it still doesn't work. At most, Republican's could gain no more than 53% of Independents (the number who supports Gay Marriage)(4) but lose nearly every Republican who opposed Gay Marriage, which equals 67% of all Republicans.(5) Of course this wouldn't take into account the massive percent of Independents who would refuse to join the disloyal party that abandons it's morals for political elections.

Keeping the current path is best, however. As is, the Republicans have lost 250,000 members in one year to Independent groups, while the Democrats have lost 800,000.(6) Democrats are losing voters faster than Republicans, but if Republicans abandon their voters, they will find themselves gaining no one and losing everyone (exaggeration.)

[4] http://www.people-press.org...
[5] http://www.people-press.org...
[6] http://www.examiner.com...

Conclusion:

By perspective, the Republicans are abiding to Moral Code by opposing Gay Marriage, and would find a negative Politic outcome by abandoning their belief and the belief of those they represent.
Debate Round No. 3
tylergraham95

Pro

As much as it embarrasses me to do this I must concede to a superior opponent. I would like to thank my opponent for his time and effort and apologize for not being able to follow through with the final rounds of the debate, however I am currently unable to think of a proper argument to contend against my opponent. I would also like to say that I am very impressed by my opponents argument, and that is why I am so unable to create a proper argument.
Again, very sorry for not seeing this debate through in a proper manner.
donald.keller

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It was fun to participate in. There is one more round, if he can think of a good argument, then I hope he posts it. If he does, than do not hold this round relevant in your vote.
Debate Round No. 4
tylergraham95

Pro

tylergraham95 forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Con

This debate was fun.. Please do not hold the FF against Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
tylergraham95donald.kellerTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.