The Instigator
royalpaladin
Pro (for)
Tied
17 Points
The Contender
FourTrouble
Con (against)
Tied
17 Points

The state should not ban same-sex marriage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,529 times Debate No: 24385
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (7)

 

royalpaladin

Pro

This debate is philosophical in nature rather that wholly political. The viewpoint will be from a pre-society under Rawls' Original Position. This debate is therefore not limited to the United States but is rather discussing the idea of same sex marriage in the realm of Justice as a whole.

Rules

1. First round is acceptance only
2. No new arguments in the final round
3. No trolling
4. No semantics
5. No rudeness

Good luck :)
FourTrouble

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
royalpaladin

Pro

Before I begin, I offer a brief observation. The Original Position presumes the universality and truth of philosophical liberalism. In other words, people are considered atomistic units with a negative right to liberty that specifies, but is not necessarily limited to, non-interference. This means that no Communitarian ideas can be used in this round, and cultural norms cannot be discussed or taken into account when making this decision. This debate is purely concerned with Justice.
Marriage is defined as a social union between spouses that creates kinship [1]. Marriage is furthermore a union in which intimate interpersonal relationships are acknowledged [1]. This definition of marriage is most accurate because it best accounts for all types of marriages across a variety of cultures from different eras (in other words, it is universal). Nonprocreative relationships, same sex unions in places such as Ancient Rome (when Emperor Nero married another male), China, and polyandrous and polygamous marriages are all covered by this definition.
I contend that the state may not ban same-sex marriage because to do so would be to arbitrarily interfere with the right to liberty.
The right to liberty exists because people belong to themselves. The notion that we own ourselves stems from our ability to give our lives meaning. We hold our lives to be meaningful insofar as we are able to pursue our own aspirations independently of social impact and external pressures. Since nothing is objectively meaningful, controlling another individual’s person reduces that individual to meaninglessness since an individual who is unable to pursue his own ends is unable to make his life meaningful to himself. Since all humans wish to live meaningful lives, we create a contractual basis for self-ownership; i.e. self-ownership must exist in order to ensure that all people are able to discover meaningful lives without being subject to the whims of others.
Since people are self-owners and do not belong to others, including their communities, churches, families, friends, enemies, and other acquaintances and social institutions, they have a right to do as they please so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. The contractual basis for self-ownership stipulates that we are free to do whatever we please to ourselves, but that because we are obligated to respect the bodily integrity of others, our right to liberty does not permit us to do whatever we please to them without their consent. Therefore, a major aspect of the right to liberty centers on noninterference. In other words, a major aspect of liberty is negative and entails that other people cannot infringe on my liberty.
Any marriage, or relationship that creates ties of kinship, that occurs between two consenting adults is, by its nature, an expression of the right to liberty, and thus cannot be restricted by others. I am free to submit to a tie of kinship or an intimate relationship with any other individual so long as he or she consents to take part in the relationship. If others attempt to restrict my ability to create an intimate relationship with another, he or she is violating my right to liberty insofar as he is restricting what I can do with my body and person and insofar as he is preventing me from pursuing my own ends.
The state, by definition, is the embodiment of communal authority. We consent to a state, and indeed a society, in order to create an enforcement mechanism for our liberty through a social contract. A social contract is an agreement between the citizens and the state that is based on reciprocity. The citizens in society agree to follow the state’s laws in exchange for the protection of their natural rights. Therefore, a just state may only restrict liberty to protect the liberty of others since restricting it would cause the state to violate one’s natural rights rather than enforcing them. Since same sex marriage does not violate the liberty of others, the state has absolutely no grounds for abrogating such marriages. Moreover, since the state is a representative of the people within the community, it has the same obligations that people within that community have. Therefore, it has the same obligation to respect an individual’s choice to obtain a same-sex marriage that its constituency has.
Thus, the state should not ban same-sex marriage.

Sources
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
FourTrouble

Con

royalpaladin and I have agreed to make this debate a tie.
Debate Round No. 2
royalpaladin

Pro

This is a tie.
FourTrouble

Con

Thanks for reading guys. Don't vote.
Debate Round No. 3
royalpaladin

Pro

I'm bored. :/
FourTrouble

Con

Alright, this is over now.
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I would like to debate RP on this
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Wow, you're still sore about that? Um, that was like what, the Monday of last week? Plus, you weren't very humble; you said you were going to teach some debaters on this site a lesson. I was just trying to help you by requesting that you become more humble, as three people noted. Moreover, I pretty much ignored you after that incident, so this trolling was entirely unprovoked. You're asking me to do something that I've already been doing. You just want attention. I had already resolved the conflict by choosing to ignore you.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
My thread about how arrogant I was to be so concerned with winning my debates. It still wasn't humble enough for you, I guess you just wanted to see me as low as possible. Say, aren't you a camp counselor? Aren't you supposed to know how to resolve conflicts?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
No, but you did cause a really stupid votebombing spree.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
"Harassing your threads"? When was the last time I harassed one of your threads?
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Consequences? Did I offend you? LOL
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Also, calm down a bit, would you? And stop harassing my threads, I haven't done that to you for a while.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I don't care about your intent. I only care about the consequences of your actions.
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
It wasn't intended to be funny, only to screw with you, until I realized that it would just add more fuel to the fire. You don't seem to get if I mean things or not; you've proven that quite clearly in the past.
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
I don't think you understand how to write satire.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, lol.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
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 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: Making debate a tie.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: wtf...was it really that hard to add 4 points...
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
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 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: Helping to tie it. Tell me if you need this vote removed
Vote Placed by HonestDiscussioner 5 years ago
HonestDiscussioner
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Forget it, I'm voting. I'm just also keeping it a tie ;-)
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
royalpaladinFourTroubleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Tie.