The Instigator
Contradiction
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
kohai
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of 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 3 votes the winner is...
Contradiction
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,743 times Debate No: 16348
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Contradiction

Pro

The first round is strictly for the presentation of terms and acceptance.

Topic: There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage will be understood as the union of two individuals of the same gender in a legally recognized ceremony with all the benefits found in heterosexual marriage.

Time: 3 days between posts. If either side needs extra time, he may ask his opponent to wait out his time.

Burden of Proof: Both sides share the BOP. Pro must show that there are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage, and Con must show that there are.

Rounds:

1. Terms/acceptance
2. Opening Arguments
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Final rebuttals/conclusion

What This Debate is NOT Over:

1. This is NOT about whether homosexual acts are morally permissible.
2. This is NOT about what a religion understands marriage to be.
kohai

Con


I thank my opponent, contradiction, for allowing this opportunity to debate. Before we begin, I would like to request both parties to keep an open mind.


This debate is also NOT over gay adoptions. Therefore, all arguments about SSA go out the window and are invalid.


Good luck to my opponent.



Debate Round No. 1
Contradiction

Pro

Let me first say that it is a pleasure to be debating kohai on this topic. Having debated him in the past, I have found him to be a charitable and gracious opponent, even in the face of defeat. I look forward to this exchange.

In arguing against same-sex marriage (Hereafter SSM), it's first important to emphasize that this debate is mainly over what marriage is and why the state is in the business of regulating such an institution. Concerns over equal protection and discrimination take a secondary role to this main question. As philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis note: "[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages... it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [1]

There are thus two questions which both sides must answer:

1. What is marriage?
2. Why should the state recognize marriage?

Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? Indeed, why does the state provide a certain type of relationship (Heterosexual marriage) with a host of legal and economic benefits, whilst denying these same benefits to other types of relationships which are just as loving and romantic? If marriage is simply a loving and romantic relationship, then what does this have to do with the state? What, then, is the state's interest in marriage?

How the Traditionalist Position Answers

For the traditionalist, the state is concerned with regulating the institution of marriage because it has an interest in ensuring the continuation of society through responsible procreation. [2] Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman.

Because the structure of a homosexual couple is such that procreation is impossible in principle, the state has no interest in bestowing upon their relationship the same benefits intended for heterosexual couples. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

How the Revisionist Position Answers

For the revisionist, marriage is a union between two people for the sake of expressing their love and commitment toward each other. This understanding of marriage, however, does not make sense of the state's interesting in regulating it. Moreover, "love and commitment" can be used to justify all sorts of obviously non-marital relationships. George, Anderson, and Girgis again write:

"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation." [3]

After all, why think marriage is between two people? If marriage is not about procreation, but is about love, then what rational reason is there to limit marriage to be between monogamous couples only? Suppose that Peter, Paul, and Patrick are homosexual lovers who have been living together for ten years. As a symbol of their love and commitment, they wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage with the full benefits avaliable to heterosexual couples. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to the trio? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship by arbitrarily favoring duos over trios? Suppose we introduce a fourth person, Pamela, into the relationship, thus forming a quartet. Why should this be any different?

But now let's remove Patrick and Pamela from the picture. Suppose that Peter and Paul are college roommates who have shared the same apartment for several years. They are best friends who love each other in a nonromantic way and who share their expenses to get by. Being college students, they are often short on money. As such, Peter and Paul wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage both as a symbol of their commitment and for the legal and economic benefits associated with it. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to these two friends? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship?

One might say "But we just know marriage is between two people -- it needs no explanation." But this would beg the question against the aforementioned people, who want their rights. Marriage is indeed between two people, but the question is whether or not the revisionist can justify this notion. If he can't, then we should abandon it.

Presumably, my opponent thinks that polygamous, polyamorous, incestous, and bestial couples shouldn't be recognized. But if marriage is fundamentally about love and commitment, then what rational reason does the state have to refuse to recognize the aforementioned relationships as legitimate? This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same argments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage.

OBJECTIONS

1. Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage is the same thing as antimiscegenation

The analogy falsely assumes that there is no essential difference between race and gender. While race is irrelevant to the purpose of marriage, gender most certainly isn’t. Since race is irrelevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is unjustified in passing antimiscegenation legislation. However, since gender is relevant to whether or not procreation is possible, the state is justified in limiting marriages to only between members of the opposite sex. Therefore, the state has a principled reason to exclude couples from entering into marital relationships on the basis of their gender.

2. Sterile couples are excluded

This objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.

_______

Sources

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
2. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004) 153
3. Girgis, George, and Anderson, "What is Marriage" 270-271
kohai

Con

Rebuttals

There are thus two questions which both sides must answer: 1. What is marriage? 2. Why should the state recognize marriage?

I’ll be defining marriage as a social union or legal contract that creates kinship. (1)

Why is the state in the business of regulating marriage to begin with? Indeed, why does the state provide a certain type of relationship (Heterosexual marriage) with a host of legal and economic benefits, whilst denying these same benefits to other types of relationships which are just as loving and romantic? If marriage is simply a loving and romantic relationship, then what does this have to do with the state? What, then, is the state's interest in marriage.

How is this relevant to the topic?

How the Traditionalist Position Answers

And we all know what happens to tradition. That is why we still use horse and buggies, slavery is still legal and schools are still segregated. (Sarcasm intended.)

For the traditionalist, the state is concerned with regulating the institution of marriage because it has an interest in ensuring the continuation of society through responsible procreation. [2] Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman.

So if procreation was the reason for marriage, then that explains why sterile couples can’t get married and why senior citizens are denied their right to marriage.(I’ll deal with this later.) More importantly, do you think that all of the sudden if gay people were allowed to get married that straight people would stop getting it one? Seriously? Do you think the reproductive cycle is going to go to a sudden halt?

Because the structure of a homosexual couple is such that procreation is impossible in principle, the state has no interest in bestowing upon their relationship the same benefits intended for heterosexual couples. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

What is the point you are attempting to make?

For the revisionist, marriage is a union between two people for the sake of expressing their love and commitment toward each other. This understanding of marriage, however, does not make sense of the state's interesting in regulating it. Moreover, "love and commitment" can be used to justify all sorts of obviously non-marital relationships. George, Anderson, and Girgis again write:

"Why does the state not set terms for our ordinary friendships? Why does it not create civil causes of action for neglecting or even betraying our friends? Why are there no civil ceremonies for forming friendships or legal obstacles to ending them? It is simply because ordinary friendships do not affect the political common good in sturctured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation

Is there any point to this nonsense? Friendships=/=marriage. There are different types of love as my opponent is forgetting. (2)

After all, why think marriage is between two people? If marriage is not about procreation, but is about love, then what rational reason is there to limit marriage to be between monogamous couples only? Suppose that Peter, Paul, and Patrick are homosexual lovers who have been living together for ten years. As a symbol of their love and commitment, they wish for their relationship to be recognized as a legal marriage with the full benefits avaliable to heterosexual couples. If marriage is fundamentally about expressing love and commitment, then on what basis could the state deny marriage rights to the trio? Is not the state discriminating against their relationship by arbitrarily favoring duos over trios? Suppose we introduce a fourth person, Pamela, into the relationship, thus forming a quartet. Why should this be any different?

Nice slippery slope. Why can’t straight marriage lead us down the same slippery slope? Again, you forget there are different types of love.

As to Objection 1: We're not talking about race, we're talking about gay marriage. Try to stay on topic, if you are capable.

And Objection 2: You said earlier that procreation was the justification for regulating marriage. Now you contradict yourself. How can you rationalize that?

My arguments

My contention is that the constitution clearly states that everyone has the same rights. (I’ll expand on this later due to the lack of space.) Marriage is a right, why can’t homosexuals have that right?

Sources:
1) www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
2)
http://en.wikipedia.org... (Same principle in English)

Debate Round No. 2
Contradiction

Pro

Since most of Con's replies employ "fisking" and are composed of brief one-liners, some of his assertions will be ignored in my response.

In regards to my paragraph concerning the state's interests for marriage, Con asks "How is this relevant to the topic?." The answer is that it's relevant due to the fact that any adequate conception of marriage just give an account as to why the state should be interested in protecting it to begin with. If that cannot be done, then the state has no compelling reason to legislate in favor of it. Hence, the state interests in marriage are one of the core notions of the SSM debate.

In regards to the section of my argument dealing with the traditionalist definition of marriage, Con states: "And we all know what happens to tradition. That is why we still use horse and buggies, slavery is still legal and schools are still segregated."

And the point of that is...? I never attempted to nor did I base an argument off tradition. I simply mentioned the traditionalist definition of marriage by name only, while in the process making no appeal to tradition itself. Con's statement here is thus a red herring.

Sterile Couples?

Though Con raises this argument, he apparently neglects the fact that I already preempted this in my initial argument. As such, I simply extend my response:

This objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.

The State's Interest in Marriage

Con's only response to the several paragraphs I offered explicating this notion is "What is the point you are attempting to make?" Simply this: Any definition of marriage must be able to justify why the state should be concerned with recognizing it. That is, it must offer a compelling reason as to why the state should be involved in passing legislation both recognizing and protecting it. If a definition cannot do that, then there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize it and pass legislation protecting it.

Thusfar, I have shown how the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation. It remains to be seen what the state's interest in marriage could be if we assume that marriage is a purely romantic relationship.

Oh, That Slippery Slope?

All that Con has to respond to the consideration that arguments for SSM can in principle be used to justify incest, polygamy, etc... is "Why can’t straight marriage lead us down the same slippery slope? Again, you forget there are different types of love." He also writes, "Is there any point to this nonsense? Friendships=/=marriage. There are different types of love as my opponent is forgetting."

Unfortunately, Con has completely and utterly missed the point here. Suppose we base marriage on romantic love. The question we can now ask is "Why only romantic love?" After all, excluding non-romantic couples would be discriminating against those couples who want to express their non-romantic love and enjoy the benefits associated with marriage. The salient point here is that if we divorce marriage from procreation, then there becomes no rational foundation upon which we can base it. Con's response, therefore, is completely off point. He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he offers a definition of marriage, he must justify it and show why the state is interested in recognizing it.

And again, this is not a slippery slope. This is not, mind you, an appeal along the lines of "If you legalize same-sex marriage, that is what will happen." Rather, it highlights the fact that if the same arguments for SSM can be used to justify all sorts of relationships, then surely there has to be something wrong with the revisionist's conception of marriage.

Pro's Positive Arguments

Pro arguse that "marriage is a right" and that therefore homosexuals should have that right.

It's important to emphasize that this debate is mainly over what marriage is and why the state is in the business of regulating such an institution. Concerns over equal protection and discrimination take a secondary role to this main question. As philosophers Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis note: "[B]efore we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages... it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded." [1]

Thus, Pro cannot simply assert that homosexual marriage is a "right" without begging the question. He must justify this. Moreover, he must also show how his conception of marriage makes sense of the state's interest in marriage, which he has not done. Recall that I argued that the only reason the state is involved in marriage to begin with is because it has a compelling interest in protecting a relationship in which procreation (and thus the advancement of society) is possible. Apart from this understanding of marriage, the state has no reason at all to be involved in the institution to begin with. Since Pro's conception of marriage does not make sense of this notion, it ought to be rejected.

_________

Sources

1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251
kohai

Con

I thank my opponent for his timely response.

Since most of Con's replies employ "fisking" and are composed of brief one-liners, some of his assertions will be ignored in my response.

The “one liner” responses are to highlight where the opponent has deviated from the main flow of the argument and chosen to sail pseudo-logical tributaries rather than streams of sound deduction. If the opponent wishes to avoid snide “one-liners” (as he refers to them).

In regards to my paragraph concerning the state's interests for marriage, Con asks "How is this relevant to the topic?." ... Hence, the state interests in marriage are one of the core notions of the SSM debate.

Why should the state be interested in protecting marriage? Because marriage is a RIGHT that we are all in deserving of. I would like to ask my opponent, if marriage is not a right or a privilege, what is it?

I never attempted to nor did I base an argument off tradition

My opponent has pointed out the traditional definition of marriage. I ask my opponent why if he does not hold that view? In addition, I ask my opponent to ONLY make arguments that he actually holds!

Sterile Couples?

I already answered your objection! You contradicted yourself! Period. You did not answer my question. In case you missed it, here it is again.

You said earlier that procreation was the justification for regulating marriage. Now you contradict yourself. How can you rationalize that?

Suppose we base marriage on romantic love. The question we can now ask is "Why only romantic love…. The salient point here is that if we divorce marriage from procreation, then there becomes no rational foundation upon which we can base it.”

The thrust of what I gather from this poorly-constructed refutation is that the opponent believes that marriage should only happen if one man and one woman are in love. He is worried that if there are no kids involved, that people will get married for money or some other reason other than love. Again, the extent of limited worldly exposure of the opponent is showcased with this point. Women have been marrying men for money since the beginning of time. This happens all the time with straight couples, and because it is a problem with straight couples an gay couples cannot be used to attack gay couples.

The opponent furthermore asserts that my “response... is completely off point. He can't have his cake and eat it too. If he offers a definition of marriage, he must justify it and show why the state is interested in recognizing it.”
Essentially what the opponent has done throughout the course of this little discussion we are having is try to impose an egregious burden of proof on me while dictating how I need to make my argument. My argument is that my opponent is wrong; and therefore that is all I have to prove. I elect to advocate for more than just that, however. I think that people have a right to live their lives in peace, for example, without being forced to submit to the bigotry of others. The reader may agree or disagree, but the opponent’s argumentative pretentiousness is getting a bit frustrating. This is not a round of Lincoln-Douglas debate. This is not Policy debate. This is not a moot court round. The only task I am trying to do is to figure out what is right and what is not. I contend that the opponent is not. If the reader finds that the opponent is at any place wrong, then I have won the debate.

The burden of proof is on my opponent. Why doesn’t the state have good reasons to legislate gay marriage?

In this round, I have shown his contradiction and the fact that he completely ignored my refutation. Furthermore, he NEVER explained or tried to rationalize his contradiction.

The opponent asserts that “Any definition of marriage must be able to justify why the state should be concerned with recognizing it.”

The opponent takes for granted that the state should be regulating marriage in the first place and contends that rather than actually deciding the merits of the regulation itself, that the state should first regulate and then find justification. Essentially, we should shoot first and ask questions later. Is that how government should function? No.

The opponent further asserts that “Thusfar, I have shown how the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation.”

On a threshold level, the opponent has failed to demonstrate why traditionalism (or an acceptance and subscription to the traditionalist position itself) is worthwhile. If the opponent is going to say that traditionalism is the way to go he must first prove its merits. It is imperative to understand why we do things before we do them so that we don’t make mistakes. The opponent merely offers this perspective, he does not substantiate it. In order to accept that “the traditionalist position makes sense of this notion by showing the link between marriage and procreation” we must first accept the traditionalist perspective holds any water to begin with.

As for the merits of the assertion, a possible link between marriage and procreation does not justify regulation of marriage itself where marriage does not directly correlate to procreation. Even still, to accept that a link between procreation and marriage justifies state regulation requires an acceptance that the cause of reproduction itself is something that the state should be meddling with. What people do with their bodies is their business. How they reproduce, wether they choose to reproduce, or with whom they choose to reproduce are all personal matters beyond the control of the state as they should be. Again, I would strongly recommend all readers (and the opponent) to familiarize themselves with their right to privacy. Given that reproduction is a matter beyond the control of the state, the state has no business imposing a regulation of marriage (even if we assume the two are necessarily correlated). This is really a heads I win, tales the opponent looses type situation.

Back to you, pro.

Debate Round No. 3
Contradiction

Pro

Recall that in my opening argument, I posted two questions that the same-sex marriage advocate must answer if he is to make the case for its legalization. These being.:

1. What is marriage?
2. Why should the state recognize marriage?

In his responses, my opponent has defined marriage as primarily a relationship centered around notions of love and commitment. As for why the state should recognize marriage, he writes, "Because marriage is a RIGHT that we are all in deserving of." My opponent's argument, therefore, is that the state should recognize homosexual marriage because homosexual marriage is a right.

Circular Reasoning and the State's Interest in Marriage

But why? Why is marriage (Specifically, same-sex marriage) a right? Moreover, why should we define marriage in terms of love? Con has simply asserted both of these points without giving any justification for them. Indeed, he is guilty is circular reasoning. Con argues that same-sex marriage is a right because marriage is about love -- but that's exactly what is being disputed to begin with -- Con simply assumes it.

Moreover, Con's argument does not make sense of the state's interest in marriage. The state is in the business of regulating marriage to begin with not because it wants to enable you to marry the person you love (Although that is certainly important as a means to marriage), but because it wants to ensure responsible procreation. That is, the state is in the marriage business because it has a compelling reason in ensuring that society is advanced and that its future citizens are raised under the best conditions possible (Male-female parenting). Viewing marriage as merely a romantic relationship renders the second question unanswerable. As I pointed out in my initial argument:

"Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman."

After all, if the government was concerned about regulating relationships based on love, then why doesn't it recognize friendships? Appealing to different types of love will not work here, since favoring one type of love over another would be guilty of "discrimination" against those who love each other in a non-romantic way.

Traditional Marriage?

Con argues that my mention of the traditional definition of marriage commits me to an argument from tradition. No such thing is going on. I do in fact hold to the traditional definition of marriage, but my mention of this was to simply outline the position I was arguing for -- simply because I referred to it as the traditional definition does not mean that I am appealing to tradition. Con's argument here is a gross non-sequitur.

Sterile Couples

Con argues that I am "contradicting" myself here. No such thing is going on. Under the traditionalist conception of marriage, sterile couples can still marry because their union is exemplified by acts that are procreative in type, even if they are not procreative in effect. Marriage is grounded not in its effects, but in the procreative type acts which make these effects possible to begin with.

On the "Slippery Slope" Argument

Absolutely none of Con's responses even come near of grasping the point of my argument nor do they adequately respond to it. I am not arguing that "marriage should only happen if one man and one woman are in love" or that "people will get married for money and some other reason other than love." What I am arguing is that if we base marriage on love (Which Con has been apt to do), then there is no logical reason why the state cannot give marriage rights to other types of love relationships. If marriage is about love, and the state wants to recognize a homosexual couple's right to love, then by that same process of logic the state must also recognize the right of a loving incestous or polygamous couple to marry. Con's responses are completely off point.

The Burden of Proof?

Recall that the topic of this debate is "There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage." Moreover, note that in the terms the burden of proof was explicitly stated to be shared. In order to win this debate, my opponent must not merely show that I am wrong, but he must also show that there are compelling reasons for the state to recognize SSM. It is therefore not enough that he merely refute my arguments.

Con also writes, "The opponent takes for granted that the state should be regulating marriage in the first place and contends that rather than actually deciding the merits of the regulation itself, that the state should first regulate and then find justification."

That is patently false. Recall that in my opening argument, I argued for the state's involvement in regulating the institution of marriage due to the fact that the state has a compelling interest in responsible procreation. I further argued that apart from procreative concerns, there is no compelling reason for the state to recognize marriage, thereby constituting an argument against same-sex marriages.

Marriage and Procreation

Con argues, "As for the merits of the assertion, a possible link between marriage and procreation does not justify regulation of marriage itself where marriage does not directly correlate to procreation"

On the contrary, it does. This link, moreover, is not just "possible" -- it is tied up with what marriage fundamentally is. True, a marriage might not always result in procreative effects, but it is still characterized by acts that are procreative in type. And, because the state has a compelling interest in the continuation of society and the upbringing of virtious citizens, it has every reason to be interested in regulating responsible procreation through the framework of marriage.

Con attempts to appeal to the right of privacy in arguing against the traditional conception of marriage. Unfortunately, this argument fails. Con argues: "What people do with their bodies is their business. How they reproduce, wether they choose to reproduce, or with whom they choose to reproduce are all personal matters beyond the control of the state as they should be. Again, I would strongly recommend all readers (and the opponent) to familiarize themselves with their right to privacy."

Indeed, what people choose to do with their bodies is their own business. However, in marriage, two adults enter into a contractural agreement to the welfare of each other and of any possible children that may arise. It is when they form this agreement when the state has cause to intervene, for the state has a compelling reason to ensure that its future citizens are protected and raised under the best possible framework. The state does this by enforcing the marriage contract that was originally agreed upon -- thus justifying the state's role in marriage. The state does not force a married couple to reproduce -- it is only concerned with enforcing the marriage contract when procreation does occur.

By contrast, the government does not regulate, say, boyfriend/girlfriend relationships because neither party has entered into a contractural agreement with each other. The state therefore sees no interest in intervening, as there is no contract to be enforced. But in the case with marriage, the state does have a reason to intervene because of the contractural nature of marriage. Con's response therefore fails to capture the role contracts play in marriage.

I now turn it over to Con.


kohai

Con

I'm not a huge fan of posting a million YouTube videos to make my case, however, these videos clearly attack most of what my opponent is saying. The prop 8 videos show why it is unconstitutional.


;


I want my opponent to reply to these videos as it strengthens my case in these videos. Next, onto my opponents arguments.

But why? Why is marriage (Specifically, same-sex marriage) a right? Moreover, why should we define marriage in terms of love? Con has simply asserted both of these points without giving any justification for them. Indeed, he is guilty is circular reasoning. Con argues that same-sex marriage is a right because marriage is about love -- but that's exactly what is being disputed to begin with -- Con simply assumes it.

Moreover, Con's argument does not make sense of the state's interest in marriage. The state is in the business of regulating marriage to begin with not because it wants to enable you to marry the person you love (Although that is certainly important as a means to marriage), but because it wants to ensure responsible procreation. That is, the state is in the marriage business because it has a compelling reason in ensuring that society is advanced and that its future citizens are raised under the best conditions possible (Male-female parenting). Viewing marriage as merely a romantic relationship renders the second question unanswerable. As I pointed out in my initial argument:

"Marriage is an institution whose prime focus is to ensure a healthy environment in which future citizens can be produced. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that child-rearing is a hard task. Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. What grounds the procreative ability of marriage is the fact that it is a union between one man and one woman."

After all, if the government was concerned about regulating relationships based on love, then why doesn't it recognize friendships? Appealing to different types of love will not work here, since favoring one type of love over another would be guilty of "discrimination" against those who love each other in a non-romantic way.

Most of what my opponent is arguing are explained in the video. The supporters of prop 8 has ADMITED that marriage is a fundemental right. Fundemental rights CANNOT be taken away.

"...Life, LIBERTY, and persuit of happiness..."

Again, everything explained IN DETAIL in the video.

The Burden of Proof?

Most of my BOP is explained within the videos.

Marriage and Procreation

This is explained in the video entitled Its all about the children (or is it)

Again, I appologize for the video responses, but they are strong and explain my case MUCH more in depth than I would be able to explain it.


I humbly request my opponent to take these videos and respond to their arguments. Thank you, ProfMTH for these videos. I did not create them. Please go to ProfMTH's YouTube channel for sources.
Debate Round No. 4
Contradiction

Pro

Seeing how my opponent has both closed his account and posted forty-five minutes of video in place of his own argument, I see absolutely no need to respond. However, I did watch the last video, and its arguments (Actually, the infertile couple analogy) have been largely addressed in my previous responses. Rauch confuses what marriage is (Conjugal union) with its effects (Children). The traditional conception of marriage is grounded not in procreative type effects, but in procreative type acts as I have previously specified. Rauch's argument therefore fails.

Let me thus repeat what I said about sterile couples in my opening argument:

Sterile couples are excluded

This objection fails to understand the argument. Marriage is not based on the ability of the individual couple to procreate, but on a type of relationship in which procreation is inherently possible to begin with. Males are meant for coupling with females, even if it does not result in procreation all of the time. By contrast, homosexual relationships are such that procreation is impossible in principle. Thus, such relationships cannot qualify as marriages. What matters is thus that an act is procreative in type, not whether it is procreative in effect.

Seeing how Con has closed his account at the time of this response, I urge a vote for Pro.
kohai

Con

kohai forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
Sure, after I finish debating the six other people who asked, lol.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Bump. What say ye, Contradiction? Can we debate this or a similar subject?
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
I'm not gonna vote on this because I only read Pro's R2, but he/she should challenge me to this or something similar (I noticed on another debate you said that you disagree with same sex unions being equivalent to opposite sex unions). Also, before you clarify, I don't assume that you're a homophobe just for holding this position.
Posted by Agnostic86 6 years ago
Agnostic86
Sadly, con's account is closed.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Pro won as soon as Con posted the youtube videos. It's bad conduct since Con wants us to look over 45 minutes of video of someone else's argument and then expects Pro to respond to it in 8,000 characters.

As far as I'm concerned, when you're claiming to refute your opponent's argument, and then go off and post a video of someone else making an argument, you just forfeited since you didn't bother putting forth the thought, effort, and skill yourself to participate in a debate you obviously have no business accepting if you need someone else to argue for you.
Posted by i8JoMomma 6 years ago
i8JoMomma
do something useful like legalize marijuana
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
'I'll expand on this later due to the lack of space'

Perhaps you would have more space if you didn't copy huge blocks of text from your opponent's round?
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
You can, but I'd also prefer to see part of your opening. Otherwise you'll never be stuck responding to me and never be able to meet the BOP (That's part of the disadvantage of going second).
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Can I make rebuttals in this round?
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
okay.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
ContradictionkohaiTied
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: Kohai has forfeited and rendered his argument to nothing more than videos of another persons argument.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 6 years ago
ExNihilo
ContradictionkohaiTied
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: given
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
ContradictionkohaiTied
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: Kohai forfeited and closed his account.