The Instigator
Magicr
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
kenballer
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage

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 3 votes the winner is...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,010 times Debate No: 24571
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Magicr

Pro

Resolved: There are not valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage.

Definitions
:

Valid- sound; just; well founded [1].

Deny- to withhold something from [2].

Reasons- a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event,etc. [3].

Same-sex couples- a relationship between two persons of the same sex [4].

Marriage- the societal institution under which a man and woman or partners of the same sex establish their decision to live together as spouses by legal commitments [5].

Rules:
1. First round is for acceptance unless Con wishes to begin arguments.
2. Drops are counted as concessions
3. No new evidence last round

BoP:

Con must prove that there are valid reasons to deny same-sex couples marriage.

Sources:

[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]- http://en.wikipedia.org...


kenballer

Con

I accept. Just to clarify. We are debating based on whether we "should" legalize same sex marriage as a matter of public policy. There has to be at least one valid reason that cannot be successfully refuted by PRO for me to win, according to the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Magicr

Pro

My opponent is correct in saying that we are debating in the context of whether gay marriage should be allowed as a matter of of public policy.

Marriage is a civil right

A civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship [1]. If civil rights are rights that are gained by membership in a society (citizenship), then marriage is one of these rights. Marriage is not a natural right because it is not something that humans are born with. Marriage is a right that one gets from society, thus a civil right.

Not allowing same sex marriage is a violation of civil rights

From the Cornell law website:

"Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class" [2].

Marriage has been established as a civil right. If we deny a class of people the right to marry because they are a member of this class, then this is a civil rights violation.

Definition of marriage

If marriage was defined as an institution only between a man and a woman, then it could be argued that denying homosexual couples marriage is not a civil rights violation.

In the first round of this debate however, the definition of marriage included same sex marriage. My opponent did not challenge this and drops are counted as concessions, so marriage can either be heterosexual or homosexual.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]- http://www.law.cornell.edu...


kenballer

Con

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

The U.S. Supreme Court has always defined marriage to be between a man and a woman for the continuation of society and never did they say that the fundamental right to marry included same sex marriage. In fact, the Supreme Court rejected the existence of such definitions or rights in the past and said there is no fundamental right to gay marriage .

After the Loving decision, The U.S. Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson in 1972 regarding the issue of Same sex marriage endorsed a Minnesota supreme court decision. There are also plenty of state and federal courts that mention Baker as a U.S. SCOTUS ruling [1]. The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the same arguments gay activists make today [2]:

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."

As you can see, Marriage wouldn't be "fundamental" to the "existence" and "survival" of humanity if it was completely delinked from procreation or had nothing to do with reproductive potential. Marriage is the regulation of procreation and rearing of children. This has been deemed the most compelling of ALL compelling state interests by the U.S. supreme court several more times and let me explain precisely why this is the case:

The Purpose of CIVIL Marriage

The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders.

Procreation and rearing of children is a biologically driven phenomena that happens either by choice or by accident [3]. The state regulates this by encouraging procreation and child-rearing to take place inside a marriage. This is done in order to make sure heterosexual couples do not procreate and/or rear children naturally in an unstable environment if they end up producing a family either by choice or by accident .

The Means to Achieve this Purpose:

The state uses the traditional idea of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships. There are two elements about the definition of marriage that potentially help to achieve this purpose:

A. The Responsible Procreation Theory

The responsible procreation theory involves establishing family stablity where the state encourages heterosexual couples to procreate within an environment that is best situated to raise children [4]. Family stability is about how many transitions in the environment the child may experience during the child development process.

There is empirical evidence that supports this theory. In terms of the selection process, Studies show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. [5]

B. The Optimal partnership theory

The optimal partnership theory involves establishing family structure where the state promotes the ideal partnership between two biological married parents. Family structure is about who the child is being raised with during the child development process.

There is also empirical evidence supporting this theory. Almost Every study demonstrates that children from two biological married parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement than children in any other living arrangement raised by heterosexuals.

FURTHER INCITE INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Now, when I say the word "encourage", I mean that the state only indirectly encourage us rather than force or require people to achieve this purpose. For example, The mere appearance or existence of a green/ red traffic signal helps us understand when to make the right choice to drive. Our understanding that green light means "go" encourages us to drive and red light means "stop" to discourages us from driving. Our understanding of the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman would be the green light that encourages us to procreate inside a marriage while cohabitation would naturally be the red light to not procreate inside.

This is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life in both situations. However, the difference between the two is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. You have the freedom to marry or procreate and not get married or procreate.

In conclusion, the law does not make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice. In addition, it does not matter whether the cause of the good child outcomes from couples is based on the idea of traditional marriage that people believe in or the physical experience of marriage. It would still be warranted for the state to use and promote a traditonal notion of marriage to ensure a stable home for children based on what I said above.

WHAT ABOUT INFERTILE COUPLES?

The Fundamental right to marry:

Since Marriage between a man and a woman has been held to be a fundamental right, a law excluding infertile heterosexual couples would be constitutionally unenforceable. The state couldn't survive strict scrutiny because it would be overinclusive and not narrowly tailored. However, there is a second and most important reason why they would allow the infertile to marry along with any other scenario dealing with heterosexual couples.

Marriage:

As I explained before, Our marriage laws are there to shape culture and culture shapes conduct. Allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry does not attempt to take away the law's ability to recruit and influence the culture of heterosexuals who are "fertile" to make sure they create and/or raise their offspring's in a stable environment. Moreover, the state cannot promote responsible procreation and rearing of children without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage because it's the only union that can perform this particular action.

Therefore, infertile couples (or ANY other heterosexual scenario) do not change the definition and ,thus, don't challenge the intention of the marriage institution. This is because the definition of marriage (the means) and the purpose of it (the ends) are synonymous.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.cas.umt.edu...
[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
[4] http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov... ...p.10,11
[5] http://eprints.qut.edu.au... ......p.2
Debate Round No. 2
Magicr

Pro

Before I proceed any more I must inform my opponent that I am rather disappointed in his choice to use almost the exact same argument (and when I say the same argument I don't just mean the same ideas, I mean almost the exact same words) in this debate that used in a different debate.

The other debate to which I am referring is the debate "Prop 8 is Constitutional." Here is a link to the debate so that readers can compare for themselves that the arguments are identical except for a paragraph here and there:

http://www.debate.org...

While the too resolutions are related, there are some important differences:

1. The Prop 8 debate is focused on U. S. Constitutional Law, while this debate is not specifically related to the U. S. or any other country.

2. That debate was about whether it was within a state's rights to define marriage as a heterosexual union. In this debate, I laid out the definitions in R1.

On that note:

A note on definitions (I said this in R2, but it is worth repeating):

My opponent did not challenge my definitions in his R1 response and said of my whole first round: "I accept." It certainly appears as though he is accepting the debate, along with my definitions. Even if he did not wish to accept the definitions, he did not challenge them then, nor did directly challenge the definitions in his R2 argument. Rule #2 is that drops count as concessions. I also restated the definition in R2. Because he basically accepted my first post and did not challenge my definitions, these definitions stand: For the purpose of this debate, marriage has been defined as a union that is either homo or heterosexual.

Civil rights:

My opponent basically dropped my argument on civil rights. He did sort of touch on the issue in his argument, but made no direct attempt to refute my argument. Because drops are concessions, it has been conceded that for the purpose of this debate,gay marriage will be considered a civil right and denying this right is a civil rights violation.

Now I will attempt to respond to my opponent's rather non-sequitor response as best I can, considering that it appears that this argument was original conceived for a different debate.

The Due Process Clause

First of all, I will make it clear that, as I said above, the Supreme Court of the U. S. or any other country has almost nothing to do with the resolution. We can look at their opinions for clues as to different legal views on marriage, but the Court's definitions of marriage does not affect the definition for this debate.

Heterosexual marriage is as old as Genesis? Yes, but in Genesis marriage didn't have to be a union between a man and a woman. In Genesis there are numerous examples of polygamous marriage (not that I am passing a judgement on polygamous marriage, I'm just showing how Genesis differs from the definition of "traditional" marriage that is used so often today), so this proves nothing about one man and one woman.

The first quote my opponent presents is talking about the right of criminals to have children. This case has nothing to do with same sex marriage, except that the Justice happened to drop a quote about what marriage was. This all happened in 1942, long before many states had even made interracial marriage legal.


The purpose of civil marriage

Marriage is not, as my opponent put it, "the regulation of procreation and rearing of children." While marriage can deal with raising children, the primary purpose, as affirmed in the R1 definition, is to affirm the "decision to live together as spouses by legal commitments." A couple of examples:

Heterosexual couples can get married and never have children.

Heterosexual couples may never get married, but live together for most of their lives and have and raise children together.

Homosexual couples can live most of their lives together and have children through artificial insemination or adopt children and raise these children together.

Why should we deny the couple in this last scenario marriage?

The main purpose is not procreation and my opponent's only evidence for this contention is the opinions from the Supreme Court which really does not radically affect this resolution in the first place.

Means to achieve this purpose

I have shown the purpose of marriage my opponent is presenting to be incorrect based on the accepted (or dropped depending on how one looks at it) definition of marriage. The means to achieve this incorrect purpose are, therefore, not important.

I will discuss them anyway to escape being accused of dropping arguments.

A. The Responsible Procreation Theory

There is no reason why this cannot also apply to a same sex marriage.

B. The Optimal partnership theory

"The optimal partnership theory involves establishing family structure where the state promotes the ideal partnership between two biological married parents."

So in this case why is adoption allowed? Adoptive parents are not the biological parents.

A step parent can raise a child. Why? He or she is not the biological parent. Should this be illegal?

Note: I intend for my opponent to answer these questions.

On this note, I contend that allowing same sex marriage would provide a more stable environment for a family with two families of the same sex. Accepting the resolution would actually lead to more stable families according to my opponent's standards.

What about infertile couples?

What about 'em? Haven't we already established that gay marriage is a civil right? Yes, we have. We can't deny infertile couples marriage because they must have equal protection under the law? Well same sex marriage has been conceded as a civil right, so gay couples should have this equal protection too.

Bottom line (conclusion):

My opponent dropped my entire argument. The result: Gay marriage is conceded to be a civil right.'

Questions:

(Along with those in the body of my argument.)

1. Same sex marriage was conceded to be a civil right. Are you arguing for a violation of civil rights?

2. How does gay people getting married hurt you?

3. Did you read my R2 argument?

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal, and hope that it is actually a rebuttal about this debate.
kenballer

Con

For the audience, let me clear some confusion that I think CON created personally.

First off, I accepted CON's definition of marriage according to "society's" point of view and for the purpose of this debate based on the rules set out by CON in the first round. However, the claim that gay marriage was a civil right was never stipulated or accepted in the first round. This is why I challenged CON's argument that this was a civil rights issue, which was in the second round. I clarified to CON that this was a debate on the public policy issues in the first round. However, For the sake argument, I will assume as well that gay marriage is a civil right. Its irrelevant to the resolution anyways because I am being asked to give at least one valid reason to not so much deny this right to same sex couples but reject CON's revised definition of marriage and why this definition of marriage is bad public policy.

Secondly, in round 2, I was not merely explaining what traditional marriage "is" but why its a more valid definition to accept (compared to CON's) under historical, scientific, moral and philosophical grounds. In addition, I did this in order to provide context and understanding as to why we "ought" not to allow same marriage concerning public policy which is what I am about to do now.

ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE

My argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage. Let me explain precisely how and why:

If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like divorce, cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way.

THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT

Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well.

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible.

Remember, the studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. CON's view of marriage is considered and would be non-traditional as I explained above.

LONG TERM EFFECTS OF ACCEPTING CON'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE

The Social ramifications:

Based on the arguments and studies I mentioned above involving the promotion of non-traditional views of marriage and the discouragement of traditional views of marriage combined; it logically follows that vulnerable future generations, will be programmed to formulate choices (like divorce, fatherlessness, etc) that have the potential to harm their own family and society in general as a result.

Legal ramifications:

The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [1] 960-964

THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF REDEFINING MARRIAGE

This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process or else live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly impose their convoluted notion of equality and Civil rights. Here are some examples of this:

Schools:

In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples where regular married couples would normally be used. Also, the newspaper advice columns now deal with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.

Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage procreation and rearing of children to take place inside a marriage to each generation while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

I feel like I answered all of PRO's questions he asked me without dealing with them directly, but if he feels I did not I will do so in the next round.

[1] http://www.law.harvard.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Magicr

Pro

Like my adversary, I would like to clear something up from the top. My opponent has been referring to Con as if that is his opponent. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case. Whether or not he likes to admit it, he is, in fact, Con. I am Pro. So any time he says Con did this or Con said that, I think he really means to say Pro. By all means, Con, do correct me if you are referring to yourself. Let's jump right in, shall we?

"However, the claim that gay marriage was a civil right was never stipulated or accepted in the first round. This is why I challenged CON's [Pro's] argument that this was a civil rights issue, which was in the second round."

This is simply not the case. My argument on civil rights was dropped. See the rules. Drops are concessions. Gay marriage was conceded as a civil right. Simple as that.

Allowing gay marriage interferes with this important purpose

What is this important purpose? To promote having children?

"If the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood."

I must be missing something. Why is it so important that we have natural parenthood, that the child be biologically related to both parents? My opponent dropped the questions I asked within my argument within R3, so we are left to assume that there is no reason that a child cannot only be related to one parent having been born through the use of a sperm donor or surrogate mother. My opponent has not proved that there is an advantage to being related to both parents. So although marriage can be understood to be separate from natural parenthood if same-sex marriage is legalized, it already is.

So if marriage is not about natural children, why should the state care?

Here's why:

Marriage does create more stable families. Even if the children are adopted, a family with married parents is much more likely to be stable than one with unmarried parents.

The claim that gay marriage is a civil right

I believe this claim was already conceded, both through a drop, and through my opponent actually conceding it in his argument.

What is Pro's point? He already conceded this. Twice. His logic makes no sense:

"Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well."

What? If someone is heterosexual and then gay marriage is legalized, this is not going to make them suddenly not want to get married to someone of the opposite sex. No. They would still live their life just as they had before. In no way does legalizing gay marriage decrease the stability of heterosexual marriages.

"If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible."

It simply doesn't work like that. Let's take two examples from history: Women's suffrage and interracial marriage.

In both cases people argued that allowing these events to occur would destroy the traditional family and traditional marriage [1] [2]. Of course neither of these events produced that outcome. It is the same with same sex marriage: Allowing it will not degrade heterosexual marriages.

"Remember, the studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. CON's view of marriage is considered and would be non-traditional as I explained above."

All that allowing gay marriage will do is that it will allow gay families to gain more stability. It will mean that gay people can move beyond just cohabiting and assume marriage. It is correct that people who cohabit are more likely to divorce from this cohabitiaion, which is exactly why same sex marriage will provide stability.

Long term effects of accepting Con's [Pro's] view of marriage

Social ramifications:

I have refuted his arguments above, therefore Con still must prove that there are negative social ramifications.

Legal ramifications:

There are not other big legal changes that must occur if same sex marriage is legalized. The only thing that will happen is that gay people can get married and have more stable families.

Immediate effects

"This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children."

This is pretty much the same argument used by Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Letting gay marriage (or gay relations in the case of Lawrence) infringes on the rights of people not to have to deal with gay people. This argument is virtually same as the following argument that could have been used during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s:

"Segregation needs to continue because my right to keep my children away from Black children must be upheld."

It's the same thing.

Schools:

What is to be said? The Court was correct.

Media:

So?

Business:

That's like denying rights for interracial dating or interracial marriage receptions.

"Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences."

Same sex couple are not fundamentally different. Homosexual couples and families function exactly like heterosexual couples and families. Also, my opponent has not proved that these consequences are, in fact, negative. Therefore, there is no reason to distinguish between the two.

Questions:

Although Pro attempted to answer question 2, I have refuted his entire argument on that front. Questions 1 and 3 remain unanswered from my perspective.

Bottom line:

My opponent has accepted same sex marriage to be a civil right. He argues that we cannot stop infertile couples from marrying because that is a civil rights violation. Denying same sex couples marriage is also a civil rights violation. Beyond that, my opponent still does not have one, valid, unrefuted reason to violate this civil right.

Sources:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_suffrage_in_the_United_States

The link refuses to paste correctly. Hopefully it can be accessed. If not, it is the wikipedia article on "Women's suffrage in the United States."

[2]- http://civilliberty.about.com...






kenballer

Con

Apparently, I am not doing a good job in explaining why this purpose is important or explaining the actual nature of my argument. I will have to restate my purpose of civil marriage argument so everyone can understand it in its proper context. Here we go:

THE STATE INTEREST IN MARRIAGE

The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes.

The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships.

WHAT ABOUT PRO'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE

Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman.

This means If the state calls same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would not reference gender but just have party A and party B. Then, this would make Marriage be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood. As PRO's definition even suggest, marriage is ONLY a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way. Thus, PRO's view of marriage is considered and would be non-traditional.

THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF MARRIAGE (CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION)

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING PRO'S VIEW OF MARRIAGE

The studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. PRO's view of marriage is considered non-traditional as I explained above.

Immediate effects:

This law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children PRO's corrosive view of marriage within schools, business, media, etc. and discourage traditional views

The Long-term Effects:

In connection with the immediate effects, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society in general as a result.

THE SOLUTION

Furthermore, Society or the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means.

Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different,, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences from PRO's view. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage young impressionable heterosexual couples to procreate within the context of marriage while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

REBUTTAL

"This is pretty much the same argument used by Scalia in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: Letting gay marriage (or gay relations in the case of Lawrence) infringes on the rights of people not to have to deal with gay people. This argument is virtually same as the following argument that could have been used during the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s"

let's get something straight here first. This is not about legalizing gay marriage because there is no such thing as gay marriage legally speaking and according to this debate. The state does not and would not call opposite sex couples straight marriage and same sex couples gay marriage and have separate institutions. Marriage is marriage according to the state once they call same sex couples a marriage. In addition, PRO's definition of marriage set in round 1 is suppose to be gender and sexual orientation neutral. In other words, This is about no longer calling gay couples a marriage along side with straight couples NOT merely about promoting gay marriage or not.

This is why Women's equality and interracial marriage would not be the same issue here
because those examples were not about marriage itself but equality in
marriage as it?s defined between a man and a woman for the purpose of responsible
procreation and rearing of children. It did not change the purpose of marriage.
Debate Round No. 4
Magicr

Pro

The state interest in marriage

"The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident."

For the most part I agree. Marriage so that procreation can be regulated, but also to allow two people to make a legal union expressing their commitment to each other.

"The traditional view of marriage is based on the 'natural teleology of the body' where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders."

I agree that this may be the "traditional view" of marriage, but it is not the correct view, as I have argued in this debate. As far as "the natural complimentary element of both genders, the scientific community agrees that the outcomes for children of LGBT parents are just as positive as those of heterosexual parents [1].

"Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes."


Perhaps it did arise for heterosexual couples, but it also arose for a relationship between two people of the same sex where the male was dominant over the female. I also agree that part of marriage is to encourage a good, stable family for raising children.

"The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license."

When my opponent says that the state uses the traditional definition of marriage, I am not sure exactly what he is talking about. There is no reason that a state should have to use this definition and it is quite obvious that there a numerous jurisdictions that have rejected this definition.

"Then, the state issues marriage licenses in order to reinforce this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships."

The same is true for homosexual couples.

Pro's view of marriage

"Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman."

So because heterosexual marriages are the only kind that can accidentally procreate we should limit it to only heterosexual couples? Flawed logic. And I do not think that producing offspring via invitro fertilization thru a sperm donor or a surrogate is really "outside of a marriage." This is not to mention adoption. My opponent has not sufficiently proven that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples.

"This means If the state calls same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would not reference gender but just have party A and party B. Then, this would make Marriage be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood."

As I stated earlier, marriage serves two purposes: To create stable families and to allow two people to legally affirm their commitment to each other. Legalizing gay marriage simply allows gay people to take these steps.

"If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates and essentially CON, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and practicing this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible."

What a jump in logic. My opponent is saying that if we say that the Con side of this debate is akin to racism and homophobia, then the next generation will not practice marriage. This logic makes no sense.

The consequences of accepting Pro's view of marriage

My opponent completely dropped my argument that gay marriage will provide stability to gay families. He is continuing to use nonsense logic. He says that people who cohabit have less traditional views of marriage therefore, if we legalize let gay people marry, they will be more likely to get divorced because they have less traditional views of marriage. Say what? My argument still stands: If gay people marry, their families can be more stable.


Short term effects

"This law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this and reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children PRO's corrosive view of marriage within schools, business, media, etc. and discourage traditional views"

First, this is almost exactly the same argument used in R3, to which I have already responded. The addition here is the last sentence. In response to this: Con has not shown why the traditional heterosexual view of marriage is superior to a homosexual marriage. So how is my view of marriage corrosive?

Long term effects

Con's argument here is illogical. How will allowing gay families to be more stable hurt families?

The solution

"Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means."

Really? Parentage is always planned and chosen? I think not.

"Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different"

There is not evidence to believe that same sex couples are fundamentally different.

There is no reason to treat same sex couples differently and call it a civil union instead of marriage. It serves the same purpose as a heterosexual marriage.

Rebuttal

"This is not about legalizing gay marriage because there is no such thing as gay marriage legally speaking and according to this debate."

Of course there is such a thing as gay marriage both legally speaking and according to this debate. See the definitions.

"The state does not and would not call opposite sex couples straight marriage and same sex couples gay marriage and have separate institutions. Marriage is marriage according to the state once they call same sex couples a marriage. In addition, PRO's definition of marriage set in round 1 is suppose to be gender and sexual orientation neutral. In other words, This is about no longer calling gay couples a marriage along side with straight couples NOT merely about promoting gay marriage or not."

I honestly have no idea what my opponent is trying to argue here. So, unfortunately I can't refute it.

"This is why Women's equality and interracial marriage would not be the same issue here
because those examples were not about marriage itself but equality in
marriage as it?s defined between a man and a woman for the purpose of responsible
procreation and rearing of children. It did not change the purpose of marriage."

This is also about equality. And as with those two, it does not change the purpose of marriage, which I have stated several times: A stable family structure and a legal union for commitment.

Questions:

Dropped.

Conclusion

I have shown how gay marriage is a civil right, that legalizing gay marriage would not hurt straight marriages, and that there are not valid reasons to deny gay people this right. My opponent has not fulfilled his BoP.

The resolution has been affirmed

I will not get the chance to respond to my opponent's closing remarks, but I hope readers will thoroughly analyze them and make an good decision regarding the winner.

Source:

[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...


A picture is worth a thousand words.


WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED


kenballer

Con

Well, All I was required to do according to this resolution was to show that there was at least ONE valid reason why we should reject PRO'S Non-traditional view of marriage and deny same sex couples the right to marry as a matter of public policy. It does not have to be a compelling reason but just a valid reason and this public policy reason did not require empirical evidence just argumentation.

Instead one, I provided several reasons why accepting PRO'S definition , which is marriage between two people regardless of gender, is harmful to society.

PRO accepted that regulating procreation was an important purpose of marriage that is necessary to maintain civil society. However, by him accepting this proposition , he has basically lost the debate. Let me explain why:

After PRO said that he agreed with the purpose of marriage, he says the traditional view of marriage is not a "correct view" and the state does not need to use this definition to achieve this purpose. The probelm with this objection is he is trying to isolate the definition of marriage (one man/one woman) from the actual purpose of marriage (regulation of procreation), but the definition and purpose of marriage are supposed to be synonymous.

As I said before, a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all (by definition) and create a family in a unstable environment where the state needs to have something in place to prevent this. When it comes to same sex couples, they not only cannot procreate by definition but Society or the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned and chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means with.

This is a obvious fundamental difference between hetero and homosexual couples that PRO did not refute but simply ignored and merely asserted that there was no evidence of a difference regardless.

Therefore, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman.

Now, Why is this relevant?

Well simple, PRO claimed that I have " not sufficiently proven that marriage must be limited to heterosexual couples".

I actually did. The studies I mentioned last round very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation. PRO's view of marriage is considered non-traditional and PRO agreed that man and woman marriage is a traditional view as I explained above. http://eprints.qut.edu.au...

PRO did not challenge or address the implications of these studies that I referenced that basically prove that PRO's definition of marriage is corrosive to future marriages headed by future generations.

"What a jump in logic. My opponent is saying that if we say that the Con side of this debate is akin to racism and homophobia, then the next generation will not practice marriage. This logic makes no sense."

All of round 4 was designed to explain logical connection in a very precise and clear manner. PRO cannot just pick out one part of the argument, but he needs to attack the entire structure.

"My opponent completely dropped my argument that gay marriage will provide stability to gay families."

Well first off, this is not about PRO providing arguments for gay marriage. Second, there is no reason why civil unions cannot be a sufficient remedy without promoting PRO's Definition.

I ask the voters to please read carefully the entirety of my arguments. VOTE CON. Oh, also, I apologize for the mix up when I said CON in the last two rounds , I was referring to PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Here's the picture worth a thousand words:

http://iwastesomuchtime.com...
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
He could have challenged them which he didn't.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
hm... Kenballer can be good but pro stacked the definitions in his favor
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Pro, if you really want too I would debate this with you....... I doubt you have a worthy adversary currently.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Specify it.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
I will debate homosexual issues but not just plane old SSM.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Not gay marriage... Again... Gimme a break for a few months guys :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
MagicrkenballerTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never proved the states interest was anything but procreation. Con showed there is no other interest and love proves no purpose to the state. Also the civil rights point was weak.
Vote Placed by ScarletGhost4396 4 years ago
ScarletGhost4396
MagicrkenballerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that PRO really got CON with the argument that this isn't necessarily looking at US law, so that was a big hit against CON's case. In the end, CON was never able to uphold his burden of proof, and everything that he said was effectively refuted by PRO. Everything else is a tie.
Vote Placed by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
MagicrkenballerTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to refute Con's arguments effectively enough to show that there are not any valid reasons to deny gay couples marriage. Most of what Con tried to bring up in Round 5 either was already refuted or does not hold any ground. Thus arguments go to Pro. Everything else is a tie.