The Instigator
MasturDbtor
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
darceem
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

We Already Have Marriage Equality Without Legal Same-Sex Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MasturDbtor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/13/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 21141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

MasturDbtor

Pro

It is equal, because the law applies equally.

Under the law sexual orientation does not matter. What matters is that marriage is limited to 2 people of age who are not family and who are the opposite sex of each other.

No state has ever required that both spouses be heterosexual, just that they are the opposite sex. There is no law against a gay man getting married to a lesbian.

This is equal application of the law, hence it is already marriage equality.
darceem

Con

Thank you for opening this debate.

My opponents argument assumes two things:

First, that offering a privilege to something so long as they conform to something undesirable is "equal".

Second, that equality means offering the ability to experience a right with major qualifiers.

It also seems to lack any understanding of sexuality and relationships, to assume "Of course you can get married! It just can't be to someone of the same sex!" This is similar to saying "Of course you have free speech! You just can't say anything that might upset me". It's illogical.

To refute the first point, similar arguments were used to defend racial segregation. The concept is "separate but equal". Black Americans were offered the same rights as white individuals but separate from them - they weren't allowed to participate as themselves in white activities or use things labeled "White Only". This is similar to the use of civil unions to segregate gays and lesbians.

To refute the second point, the point of homosexuality is that they do not desire to have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Adding the qualifier that "you must be in a straight relationship to get married" would be similar to expecting people to change their race to get married. It is not something you can simply change. The difference is, while people of the same race could still be sexually and romantically satisfied, a gay person can NOT be sexually and romantically satisfied in a straight relationship - it's the nature of sexuality. Forcing gay people into relationships that could not possibly serve any purpose a relationship is meant too isn't equal.

The only way to offer marriage equality is to open it for all consenting adult couples (I personally have no problem with polygamy, but that's a separate argument). Keeping marriage for only straight couples, and insisting that gay people can get married if they just turn straight, reinforces the outdated beliefs about "separate by equal" and expecting conformity to current law which is unequal rather than changing the law.
Debate Round No. 1
MasturDbtor

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Argument #1: One major flaw in Con's argument comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to racial segregation is that racial segregation laws were not applied equally. Typically white people would not be arrested for using black spaces, but black people would if they used white spaces. That is clearly unequal. In addition black-only schools received less funding and teachers would usually be white, prejudicing them against the students.

Gay people do not face that problem. If a gay man gets married to a woman he gets the same exact financial and tax benefits a straight man gets marrying a woman. Contrast that with segregation where black facilities were always sub-par compared to white facilities.

Argument 2: It is not true that gay people can not be sexually and romantically satisfied in a heterosexual marriage. They just have to make special arrangements. For example, 2 gay men and 2 lesbians get together and each man marries each woman and live in open relationships with an understanding that sex will take place between the 2 men and 2 women. This would actually be a benefit to gay people, encouraging duos of gay men and duos of lesbians to form strong social bonds in order to make this arrangement work.

Argument 3: If the law is held to be unequal just because 2 men or 2 women can't get married on the grounds that some men only want to marry men and some women only want to marry women then the same argument can be applied to marriage between close relatives. What if a brother is only in love with his sister, and only wants to marry his sister. By the same logic it is unequal and unfair to stop them from getting married.
darceem

Con

darceem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MasturDbtor

Pro

In Conclusion, there is marriage equality because the same rules apply to everybody regardless of what your sexual orientation is. Adults may marry anyone of the opposite sex that they are unrelated to. The government doesn't care what the sexual orientation of either adult is. That is by definition "marriage equality".


Vote Pro!
darceem

Con

darceem forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 2 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
MasturDbtordarceemTied
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: FF