The Instigator
oliverpuck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
16kadams
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

guy 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 3 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 23950
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

oliverpuck

Pro

I challenged you to this debate because someone said I should challenge you. And then he declined. here's my point guy marriage in my opinion is good for society. Because for ounce some people our doing something different. and banning people from doing it is against law because it states it will not endorse any religion. and
and the Christian church believes in banning guy marriage. So the government would be endorsing a religion.
16kadams

Con

All of my opponents case assumes a church and state problem, without any backing. His only logic is the church is against it, we are against it, therefore banning is violates separation of church and state. This reason fails as the reason we ban gay marriage IS NOT due to religion. Society, aka average citizens, oppose it for those reasons but not the government.

The reasons gay marriage is banned will be in my case, as the governmental reasons against gay marriage have nothing to do with the church my opponents arguments fail.

Marriage

All healthy societies, or most healthy societies, prefer heterosexual marriages. As do governments. Marriage is a unique union in which the current family and society structure is founded upon. Marriage provides a healthy basis for procreation, as naturally having children in a marriage forming a procreative union provides a healthy society as well as a strong culture with family values. Married couples still conceive children in the formation of a healthy family, which advances society, and this is something to promote indeed.

Children raised by heterosexual married couples seem to be raised better then in homosexual ones and better then ones with heterosexual non married couples (or single ones).

Now same sex marriages are NOT as one would call a real marriage, as I outlined above. Gay couples do not revolve around a sexual and child rearing core. They are NOT unique based on a different sex relationship. As they cannot conceive children, alone anyways without using a third person, they do not fulfill the states interest in promoting marriage. The states interest in marriage is procreation and child rearing, both are essential for society. And procreation is inherently impossible. Using a third person does not apply, and makes it exherintly possible.

“All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female nature of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species... Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution's inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman.” – Conaway v. Deane (2007)

Now lets look into the child rearing aspect of marriage, as the procreation side is fairly straight forward. Although gay couples can raise kids, the question is are they as effective as heterosexual married couples? If so, then they benefit society in that way. If not, then heterosexuals fit the procreation side of things, fit better in the second part whilst gays are left as a square trying to enter a circular opening.

There is actually no good scientific basis proving homosexuals are as good or better parents then heterosexuals. The majority of studies done that show this have been found to have very large biases or calculating/data problems. Studies that also claim there is no difference are also highly flawed in their own respective aspects.

Arguing that marriage is merely a loving union of two couples is actually a redefinition. States interests would fail in this scenario, as if this was the case any loving relationship would have to be regulated. This is NOT the case. Marriage as an institution still revolves around procreation. States regulate things only if they have an interest. They regulate marriage. Pro gay advocates fail to see/find a good reason/states interest in legalizing same sex marriage. If we assumed the argument marriage was just about love, it would mean any relationship that had love could now apply r marriage. Point being as all of this is true (or false) it is impossible for marriage to be about love in the states eyes. In my research I always find it to be procreation and child rearing, something which gays have no case against.

The question is not why not to allow them, as pro is against the status quo the bop is on him and all of his allies to prove why it should be allowed. Under the states interest argument there is none. [1]

Point out of all of this: Marriage IS a procreative union along with a states interest component to it. Child rearing is the other state reason for marriage. Both of which gays poorly fit or inherently cannot.

Questions to pro:

What is marriage?
What are the states interest[s] in marriage?
Why should SSM (same sex marriage) be allowed?

VOTE CON



[1] http://marriagelaw.cua.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
oliverpuck

Pro

In my opinion guy people our people that think differently than other people. They just happened to fall in love with a person that is there same sex. And all that my opponent said was how some people decided. That that was marriage. My opponent is saying that society is going to crash if we allow guy people to have rights. All men our created equal. that's like saying society is going to crash if we allow black people to have rights. Here's how. These people our have feelings for there same sex or a family member and they cant help it. What you feel is what you feel and no one can change that. But when they think that that's the person that they want to spend the rest of there lives with. And when they want to get married we take away lots of there rights. because they happen love someone of there same sex.
So in other words we are punishing people for feeling differently. And that does not sound like something the usa would
do. But if they our acting under religion it does seem logical.
So here's the answers to my opponents questions.
marriage is two people that want to spend the rest of there life's with each other. it doesn't matter what the state wants. and your third question all of the above
16kadams

Con

My opponent misinterprets my arguments. strawmans. My argument is based on there is no reason to allow same sex marriage, and that heterosexual couples have a special part of society (procreation) which should be heralded. He makes 3 main arguments, and all are weak.

1. They feel that way

Just because someone is "born that way" is not a legal precedent to allow something. One could argue psychopaths are born that way, and they are humans, and therefore we should legalize murder. Being naturally born that way is NOT a legal precedent for anything really. One could also argue, as blacks are more prone to commit crimes, that if I am a born black (actually for all minorities). Point being being naturally born that way is irrelevant.

2. Blacks are like gays

This antisemination comparison fails. This analogy fails because it essentially claims there is no difference between race and sexual preference. Race is irrelevant to marriage, gender/preference is in fact relevant. My case refutes the analysis, as I argue the reason marriage is defined is because of procreation. Race is irrelevant to procreation, being homosexual changes the whole situation. As preference is relevant to the debate of states interest, the state can now regulate it based on this reason. With this, the state has principled reasons to prevent homosexual marriage but not racial marriage hence banning SSM is ok, and banning racial marriage is not.

3. We are all equal

This is assuming some type of right is being taken away. Before you assume some right is being taken, one must ask what marriage is? No one can make any valid claim without answering this question. To claim liberty is being violated, the liberty (in this case marriage) must be defined. In arguing that some equality or liberty is being taken away, he is proposing there is some pre existing right to marriage. This begs the question if the right exits. If it does not no equality or liberty is being deprived. Though I do agree this right exists, this does NOT hurt my case as this right is irrelevant.

"Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before 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. [Emphasis mine] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So 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]

As marriage is defined as a man and a woman, the right is irrelevant and no equality or liberty is being deprived, this crumbles his case.

Marriage is heterosexual by nature. Homosexual marriage simply cannot exist as it would not be marriage, and hence no right is being deprived. Even if they are a suspect class and "born that way". As marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and is heterosexual by nature, a right to gay "marriage" simply does not exist. Meaning your main argument fails.

His minor points:

1. Punishing them

Disagree, having taxes punishes us but we still have them. To help people lets make them 0%!! But thats against states interests therefore it will not be done. Benefiting people is good, but if there is no reason too do so it shall not be done under law.

It would benefit millions if we had no taxes, but if we did that the state would whither away. It is against their interest. It is against states interests to allow SSM under procreative reasons.
***
Response to his answers:

Your argument is based on a love long term relationship, which I refuted last round. This fails as ordinary friendships have no effect on the political deeds and therefore do not warrant state regulation.

"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 structured ways that justify or warrant legal regulation. Marriages, in contrast, are a matter of urgent public interest, as the record of almost every culture attests—worth legally recognizing and regulating."[1]

Why? Because the states interest rely on procreation and child rearing. Love is not a reason to legalize something.
***

It does not matter what the state wants? So their interests do not relate to their laws? I think this is illogical as the state regulates the business and therefore has wants/needs from that industry. Their interest is procreation so giving them benefits or nothing is illogical and as there is no sufficient need to allow it states interest is omnipotent in this debate.
***

Your reasons above are refuted and highly weak.

CON has disproved all of pros points.



[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)
Debate Round No. 2
oliverpuck

Pro

oliverpuck forfeited this round.
16kadams

Con

Args - easy, refuted and poor
Sources - me, I had them
Conduct - me for FF
S/G - gay marriage NOT guy marriage.

All 7 points con. Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bossyburrito 4 years ago
bossyburrito
Oh shizzel another 16k SSM debate!
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Agh cheesedingo
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
oliverpuck16kadamsTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Hehe
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
oliverpuck16kadamsTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Guys should not be allowed to marry. Leave marriage to real men. Guy implies youth.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
oliverpuck16kadamsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, misspelled resolution, better arguments by con, only con presented sources.