Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Debate: Cooldudebro VS tejretics GMSBI
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:54:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
This is a Reason For Decision for a vote on this debate:
Cooldudebro (Pro) VS tejretics (Con)
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal
Gay marriage should be illegal, because:
1. More marriages will lead to less revenue because of the estate tax, home sales tax, and the marriage bonuses that, with large increases in marriages, would deprive government of income.
*Pro's sources show that these taxes are real and lose money for the gov, but I read this and was like, oh so you're against marriage in general, not gay marriage...and Con pointed this out "If opposite-sex marriage is to be banned, it will, by Pro's logic, generate more revenue"
This mitigates Pro's gay specificity with marriage legalization.
2. We're in debt as a nation, we can't just go losing tax revenue all willy nilly.
*If Pro's economy arguments hold water, then yes, this is a valid point to limit marriages, but Con points out that the increase in weddings alone result in economic benefit that would outweigh the taxes and bonuses lost by the gov. Con's sources back it up too.
3. Marriage isn't a right; Derryck Green says so.
*Pro never gives me ANY reason to accept Derryck Green, some guy with a masters in theology, as authoritative on matters of law or marriage, but Con never addresses this lack by Pro, so I'm willing to grant source legitimacy here.
4. Derryck Green also says "the law treats a heterosexual person the exact same way it treats a homosexual person, with both prohibited from marrying a person of the same sex."
*The logic here was baffling to me, and it actually demonstrates Con's point how discrimination is legitimized by unfair laws...so legitimized, Pro's source thinks it's fair...
5. More Derryck Green talkin' about the NBA/WNBA and men and women's bathrooms.
*Pro uses this to show that the differences between gender are far greater than those between race.
Con points out that gender identity and gender are not necessarily the same thing, as Pro is attempting to show this with the bathroom/WNBA claim, and that gender identity is irrelevant to gov legislation.
6. Gay marriage redefines pressures on men to stay committed in marriages and to remain with their biological kids.
*Wow, the assumptions here are vast, but if Con doesn't acknowledge it, it must stand.
Con does, and points out that unfaithfulness does not necessarily undermine same sex marriage, and that Pro has not made this clear...I found this to be true and convincing.
7. There is a prevailing view that the marriage is more about the desire than the children, this shouldn't be so.
*Pro never really explains why this is the case, and the source used to back this up was sketchy, Con pointed out that the source wasn't a study.
8. Gay marriage erodes the religious liberty of traditional-values people.
*Con points out that illegal gay marriage leads to psychological harm and illegitimate government which seems to be more impacting with regards to liberty erosion.
9. Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services due to gay marriage legalization.
*I can't seem to find anywhere Con refutes this, but this point is minimal to the resolution, because according to Pro, CC of B chose to stop adoptions...they were merely required by law to not discriminate, and chose to stop adoptions rather than let gays adopt; it doesn't seem forced.
10. Homosexuals cheat more.
*Con points out that Pro's source on this is only talking about open relationships, and that Pro never show why infidelity is immoral OR why infidelity in open relationships impacts the resolution at all.
Gay marriage should not be illegal because:
1. The Harm Principle...all's cool unless you harm a non-consenting person; maximize pleasure, minimize pain.
*Pro responds that forcing people to accept gays harms those non-consenting people.
His example is that Massachusetts' public schools does not allow parents to exempt their kids from being taught about gay marriage.
2. Legit governments exist based on the harm principle, thus use utilitarian judgments on laws.
*Pro responds that because of gay marriage-->bad economy, making gay marriage illegal would increase happiness. Good economy-->happiness.
The problem is that Con successfully mitigated the economy claim with good sources and showing that weddings alone boost the economy.
3. We should apply the harm principle to the resolution...gay marriage doesn't harm anyone, why should we ban it?
*Pro responds that those who are forced to agree with gay marriage are being harmed.
Con points out though that this an appeasement "harm" and that's not the gov's business, and this made sense and was convincing.
4. Basing government decisions on personal characteristics is absurd i.e. favoring blue eyed people, men
*As far as I can tell, Pro drops this specific argument, and it does show that arbitrarily making laws on personal characteristics is not of a legit gov.
5. Basing gov decisions on this is non-utilitarian.
*Pro drops this as well. Pro makes no rebuttal to how govs should legislate based on utility, and this shows that disallowing gay marriage is not a utilitarian based law, and this to me impacts the resolution greatly, because we're talking about an utilitarian government making gay marriage illegal.
6. Unjust, non-utilitarian decisions from a government-->legitimized discrimination.
*Pro never addresses this directly, instead Pro focuses more on the morality and purpose of hetero marriage.
7. Heteronormativity, the idea that straight people's gender roles/behaviors are the norm, marginalizes those whose discrimination has been legitimized.
*Pro drops this argument, and only asks how heteronormativity affects gender roles, and it seems that Con adequately explained this point.
8. If the gov made gay marriage illegal, it acknowledges this discrimination-->psychological harm.
*Pro doesn't seem to acknowledge the psychological effects of discrimination, and Pro claims Con's source is biased, which was never really explained, and which doesn't hold water upon inspection of the source...I found Pro's response weak to this.
9. Gay marriage -->better economy, so much so that it outweighs the loss for the government via marriage bonuses.
*Pro and Con go back and forth on this economy thing, and as I can tell, Pro's sources do show what he's trying to point out, AND so do Con's sources, so I'm willing to wash this argument away, and look at the arguments that directly link to the resolution.
Pro's case was never really developed, and relied on assumptions and assertions, and from what I can see Con pointed those out.
Pro was never able to combat the discrimination arguments from Con, and Pro just never really showed me why gay marriage would be detrimental to the country OR government.
I think I ultimately vote Con, because of the utilitarian framework of legit governments that was never contested by Pro, and which really makes sense, and eliminates the need for govs to legislate based on personal characteristics.
Also, this little gem:
"I argue that gay marriage doesn't harm anyone"
Then Pro, in response to this said:
"Thus, he acknowledges that gay marriage does in fact harm some people"
I was baffled.
Con said doesn't harm anyone and Pro made it out to be a concession by Con.
Not only is this incorrect, it reeks of desperation...wack.
I vote Con in this debate, because Con's arguments effectively negated the resolution and Pro could simply not keep up.