The Instigator
Pro (for)
8 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Gay 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,784 times Debate No: 22803
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)




I am devils advocating this. I just wanna see what it is like to be pro on this. 1st round acceptance and definitions.

gay marriage: A marriage between two people of the same sex.

No trolling, but I do no think I have to worry about this much. I am being pro, well, just to see if I can make a pro case.

now, remember, 1st round acceptance ;)


It's a pleasure to accept. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


C1: The 14th amendment

The equal protection clause states the laws shall be equal, in other words the state/federal laws must treat EVERYONE equally. [1] Now, before we continue, we must ask when possible violations or when arguments arise from this clause. This usually arises when the law grants on class or group the right to engage in one activity, yet denies another the same opportunity.

"A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws." [2]

Now, we can create the same scenario for marriage. If the state prohibits gays from entering a marriage contract, due to preference, then it violates the 14th amendment as equality is not being given. This is a simple concept, and this is easily proven and logically correct.

Further more, my opponent may rebut this by claiming "marriage is a privilege", which is indeed false. The courts have ruled many times marriage is a fundamental human right, like in loving v. Virginia:

"[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right" ... "[an] expression of emotional support and public commitment." [3]

The freedom to marry has long been a right in US laws a courts, and denying same sex couples this right is a violation of rights.

Another violation is presents is the due process clause. "[No state shall] deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." [4] Now, we must ask how does it violate this clause? Well it is quite simple. It does not allow same sex couples to marry the people they choose, and choice is long protected in our constitution. And, as there is no reason to be against SSM, well to ban it, and it already violates the equal protection clause, they are being deprived this right without due process of law.

C2: Homosexuals qualify as a suspect class

This argument heavily relies on the one above, as if they are not a suspect class, then nothing is being deprived. If they quality, we can agree that they are being deprived equal rights. Before I continue, lets look into a little history. As in Texas, sodomy was banned at one period of time, and this was a violation of rights and was extreme discrimination. Further more, it is well known that being gay is natural, [yes DDO, I said it]. Many biological and genetic factors come into play proving being gay is in fact natural, with this they can be considered a suspect class. other history includes them being banned from the military, this too violated their 14th amendment for the same reason SSM bans do. Also, it is quite obvious, sexual preference ought to have, and DOES NOT have any effect to ones actual ability to serve society, hinting they are no different then us, except in their personal lives.

Now, with this information, I not only strengthen my former case on the equal protection clause, but prove we are denying a right from a suspect class of individuals whom deserve the same rights as us.

C3: Governments pocketbooks

One debate in the SSM case is will it help or actually hurt the governments current deficit, raise revenue, hurt it etc. Current CBO reports show recognizing SSM will decrease the deficit by 1 billion dollars (+1billion dollars in their pockets).

"{a new} Congressional Budget Office report indicating that the federal government would save close to a billion dollars a year if same sex couples were allowed to marry, according to a just released study by the Congressional Budget Office." [5]

The actual study was on a PDF, closed the html, and was to lazy to open the PDF so used the summary by source #5. So we see a minimal, but existent plus to the governments pocketbooks, but how about banning it? Does banning it have worse adverse effects? The answer is yes, the downsides are worse then the upside (in magnitude, a larger push down when banned then a push up when allowed, so banning it is terrible, allowing it has some benefit). Just in one state ON STATE [California] it cos 1 billion dollars to ban SSM. [6] With this, we can also assume this is worse all around, as the overall plus is balanced out by one single [former] ban. Allowing it has a small benefit, whereas banning it has LARGE detrimental effects.

C4: benefits the children

Most counties, 96% in fact, have at least on gay couple raising kids. [7] Now, I dont care if one likes or dislikes this, but this is a fact, these kids exist, and these kids as a new generation deserve the best. Now, we must ask if they actually will get the best without Same Sex Marriage.

First, there are many benefits to the marriage business, as obtaining marriage means you get many benefits. Although there are many, there are many significant ones I will name. Inheritance, family partnership taxes, medicare and many others. [8] These benefits help these families socio-economically, and therefore help the kids in that perspective.

Also we must look at other things, as from many studies gay parents actually parent better. [9] Basically as gay marriage will help the family, and the parents that are gay are better, why not allow it?

C5: Economics

Many millions of dollars are spent on marriage licenses, which helps the economy. Ranging from around 5 million dollars, in smaller states such as Iowa, and 155 million, like in larger states like New York. [10]


Gay marriage should be legal.

[2] Ibid
[3] Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967)
[7] (2000)


I would like to maintain the privilege to redefine and expand on the conjugal view of marriage in later rounds if necessary.


Very often do we, as a civilization, assign definitions to intrinsically valuable conceptions in order to communicate our points. Two = 2 and 3 = Three. By operating within these sets of definitions (while we do not have any moral obligation to do so) we can work together for the better of mankind. Math would be non-existent if we did not operate within the definitions we provide to numbers and symbols. Society, for the greater good, requires us to operate within definitions, and not simply ignore the foundations of concepts to meet other non-foundational ends.

The same applies to the SSM debate. Proponents largely ignore what marriage is, and instead argue from a position that assumes the government is fundamentally required to recognize marriages, regardless if the logic behind such recognition is sound. This is fallacious; society will not change 2 + 2 = 4 to 2 + 2 = 5 to satisfy any immediate ends. So before we can take the first step in deciding how the state should act in regards to SSM and marriage in general, we first should ask ourselves what a real marriage is, and why the state recognizes them in the first place.

What marriage is

While I'm sure this will be disputed, marriage is "the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together."[1] Operating under this definition, it can be seen that the government holds an interest in the continuation of society by means of natural procreation. For this reason the government would provide economic as well as social benefits to married couples, to exemplify the importance of such relationships and encourage their formation.

Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of.

Homosexual relationships, by contrast, are incapable of procreation in principle. To equivocate the two would therefore be unjustified, as the explicit reason the state confers benefits to married couples would be lost if we called something which is, by definition, not a marriage a marriage.

Slippery Slope

Along side all the arguments from equality and financial prosperity, there are also the simplistic "Why not?" arguments for SSM. "Why do you care if gay people get married?" I hear them say. "It's not like it affects your marriage!" I would beg to differ, my little Johnny boy. Imagine if marriage was understood as everything and anything. If a farmer wanted legal benefits for marrying his sheep flock, let him. If a man and a woman who promised tennis monogamy wished to receive financial benefits for their decision, so be it.

If such blatant disrespect for formal definitions were displayed, nearly everyone would be wondering why the government is subsidizing all these strange activities. Therefore, in order to make sense of marriage laws and marriages in general, my opponent has the burden of defining marriage in a way that would preferably exclude all relationships except that of sexual monogamy while still explaining the states interest in the union. (Although sexual polygamy is understandable, and the union doesn't necessarily have to be sexual)


R1: Equal Protection and Suspect Class

My opponent quotes the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, and thereafter argues that we are denying a certain group equal protection and creating a suspect class of citizens. But as I have stated, these arguments largely depend on marriage being something that homosexual couples are included in by definition. This is not justified by my opponent. Sherif Girgis, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George further point out the flaw in this argument: [1]

"[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 (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."

R2: Economics and Tax Revenue

My opponents source 6 admits that "Other economists say those numbers—which estimate the spending and tax revenue that could be generated by gay weddings—represent an insignificant part of the local and state economies. They also warn the numbers may be slippery because it's hard to estimate how many gay couples would marry here if the ban were overturned." [2]

Either way, homosexual couples are free to have ceremonies that demonstrate their desire to maintain monogamy forever thereafter. The government isn't sending in S.W.A.T. teams into gay "weddings" to break them apart. It simply does not follow that attributing a title (in this case, marriage) to certain entities (homosexual couples) would generate revenue. It is wholly ironic of my opponent to assert that homosexual couples are willing to participate in traditional ceremonies regarding marriage at all.

This argument could also be applied to all other forms of association as well. If a man wants to have a ceremony to marry his horse, why not call that a marriage?

R3: Children

Even if I do accept that homosexuals are equally suited toweards parenthood as heterosexuals, (and out of laziness, I will) it is not implied that their relationship is suddenly a marriage. At best, this line of argumentation demonstrates the government should warrant similar financial aid to couples and/or single parents who raise children.

Also, if we were to equivocate homosexual couples to heterosexual couples, the norm of children being raised by their biological parents would weaken, theoretically increasing the number of single parents and the divorce rate.


As members of complex civilization, we are all required to operate the validity of some things (i.e. math and language) and operate within the definitions provided. (i.e. numbers and symbols) If marriage is between a man and a woman by definition, we should operate as if that sentiment is true. This goes two fold for the government and laws. Therefore, the government should not allow homosexual couples to be known as what they are not; marriages.


1. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, “What is Marriage?” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 246, 251
2. Tuna, Cari. "Gay-Marriage Ban Comes at What Cost?." The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 28 Jan 2010. Web.
Debate Round No. 2


1. What marriage is

The majority of my opponents claim lies on the procreative argument, the secular case, in a sygogolism the Jim Spiegel argument. My opponent actually does contradict himself, by first claiming creating the children upholds society, but in attempt to avoid the sterile couples refutation proceeds to the in principle, procreative types. But this is a contradiction. He first writes to fulfill the states interest they must create natural procreation, then states the homosexuals cant to it in principle, essentially saying they do not need the effect of procreation. This is faulty, as it is a contradiction, type and effect are not anything alike, hence my opponent contradicts himself.

So, as it is more logical to assume the government wants the effect, as this continues society, type does not, I will take apart this one. His type argument is illogical and does not relate to states interests. He claims homosexuals therefore cannot procreate, well this is false. Lesbian couples, for example, can artificially inseminate and therefore have the procreative effect, as the government unlikely cares about the type as long as they actually continue society. This here is a means of allowing SSM, as many gays can actually create the effect. Male couples, as well as lesbians, can adopt. Now, this is continuation of society as well, as these kids need a family. So male couples continue society in other ways, and allowing SSM means they will be more likely to adopt now the benefits of marriage are bestowed to them.

So, other then homosexuals fitting the needs of marriage under my opponents argument, we must also look into does allowing homosexual marriage hurt anyone, well in the terms of child creation? It is a common testimony we hear from conservatives it would likely decrease overall fertility rates, but this is not the case. I would be actually surprised if this was the case. It makes no sense that someone else's union would have a negative effect on another, negatively at least. Now lets look at facts, after SSM laws where passed in favor, there was not a decline in fertility rates, rather a small increase. [1] Now, I doubt the SSM law lead to the increase, but the point is it had no effect on fertility rates, therefore my opponents argument is invalid, the states interest was not infringed.

2. Slippery slope

The argument presented by my opponent is a fallacy. My opponents claim is if we change the definition, then people will tramp on it then other marital affairs will change, again and again. The argument is if X happens, Y and A and B will occur too, but is this the case? Are laws like a domino? First, many people (assuming it actually happens) would see the slip as a positive effect, and may support the happening, but the problem is that it WONT happen. Also, the argument assumes the law will see A and B alike, therefore meaning they get the same treatment. Now, is this actually the case? Is bestiality and polygamy the same as monogamous gay relationships? The answer is no, it is not. You cannot compare A and B, as A and B are absolutely nothing alike! Now, the simple question is why would the law treat different things the same to form a slippery slope? It would not. The slippery slope, not only a fallacy, but a falsehood.

--Defense of arguments--

1. 14th amendment, suspect class

My opponents argument is based on the classic "what marriage is" argument. This argument fails in a historical perspective, when looking into marriage. Marriage was defined against interracial couples, and under the same argument my opponent used would not be discrimination to infringe upon this. But the courts ruled it was discriminatory, therefore the what marriage is argument fails on a historical basis. My opponent must also look in another perspective of what marriage is, as I hold marriage is a right, celebration of love and commitment, government recognition of the commitment, and a personal choice. As marriage is a personal choice, and the current bans infringe on their choices due to preference and allows heterosexuals to enter these unions that gays cannot, the act of banning homosexual marriage is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. My opponents argument fails on a societal and a historical perspective.

2. Economics and tax revenues

My opponent attacks this by claiming the actual amount of an economy based on marriage is fairly small, and therefore would not help the economy. This ignores many things. First, lets assume the amount of gay weddings is small, maybe 0.1% of all marriages, looking at that though it would boost that amount of... Money to the industry, as well as the church it is at etc. Even if it accounts for 0.1%, it would have a positive, but likely would account for 1 or 2%, so it would actually give a legitament boost. Also, he ignores the benefits from the government aspect. These benefits ease the financial burdens on the gay community, and then mean they have more money to spend in the market, groceries etc, meaning they will pump more money into the economy! So not only through the wedding outlook, but also the spending outlook. Although there are many ways they will stimulate the economy I will brush over one more: Kids. As they will have extra money in the bank, they will be able to think more about adopting a child, or artificially inseminating, as they will be more likely to afford it. This would ease the governments spending on orphanages, as they will have one less mouth to feed, as well as help the economy, as buying stuff for the child forces more spending (per person), hence a larger economy to tax.

No matter how you look at it, it will have beneficial impacts. Lets take in individual state example, Illinois. Sorry if that was noisy. But some reports claim allowing gay marriage would boost the struggling economy there, and well help the whole state. [2] Even just looking at weddings, it woudl make 30-70 billion dollars per year! (better economy and more to tax) Also, the new money that they would generate would be at least 8 billion in taxes per year. [2] SSM would help the economy.

3. Kids!!

My opponent claims that we should give the same aid to people who are single and raise children. Well according to the procreation argument, one that you used, anyone that can procreate deserves marriage, and the better thing, single parents can make procreative "type" unions. Under your argument, the answer is: yes. Also, the argument works as stated the extra money they gain from marriage will likely mean they will raise more children then they already do, therefore help the children. The argument stands.


I have refuted my opponents case, one being a fallacy, as well promoted my own with (in my opinion) good refutations that hinder my opponents objections false. With this information, I urge a PRO vote, to allow marriage equality.



Firstly, I did not use Jim Spiegel's argument, nor did I argue only procreative in-type couples should be granted the privilege of marriage. I argued that by the definition of marriage, which I have presented, homosexual couples are incapable of being marriages because they are not what a marriage fundamentally is. 16k did not offer an alternative definition, and simply mentions the infertility and artificial insemination objections, which I will now refute.

Traditional norms have never considered childless marriages anything but marriages. Looking at this superficially, it becomes difficult to see the connection between marriage and children at all. However, couples have always been understood to become married when they perform the sexual act; when they 'consummate' their marriages. This act is inherently generative, and is only fulfilled when a couple rears and raises their produced offspring to adulthood, or whatever stage of life society demands. This is the most essential part of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman because sex--generative sex--is only possible between a man and a woman. No other forms of sex, be it oral or anal, have ever been known to 'consummate' a marriage. This way, the infertile are capable of being in a marriage as much as a fast pitch softball team that will always lose is capable of being just that, a fast pitch softball team.

It is also a confirmed scientific fact that sexual orientation plays no role in a woman's ability to produce children. But this observation is beside the point; marriage is a union of people to meet the same ends that a woman could meet on her own artificially; producing offspring. The IVF procedure is also, in itself, parasitic to the type of union that marriage has traditionally been known as! If anything, the fact that such a procedure, which must take place in a lab or hospital, can occur naturally exemplifies the importance of marriage within our society. Just because a woman can have children does not make her and whatever she is dating's relationship (be it between her and a man, woman, dog or frog) a marriage.

Back on the Camel's Nose

My opponent has accused my 'slippery slope' of being a fallacy. A slippery slope is a line of argumentation of the following sort:

1. X --> Y
2. Y --> Z
3. X
C. Therefore, Z

A slippery slope becomes a fallacy when, and only when, one does not offer argumentation for why proposition Z will inevitably occur if proposition Y occurs. (Or any other variable)

I argued that if you take away the special link marriage has to children, you are virtually unable to exclude other types of obviously non-marital relationships, like tennis monogamy or beastial polygamy. My opponent makes 2 objections here, both extremely weak.

The first is that it simply "WONT happen." I'll leave this to the readers intuition.

Secondly, he argues that since proposition A and B are not alike, the slippery slope is unjustified. What is the difference between a loving homosexual couple and a loving tennis playing couple who promise to play against eachother, and only eachother, for the rest of time? Love? They both have love. Sex? Neither are capable of true sex. Commitment? Both equally pledge monogamy, just in different things.

My opponents objection requires homosexual relationships to already be understood as marriages, which I have demonstrated they are not. Otherwise, there is no demonstratable difference that matters in legislature between homosexual couples and monogamous tennis players.

R1: Antimiscegination Analogy

Refer to the quote I provided in R2. While race is irrelevent in deciding marriage policy, gender most certainly is not.

Also, my opponent doesn't justify his view of marriage, which is love and commitment. What would the states' interest be in such a union? This same set of logic succumbs to another slippery slope, as it warrants the recognition of a plathora of non-marital relationships. As Sherif Girgis points out, "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."

R2: Economics and Taxation

Recall my objections. Its was 1) My opponents own source admitted that the economic gains by legalizing gay marriage were minimal and were probably inflated, and 2) It would be a strange occurance--ironic, even--if homosexuals took place in traditional ceremonies regarding marriage, which is presumably where this economic boost would come from.

He did not deal with either of these points. Even if I grant these arguments, they are at best weak, and could also lead to yet another slippery slope. I will simply concede this point due to it's overall arbitrariness.

R3: Kids?

Blatant strawman. I did not argue that anyone who can procreate should be allowed marriage. Refer to top of this round.


I have argued that because society demands we respect the definitions of entities, it would be wholly unjust to include parts (homosexual couples) that do not fit within a series (marriages). My opponent has attacked my points, and I have refuted his objections. His arguments from the economy and children both give off the illusion of importance, but are wholly irrelevent when it comes to matters of laws and operating within definitions that we provide.

With that, I turn over to 16k for his final round. Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3


C1: 14th amendment

My opponent essentially dodges my Antimiscegination analogy, and proceeds to the secular case against gay marriage.

So, my opponent essentially states love is not a states interests, as if it was other relationships would be regulated. But lets first assume procreation is a state interest, as a state interest can override the constitution. But, however, most recent court rulings actually say the states interests in marriage, well the supposed ones, to not override the equal protection clause. [1] Now, as stated, your argument is if they can procreate, let them be kids! Your counter above, somehow arguing it leads to bestiality. No, you misread your case, or admitted your argument is logically flawed. A frogs sperm and a woman's body would not create children, hence your counter fails, also your argument states procreation is the main interest. So, if a lesbian couple can have children, then gay marriage should be legalized for lesbians. So, really, as you are countering the argument you concede the argument is logically flawed.

My opponent also claims race and sexuality are not.... they are not the same, yet there are truely even. It is pretty much a fact being gay is natural, and being black/a minority is not a choice, obviously, and that they are all humans. UNDER THE SAME ARGUMENTS YOU ARE USING, IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL TO BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE, HENCE VOTERS CAN SEE THE FLAWS IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

C2: Economics

My opponent's second objection shows he did not read my second argumentation, and his (1) is flawed. He claims that there are minimal benefits to allowing SSM, so he concedes there is a small benefit. Before negating this, and showing the economic HARMS of banning SSM, may I point out: It is hard to win an argument on this point, even if you concede is only has minimal benefits, hence you concede it helps. Now, lets look at the conceded argument by con. Small benefit correct? In australia, for example, the prohibition on same sex marriage actually costs the economy near one billion dollars, ~700 to be exact. [2] And in america banning it has larger effects:

"California's gay-marriage ban is costing San Francisco $37.2 million a year and the state $490 million over three years, according to estimates revealed in the high-profile Proposition 8 trial." [3]

So, lets assume it has little benefit, but banning it has large downfalls. So, my opponents small benefit > large downfall. Now, last round I proved it had large benefits, either way I WIN THE ARGUMENT. Large downfalls from prohibition < small or large benefits from legalization.

C3: kids

No, it is not a straw man. You say the reason for marriage is procreation, which means any HUMAN couple wishing to get married that can procreate should get married. Also the procreative case fails, I will explain this later. As you drop this point, I will summarize:

- Gays can be good parents
- SSM increases their ability to be parents financially through benefits
- Because of the reason above, adopt more
- Would artificially inseminate more because they could now afford the children
- SSM increases health among gays, hence allowing SSM means they will be better off raising children.
- SSM therefore benefits SSM couples AND the kids they will raise
* * *


I know you didn't use the Jim Speigel argument, I said if it was put into a syngogolism it would be in that form. So, my opponent essentially said I have not proven what marriage essentially is, well to who? There is no set definition, new Gallup polls show that most Americans favor SSM, meaning to many SSM is fundamentally marriage. I have refuted what marriage fundamentally is, as I provided what marriage is to society, not the government, and I also showed your argument is problematic. You claimed marriage is defined to procreative types, well that makes no sense. Firstly, the government would care less on type, I bet all they care about is the effect of bringing children, as if nothing came of it it has no positive effects, therefore the procreative type is definition of marriage FAILS in the current state of secular marriage, and to society SSM is being accepted. Therefore your what marriage is argument fails. On a social and secular level.

My opponent then said traditional norms, ah yes this is where his case collapses. First, laws and definitions change, so your basing your argument on tradition, but if laws change tradition can be overridden. So, this is irrelevant. Now, the argument is whether or not the tradition is beneficial, which it is not. It: 1) Infringes on peoples choice to marry, 2) hurts the economy, 3) is against the constitution, and 4) there is no point in protecting this "tradition". Now, the argument fails unless you can prove tradition is worth providing, and you have not proven that tradition is worth protecting under this law, hence vote pro.

My opponents only argument is it is bad for marriage, it is a parasite. No, it is not. In a free country, if people wish to use IVF procedures then they can, and they still create the procreative effect, which is the only logical thing this argument can prove, procreative types play nothing in the law. The government just claims sterile couples are rare, nothing about procreative type. So the argument fails, as it fails to argue anything, and if you hold that artificial insemination is bad then you are against personal choice, and you are saying we like procreation unless it is under a heterosexual union, this is a fallacy.

Slippery slope

My opponent claims the slippery slope is no fallacy, only if we argue Z. This is false, as it can still be falictic by arguing Y will occur from Z. X = SSM, Y lets say is polymory, and Z bestiality. Now, it can be a fallacy just assuming Y will occur a all. This only works if Y comes from X. Which it does not. Polygamy, SSM, and bestiality are NOTHING like each other, therefore it is a fallacy to assume one will come from another, just like monkeys do not come from humans, things so different will not sprout off like that.

Similar arguments like this happened in the cold war, domino effect. If Vietnam fell, so would larger countries, and guess what, Vietnam fell and larger countries stayed the same. This example makes sense as they can actually relate to each other! But SSM and polymory are not alike. The slippery slope is a fallacy.


Lets pretend the false procreation case was true, we must ask does procreation actually outweigh the benefits of SSM? I have established as case showing HUGE benefits to SSM, my opponents only harm was a slippery slope, a fallacy, hence he has provided no proof that SSM will hurt the country as a whole. I have proven it will benefit the country, he has shown it will have no effect, and only argues what marriage "is". Marriage, in a society, is a social construct, no society (well in the US) thinks about procreation, just a loving relationship. Now, my opponent has NOT shown tradition should override benefiting gay families, the constitution, and the economy. Now, he must show essentially procreation is above everything I have proven, it does not. As his arguments do not override the benefits and the constitution aspect of it, nor do his arguments hold up to scrutiny, I say its hard to ban something that would to hurt society, and only help it. Therefore VOTE PRO.



I have dismissed my opponents arguments in regards to the economy and for kids, as the former is irrelevent to a moral issue regarding law and the latter due to its misconception of my argument. After all, if it was required that SSM couples had to adopt, that wouldn't be equal to a traditional marriage anyways, would it? Sounds like a place where Civil Unions would be useful.

Racism, again

Although I have explained why the antimiscegenation analogy fails, my opponent persists with his accusations. I am defending that the states interest in marriage is subsidizing generative acts, not trying to sepearte classes of people. I am not defending that only white people should be allowed to marry, due to the obvious social injustices and logical flaws.

Really, the antimiscegination analogy is the comparing of girlscouts/boyscouts with blackscouts/whitescouts. One of these is an obvious social injustice, while the other is simply ordering people upon their natural tendencies.

How the law works

Government, when it makes laws regarding marriage, makes a policy. They set standards for whom the clerks at the marriage office (or whoever gives out licences) can give out licences to. For this reason we require a definition of marriage, to decide which couples (heterosexuals) can get married and which couples (homosexuals, polygamist couples, beastial couples) cannot get married. In order for the law to be moral, it has to serve the best interest of the people and also not ponitlessly exclude some situations that would otherwise be fine.

This principle deals with two of my opponents objections. First, the sippery slope. My opponent must have forgotten that in setting a marriage policy, he needs to define which couples can get married and which cannot. If we can use the same arguments my opponent used to marry a man and a horse, a group of men, or a man and woman, which we can, then it would be immoral for the law to exclude them based on public opinion. This is the exact same reason the left criticizes the social right in regards to the gay marriage debate, for the right turns away from the morals of our laws and instead turn to person beliefs about the issue, like religious beliefs.

Second, the changing definition of marriage. If marriage isn't a real thing, and is instead a morphing entity, then why should the government recognize it in the first place? My opponent simply assumes that the government should, an issue I dealt with in my opening round.

The rest of my opponents objections are pointless, (and I'm running out of time to post this) so I'll leave it to the reader. I didn't need to prove that the status quo marriage is correct, only that I have a definition that works better than my opponents. In this case, 1 > 0


My opponent has either skimmed or ignored the foundational issues that arise when creating laws. Instead he turns to superficial reasoning, such as the pursuit of money or other useful entities, to prove his case. I hope that I have shown that superficial reasons aren't good for creating laws, and we should take much more general approaches to these matters than one that would require, say, stamping children to make sure no two couples try to recieve benefits for in effect procreation. I dunno.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LibertyCampbell 6 years ago
Right, god forbid we require the law to have any intellectual sanctity, and judge right and wrong based upon something more than popular and unpopular.
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 6 years ago
That slippery slope argument is a testament to just how stupid the defense against marriage equality is becoming.
Posted by LibertyCampbell 6 years ago
You can't focus marriage on child rearing by a generalized legalization of SSM. If you require couples to adopt/have children prior to marriage, but for homosexual couples it really isn't the same as a traditional marriage. I think a seperate institution, like a civil union, would be better for those rare situations.
Posted by FourTrouble 6 years ago
So, are you saying the sexual act alone merits a million legal benefits completely unrelated to the sexual act itself? Not convincing at all, sounds like a rationalization. Consider: what would happen if the marriage-procreation connection was destroyed? Would procreation slow down? Or would more procreation occur outside of marriage? Be honest: What harm is there in focusing marriage on child-rearing, not procreation?
Posted by LibertyCampbell 6 years ago
I didn't drop the argument. I made the case that marriage was for generative sex. I never made the case that it was the exclusive union tailored to procreation. Anyone who adopts, regardless of gender, deserve tax breaks, and I explained IVF in my R2
Posted by FourTrouble 6 years ago
@16k, I think the way your different points relate and follow from another are not always clearly marked, so that makes it hard to see the logic behind your argument, even when the argument itself is actually pretty good.

@LibertyCampbell, I'm curious, why did you drop the gay families argument? When you say the state's interest is in procreation, it implies the state's interest is not only "generative sex" but also child-rearing itself (otherwise what's the point of "procreation"?). By admitting that gay couples are not worse than straight couples at raising children, I don't see how it's possible to argue against SSM. Best arguments against SSM are explicit on this point: straight couples provide a better environment for raising children because it more closely reflects the traditional values of marriage.

Best conservative arguments for SSM generally admit straight parents are better, but argue that doesn't change the inevitable fact that gays will continue to have children, so therefore, SSM should be legalized because it is more practical. This debate got me interested in debating SSM again. Now I just need to find an opponent...
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I use that amount of time for most debates.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
That opening paragraph was fluff I should have deleted as it would have given me the needed room on other argunments. Also, liberty, I don't spend much time either lol. Like 1 hour writing the response, but procrastinate doing it.
Posted by LibertyCampbell 6 years ago
I appreciate the vote, and considering the amount of time I really put in this, I think it's fair.

And to extend on what he said about presentation, some of your arguments arrived at a point, although it isn't really clear how you got to your conclusion. Like your openin paragraphs in R3 confused me a lot.
Posted by 16kadams 6 years ago
I agree with the S/G, but explain the presentation thing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Way to go pro. You made the better argument today. Spelling was even. pro used sources to cite information.
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.