The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Gay marriage should be legalized in the entire US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,089 times Debate No: 51206
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




The right to equality is a fundamental right for humans, especially in government affairs. Taxation is a government affair. Marriage provides tax benefits. Therefore marriage is government affair. So then gays should be allowed to marry.


Pro's argument for gay marriage commits the quod nimis probat, nihil probat fallacy. In other words, his argument proves too much. If taken to it's logical conclusion, it not only results in the government having an obligation to issue a license to gay couples, but it also results in the government having an obligation to provide everybody with a spouse.

The reason Pro thinks government ought to allow gay marriage is because gay people have an equal right to tax benefits with straight people. But if the government has an obligation to take action or provide a service on the basis that doing so ensures equal rights to tax benefits, then not only should the government issue a marriage license to gay couples, but they ought to provide a spouse for each person.

After all, the only way I can have an equal right to tax benefits is if I get married. So if the government owes me that right, then the government owes me a spouse.

The Surpreme Court has consistently found that the right of counsel guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment entails not just that criminals have the right to hire an attorney, but that if they are unable to do so, the state must provide the accused with a court appointed attorney.

So if there really is a right to equal tax benefits that requires the government to take action in order to ensure the realization of that right, then not only would the government be obligated to issue a marriage license to both gay and straight couples, but they would also be obligated to provide spouses to people who can't find them themselves. The government ought to find me a wife because unless I have a wife, I don't have equal tax benefits with married people.

That is the absurd consequence of Pro's premises. If we reject the absurd consequence, we must object the premises that lead to them. The faulty premise is that people do, in fact, have an equal right to tax benefits. No such right exists. Or, if it did exist, it would not be a positive right. It would be a negative right.

A positive right is a right that requires another to provide something to you. For example, the right to an attorney requires the government to provide one. A negative right only requires others to not hinder you in your pursuit of whatever it is you have a right to. For example, if you have a right to speech, that doesn't mean anybody owes you a platform from which to speak. It only means the government cannot legally hinder you from speaking.

Marriage and tax benefits are not positive rights because the government has no obligation to give everybody the same tax benefits, and the government has no obligation to provide people with whatever prerequisites those tax benefits have. For example, home owners have tax benefits that renters don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a house. Parents have tax benefits that non-parents don't, but that doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide each person with a child.

There is no positive "right to marriage," and there is no postive "right to tax benefits."

Debate Round No. 1


JacobiJones forfeited this round.


My opponent has committed a Bozo no no.[1] He forfeited. But let's not give up hope. There's one more round to go.



Debate Round No. 2


JacobiJones forfeited this round.


That concludes tonight's debate. Thank you for coming.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by lightingbolt50 7 years ago
Con, go home, your drunk.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 7 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 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: Auto 7 points for FF

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.