The Instigator
GuitarSlinger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Thoht
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Traditional Marriage (Man/Woman) and Same-Sex unions are not Equal. Convince me otherwise.

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...
Thoht
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 480 times Debate No: 118911
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)

 

GuitarSlinger

Pro

There are many many different kinds of relationships, And not all relationships are equal. One of the primary objectives of the State is to ensure the continuation of the State. If the State does not do what it can to ensure the continuation of it's Society, Then it's failing in one of it's primary duties.

There is only 1 relationship that will ensure the continuation of State, And that is the Male/Female relationship. Without the Male/Female relationship, Society will not add new members and thus the State would not continue to exist. So, The State has a vested interest to promote, Encourage, And dare I say, Protect the Male/Female relationship above all others, Because it is the ONLY relationship that ensures it's continuation.

Thus, Male/male relationship or a female/female relationship does not provide to the State what the Male/Female relationship provides, Or has the potential to provide.

When the State promotes, Encourages, Provides benefits, And protects the Male/Female relationship, It is not discriminatory.

Convince me otherwise.
Thoht

Con

Happy to think with you today,

Your argument is that due to the fact that male+female partnerships can lead to children in and of themselves, That means the state should favor them over other partnerships.

My arguments against this contention will be as follows:

1. Not all male+female relationships will, Or even CAN lead to children.

Some m+f couples do not want kids. Some are too old. Some were born or became sterile any number of ways. Any privileges m+f pairs get that m+m. F+f pairs or otherwise do not are meaningless if it is all on the basis of children.

2. Mm or ff pairs can still have kids.

Ff partners can have kids via sperm donation. Mm pairs can currently get a surrogate mother to bear their children. Either pairs can adopt. There is no shortage of orphans in the US alone.

3. Marriage is by no means "for" children.

One could argue that in the past or in some societies it implies children, But marriage is about celebrating the union of two partners. Nowhere in wedding ceremonies is the intention of having children outlined.

4. Few societies are hurting terribly for people.

Birthrates lower than the replacement rate have only occurred in recent history when civilizations advance past a certain point. Immigration can be used to offset the difference.

If and when immigration and birthrates cannot, The state can put other programs into place to ensure the stability of its state.

Marriage has nothing more to do with children in today's society, Even before the legitimization of gay marriages. At best there is a vague implication. Child tax credits, Public education, And assisted healthcare/foodstamps are more along the lines of programs targetted specifically for those with children.

These are my basic arguments against your outlined position. Happy to debate you on any of these points in more detail.

Happy to think with you today,

-Thoht.
Debate Round No. 1
GuitarSlinger

Pro

GuitarSlinger forfeited this round.
Thoht

Con

Opponent forfeited
Debate Round No. 2
GuitarSlinger

Pro

I'll address your points individually.

1, Yes, But ONLY M-F relationships can bear children. And while some M-F relationships can't, Or won't, Bear children, It is still a valid and legitimate reason for the State to promote/encourage that relationship over others. As an analogy, Take plants. More specifically, Consider the Olive Tree (or any other fruit-bearing tree). It is a fine tree. It provides fruit, Good solid wood, And oil. Now consider other plants, Maybe the cactus. The cactus may be good in and of itself, But would you fault anyone for wanting to encourage and nurture the growth of the Olive tree over the Cactus? I am not saying get rid of all cacti all together. I'm just saying, There is nothing wrong with encouraging and promoting something over another, Especially if that something provide a benefit that it and only it can provide.

Now, You may argue, "Well, Some Olive Trees can't bear fruit. . . . Or some olive trees have rotten wood". Still, Those 2 reasons are not good enough reasons to NOT encourage the growth of Olive Trees over others.

You get my point right?

2. Um. No. MM or FF pairs can not produce kids. Sure, They can be the recipient of offspring, But they can not produce children. The fact remains, You still need a male to donate the sperm. Without the union of a Male and Female, You won't produce offspring. Just like I can be the recipient of an Olive Tree. But I can't "have an Olive tree"-- what is needed are the "right ingredients" so to speak to produce an olive tree. A M-M relationship can't have kids any more than a Man and Fish, Or a Woman and Tennis Racket. Why not? Well, Put simply, The right ingredients are simply not there.

That's like putting 9 people on a field with a tennis racket and a bowling ball, And then saying "Alright guys, You're playing baseball. " But are they REALLY playing baseball? Some may argue (rightfully so in my opinion) "No, This isn't baseball? ! ? ". But proponents might argue "Well look, You have a ball and something to hit the ball with".

Now why would I say they are not playing baseball? Well, Put simply, They do not have the "right ingredients" to play the sport I would call baseball. Again, The "right ingredients" aren't there. Now, You may get a group of folks who are adamant about this sport being identical or equal to baseball, And may even push to change our lexicon to now consider baseball as a sport played with bowling ball and tennis racket. . . . . But again, The question remains. . . Is it really baseball and is it really the same as the sport being played with a traditional ball and bat?

3. I don't agree with this statement, Simply because it's operating under the assumed truth that Marriage is simply about two partners joining together. Perhaps in the eyes of the law. But laws that are written are subject to the popular idea of the day, So popular vote should not be the basis for determining whether something is true or not, Or determining something is right or not. If 200 years from now if the majority of people say "Marriage is NOT about simply celebrating the union of two partners", Would you then change your opinion because that is what the majority say? Whether something is right or wrong is not dependent on the number of hands that get raised when asked "who agrees? ". For example, There is something intrinsically wrong about slavery. Yet, We had laws that said slavery was ok. Even though the law said something was ok, That didn't make it ok. In 200 years we have the majority of the people agreeing that the moon is made of cheese. Simply because the majority say so, Doesn't make it so. Now, Maybe if we start to redefine words such as "cheese" etc we can make it mean what we want. . . . . What is my point-- it is an opinion that marriage is about simply celebrating the union of two people.

but let's just say MAYBE you're right now, Marriage is only about celebrating the union of the two people. Why should the State be forced to recognize and celebrate an activity that makes two people happy? My best friend Drew and I are great friends. It is an AMAZING relationship, Ours. It makes both of us very happy. Mind you, We are not gay-- we have no physical attractions and we are both very much heterosexual (married with kids). But nonetheless our relationship is amazing and I love it and it really makes me happy, And he feels the same way. Should the state now be obligated to recognize the relationship in some special way simply because it makes the two of us so very happy?

4. Sorry. That's not a good reason or argument for stating two things should be considered equal. Put simply, That argument (there is an overabundance of people, So follows this formula:

Consider X and Y
X provides A
There is an over abundance of A in the world
Therefore, We should consider Y equal to X

That argument or logic simply doesn't work.
Thoht

Con

1. Marriage Meaning

In R1 you stated that this debate was about mf/mm/ff relationships and their importance to the State. As such, I don't feel the requirement to debate what individual religions believe about the institution of marriage. There are too many for me to address, But I'll take on a simple one.

1a. "I x take you, Y, To be my lawfully wedded (husband/wife), To have and to hold, From this day forward, For better, For worse, For richer, For poorer, In sickness and in health, Until death do us part.
You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, Men must not divide. Amen. "

Nothing in this even vaguely resembles a requirement or an implication for children. The point is moot.

1b. The State

I had my own wedding in a court of law. The judge took the first sentence of the Catholic vows and deemed us husband and wife. There was no requirement for us to present documentation that she was fertile and that my semen was potent. There are no benefits given to married couples for the purposes of children.

The law enables married couples to file taxes together. This can be beneficial or harmful depending on the situation of the individuals. For some married couples, One person works and one person stays at home or goes to college. The way taxes are handled is beneficial for the couple. This does not mean it was designed this way specifically for children. It enables some couples to have more leeway in how they get things done.

There are tax credits for children. There are tax credits for dependents. The state helps with healthcare for children below certain income thresholds. These are all examples of how the state favors people who raise children. None of these are tied to married couples alone. Marriage is not a requirement to benefit from these. Creating the child yourself is not even a requirement to benefit from these.

I have adopted two daughters. I can receive child credits. It's asinine to say that marriage was a requirement for any of this. It is an entirely separate institution made, From the State's point of view, To assist couples. To publicly recognize individuals choosing to pair with each other, And to make it legal for them to not be required to testify against each other. There are an assortment of benefits and negatives that come with marriage. Children are not required for any of this.

I submit to the readers that if my opponent's view were in any way true the state would require fertility and potency testing. They'd require analysis on the probabilities of successful and healthy pregnancies, They'd require documents to be signed for the intent of producing children. This is IF marriage were the vehicle by which the state supported children. This is a poor way to encourage the birthing of new citizens. Better is to target policies directly at those who have children and make reporting births beneficial to those who birth them. Tax credits and other support vehicles do this. Local governments can fund childcare, Youth sports, Public schools, Etc. There are hundreds of ways to go about it.

Marriage is not one. You have as much as admitted that 'maybe' from the State's viewpoint.

2. Gays can't have kids.

Your arguments are true in a scenario that you described, A mm or ff pair being stranded on an island cannot have children. This would be problematic for me if we weren't analyzing the situation based on the State. Seeing as how our state is comprised of millions of individuals and sperm banks and surrogate mothers are real things, Your claim that gays cannot have children is patently false. Plenty of gay women still want children. Plenty of gay men want children. Some choose to adopt, Some choose donors and surrogates. You try to take mm or ff pairs out of context of society in a debate you initially proposed to analyze from the State's viewpoint. Your protests do not stand.

3. "Why should the state recognize marriage? "

Because it chooses to, And its citizenry wishes to. The state is not required to. People wish to be married. People wish to have their name legally changed. People wish to not be forced to testify against their partners. Society currently views marriage as the bond between two individuals. The state chooses to honor this by granting married couples rights. They could not do so. Society could change its views at some point and say marriage (or a new kind of marriage by a different name) was for those who intended to produce offspring. In that case, That institution would be for offspring and you'd likely have fertility tests etc as a requirement to get in. This would be a fairly inefficient way to do things. If your definition of marriage is not the common one accepted by society, That is a personal problem. You can argue to society why marriage should be something else, And perhaps society would agree.

If society redefined the word "Marriage" then of course I would agree it means something different.

A secular society cannot be expected to accept the hundreds of different contradictory religious definitions for marriage simultaneously. We are not a theocracy, So accepting one will not do either.

To conclude,

As humans, We speak languages. The definition of these words, All of them, Is vague. There are typically multiple definitions of the same word. Many of our debates spring up around the definition of these words. New words are invented to cover new situations. The state has accepted marriage as an institution. The state could easily rename "marriage" to "union" and nothing would change. The word is not important. The meaning behind it is.

My opponent asks if society changed the definition of "cheese" to mean something different, Would that be right? Yes. It would be. We as a society could all redefine cheese to mean bananas, And redefine bananas to be cheese. We could redefine cheese to mean 'the material composite of which the moon consists' and the moon would literally be made of cheese. This is how language works.

I choose not to muddy this debate by engaging with analogies that do not fit.

As a final word, The state is perfectly willing to recognize the union between my opponent and his best friend Drew if they wish. Oddly enough, Marriage doesn't even require that the partners have sex. If your friend makes you that happy, I encourage you to marry. We will all be happy for you and your amazing, Loving relationship together.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Thoht 2 months ago
Thoht
If you want you can challenge me and put in your R1 that its a continuation and a link to this one. If you have some new points I'd be happy to continue, If it's just a rebut though I'm not sure how it'll last 5 more rounds.

Am happy to debate on other matters if that fails.

May your thoughts be clear,

-Thoht
Posted by GuitarSlinger 2 months ago
GuitarSlinger
@thoht Just a few more thohts:

1. I'm relatively new to this debate website (not new to debating, Just to this site. It seems that when I created our debate, I only made it for 3 rounds, Not 5. Would you be interested in engaging in another debate, Same topic (traditional marriage), But for 5 more rounds (I'm not of fan of using comments, Since it limits the # of characteristics).

2. I do have a response drafted to yoru most recent argument, But I since discovered the debate is over (3 rounds not 5 :-( ).

3. Appreciate your response on whY I can't find some debates. Will try your suggestion

-- Six-String Shooter (aka GuitarSlinger)
Posted by Thoht 2 months ago
Thoht
GuitarSlinger,

I found the issue.

Http:// at the beginning instead of Https://.

It seems some links on the debate site are not adding the 's'.
Posted by Thoht 2 months ago
Thoht
GuitarSlinger, I should note I seem to have thought of why we're having problems getting to some debates.

When you put periods '. ' in the debate title, The URL will put the '. 's there and read it strangely. I haven't had a problem getting into a debate without '. 's in the title. Not sure why the url works some ways and not others.

Also, You may or may not have challenged me to another debate, But I can't see it because of the '. 's I think. It goes to an error page.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 2 months ago
GuitarSlinger
Flaw #5 - "Marriage" definition. I'll argue to I'm blue in the face that historically "marriage" was the union of a man and woman. Overtime, This definition of "marriage' has been discarded and replaced with something akin to being just a contract (handshake, So to speak) between two people. Fine. I can play that game. Who knows, In 500 years people may persuade that the thick black liquid we put in cars to help them run (motor oil) should now be called "milk", And folks might try to get others to consider both this white liquid from a cow, And the black motor oil to both be milk. Fine. Let's play that game and just say ok, Fine-- marriage is simply a contract recognizing a relationship between two people.

Does that mean we still have to call them "equal"? Why-- simply because the law says it? Does a human being putting pen to paper and enacting legislation change reality? What if congress enacts a law that says "Motor Oil is now equal to milk, And it should be treated the same way "millk" is treated and used. " Would that make it so?

What if Congress says we will now call both the union of M-F, The union of M-M, And the union of F-F a marriage. These are all "marriages". Woo-hoo! But then, What if they later say. . . . But you know what, We recognize that a M-F union provies something other relationships can't-- offspring. We want to foster, Encourage, And, Dare I say, "protect" this union, Because wthout it, The State won't continue. So let us create a new word to distinguish a M-F relationship from all other relationships, And let us call this word "Sweskin" (it's a made up word). We will bestow on a "Sweskin" special benefits. Would that be problem? Why or why not? Or would you want to start a movement that says "Not fair! We our union is a Sweskin too! We should get those benefits! "
Posted by GuitarSlinger 2 months ago
GuitarSlinger
Your argument has several flaws. Let's revisit the variables first:

X = M-F relationship/union
Y = M-M or F-F relationship/union
Z = offspring/children/progeny

Now, The flaws:

Flaw #1: "X and Y can both produce Z. " This is false. You absolutely need a male and a female to produce offspring. Put two males on a deserted island and guess what? They will never produce offspring. EVER. Put two females on a deserted island and guess what, They will never produce offspring either. But guess what, Put a male and female on a deserted island, And, Voila! , You now have the potential to produce offspring.

Y (M-M couples) can be the recipient of Z, But Y can not produce Z. Put another way, M-M relationship can not "have kids". They can not produce offspring. Only the union of a male and female can produce offspring.

Flaw #2: "not all Y will produce Z. " That phrase makes no sense. Y will NEVER make Z. Ever. That's like saying "Not all Tennis Rackets will drive a car". It's just something that is physically not possible. Some X will make Z. No Y will ever make Z.

Flaw #3: "X and Y are identical with respect to Z". False-- see flaw #1 and flaw #2 above.

Flaw #4: "The state doesn't only need Z. " True. The state needs other things besides Z. Here's an analogy, A person needs water. But a person doesn't only need water. A person also needs food, Air, Shelter. Just a because a person needs other things for exist, It doesn't mean we should de-value another necessity (i. E. Water). I value water just as I value other things we need, Such as air, Food and shelter. Do I value my X-Box as much as I value water? No. Why not? Because it's not necessity to survive (my son would argue with me on that one). So yes, I place a lot of value on Z. Why? Because without "Z" (offspring) the State would not continue to exist, Pure and simple.
Posted by Thoht 2 months ago
Thoht
You've missed much of my argument.

The state needs Z.
X and Y can both produce Z.
Not all X or Y will produce Z for various reasons.
X and Y are identical with respect to Z.
The state supports anything that can create Z with Q.

On top of that, There are a few underlying issues.

1. The state doesn't only need Z. You seem to be valuing Z in a way no one does.

2. You're forgetting that X and Y are just gay or straight couples. This argument has nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is a foreign concept to all of this. Q could be marriage, But as it stands in current society it is not.

I'll address the rest in R3.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 2 months ago
GuitarSlinger
@tentak Are you reading the same argument as me? Lol.

He offered no reasons as to why we should consider two things to be equal. I'm saying "X does not equal Y, And there is good reason for the State to encourage and protect X over Y. X, And only X, Can produce Z. The State needs Z, Therefore, The State has a vested interest to promote/encourage/protect X over others. "

1. He says "Not all X can or will produce Z, Therefore Y should be considered equal to X. " That argument doesn"t hold. Y will never produce Z. 100% of Y will NEVER produce Z. The same can"t be said of X.
2. He says "Y can produce Z" I say no, It can"t. Only X can produce Z. Now, Y may be the recipients of Z, But without the X, You still won"t have Z to give to the Y.
3. He says there is an overabundance Z in the world, Therefore we should consider Y to be equal X. That"s not a valid reason or argument for considering two things to be equal. There is an overabundance of plastic in the world". Is that a good reason to consider wood to be equal to plastic and treat them equally? No.
Posted by Tentak 2 months ago
Tentak
Thoht has made a very strong argument which has seemed to debased GuitarSlinger's argument entirely. Thoht so far on this first round has convinced me that a male and female couple is not strictly for bearing children and that same sex couples can operate similarly in terms of children to a male and female couple, Therefore traditional and same-sex are very similar in terms of continuation of the sate, And thus deserves to have an equal standing together.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by alexstilts 1 month ago
alexstilts
GuitarSlingerThohtTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argument being made by Pro just isn?t a very good argument, so it?s hard for me to vote in favor of it. Besides just the fact that Con has a far easier argument to make, I believe they did it in a more compelling way.