About Us    Debate    Judge    Forum    Tournaments
EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
Views:
3707

Gay Marriage Ought To Be Illegal

(PRO)
1 point
(CON)
WINNER!
7 points
cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
Definitions:
Institution: an organization, establishment, foundation, society ,or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, especially one of a public,educational,or charitable character. (13)
Marriage: a ​legallyacceptedrelationshipbetween a man and a woman in which they ​liveas ​husbandand ​wife, or the ​officialceremonywhich ​resultsin this:
[C] a ​long and ​happy marriage (14)
Polygamy: marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time (15)
Mate: A spouse or romantic partner. (16)



Moral Argument:

My value will be against Toltaliterianism. Simply put, this means I am against the government interfering with private institutions and practices.
"Every person who claims that the denial of the ability to marry is unconstitutional is misguided.

Getting married isn't a right. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

Second, the North Carolina law doesn't unfairly deny anyone of the ability to marry. The law — and others like it — defines and recognizes marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It doesn't exclude anyone from marrying. 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.

Traditional marriage laws simply define what constitutes a married couple. The laws are extended equally — regardless of sexual preference.

So the right that homosexual marriage proponents claim exists really does not. There is no right to marry someone of the same sex. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.

Another claim that is offered in defense of homosexual marriage is that consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they love. But at what point is it alright to arbitrarily move the discriminatory lines of demarcation, and how is it justified?

If it's acceptable for homosexuals to marry each other because of love and consent, then why is polygamy illegal when the parties involved are similarly in love and consenting? What about aunts and nephews or uncles and nieces when the same standards are present? If it is discrimination against homosexuals, why would it not be discrimination against these other parties?

Lastly, homosexual marriage advocates claim that legalizing homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue — equating it with the struggle to legalize interracial marriages of the past. The attempt to correlate race with sexual preferences doesn't hold up when properly scrutinized.

Legalizing interracial marriages fulfilled the legal requirement of marriage between a man and a woman because there's no difference between a white man and a black man or a white woman and a black woman. But there are enormous differences between a man and a woman, which is why there are separate bathrooms for men and women.

It's why there is an NBA and an WNBA and an PGA and an LPGA. In all the aforementioned sporting leagues, there is a logical separation by gender while races and ethnicities are not classified.

Race doesn't matter. Gender does.

The emotional desire to legalize homosexual marriage is understandable, but to do so would be to change the law for a specific group of people. That's really discrimination. " (11)

Those who argue gay marriage is for equality are misguided. Allow me to elaborate. 
"It is pointless to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples because male homosexuals, who comprise two-thirds of all homosexuals, have demonstrated that they will not accept monogamy or sexual exclusivity. Marriage [would] have to be redefined not only to include same-sex couples, but also to exclude the element of sexual fidelity. By now it should be clear that gay marriage is motivated more by the desire to destroy the concept of marriage than by “fairness” concerns." (12)

So, if polygamy is the result of a partnership between homosexuals, is it even allowed by the institution and the government itself?

"You may be asking: How can it be illegal if the spiritual marriage is legally invalid? Most states recognizecommon law marriages, where you act like you're married - live together, have children, tell friends and neighbors you're married, etc. If you're legally married to one wife and also have a common law wife, you're committing the crime of polygamy." (17)

If gay marriage results in polygamy, then it would be illogical and not reasonable for gay marriage to be added into the institution of marriage. Since a gay partnership is extremely likely to result in accepted polygamy, redefining marriage for homosexuals would also allow people who are polygamous to get married. 

Furthermore, redefining marriage to extend to homosexuals is damaging to the moral values of the country. 

"Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biologicalchildren and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to make fathers optional.

In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.

In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional." (18)

Questions about Marriage and Gay Marriage:


"But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

All right--but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn't that what most people would consider "marriage?"

It's getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) are unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this dec-ision paves the way for same-sex "marriage." But in an ironic way, the Court's rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

So--what IS marriage, then?

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." [emphasis in original]

Are you saying that married couples who don't have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren't really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can't reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even toleratethe government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex.

But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

Foster the bonding between men and women

Foster the birth and rearing of children

Foster the bonding between men and children

Foster some form of healthy masculine identity

Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that "children need mothers and fathers" and "marriage is the most practical way to get them for children." (19)


I would like to assert that marriage is an institution that can not be redefined by the government. I would like to assert gay marriage is not for equality.  I would like to assert that since polygamous marriages are not allowed, homosexual marriages should not be allowed, either. I would like to assert legalizing gay marriage would result in the morals of the country being lowered. 







Case 1: Gay Marriage Will Cost The Government Money


You may be perplexed by this statement at first. However, let me elaborate. Married couples get many exemptions from taxes and benefits by being married. In this argument, we will briefly go over said exemptions and benefits enjoyed by married couples.

Estate Tax:

In a normal situation, an estate tax will be deducted when a loved one gives a property to whoever they choose. An estate tax would apply to single men and women across the country. However, married couples have what is called an "estate tax marital deduction". With said deductions, the government could lose millions of dollars of potential profit. (1)

"Estate taxes are a concern for all filers, but the good news is that the Internal Revenue Code exempts millions of dollars of assets from this tax. The better news for married couples is that they don't have to worry about limits. You can leave an estate worth any amount to your spouse and, thanks to what is known as the estate tax marital deduction, there are no federal estate taxes to pay." (1) (4) 

"This exemption, which is indexed for inflation, is $5.43 million per individual in 2015. This year, only a tiny fraction of estates—about 4,000—are expected to owe taxes, according the data from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group in Washington." (6)

Although the spouse isn't tax free, this code defers many oppurtunities for potential taxation.

Home Sales Tax:

A home sales tax is a taxation that occurs when an individual decides they would like to sell their property. Married couples can get a tax break twice the size of their single counterparts. A married couple can receieve a $500,000 tax break when a singe individual can only get a $250,000 tax break. This will cost the government money. (1) (4)

"
  • Individual Owners: If each individual passes the use test, then each individual is entitled to a $250,000 exemption from capital gains taxes. This would mean that if you co-owned a house with another individual, but were unmarried, each individual could exclude $250,000 of capital gains from taxation.
  • Married Couples: Married couples who file jointly are entitled to a $500,000 exclusion from capital gains so long as either spouse owned the residence and both spouses meet the use test." (10)

  • Marriage Bonus:

    This taxation can be a double edged sword. If the people in the marriage make around the same, they will receieve a tax penalty. If the people in the marriage make significantly less or more than their partner, they receieve a tax bonus. As quoted by the article:

    "Some couples still could face a bit of marriage penalty. This occurs when their combined earnings push them into the four higher brackets (25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, and 35 percent), where the income amounts are not strictly doubled.

    And some couples actually enjoy a marriage bonus. This is often the case when there is a large difference between a husband's and wife's incomes." (1)


    "Once you get married, the only filing statuses that can be used on your tax return aremarried filing jointly (MFJ) ormarried filing separately (MFS). Your filing status is determined on December 31 of each year, so even if you were not married for most of the tax year, you do not have the option of filing as single if you are married on that date. Generally,married filing jointly provides the most beneficial tax outcome for most couples because some deductions and credits are reduced or not available to married couples filing separate returns." (4)


    "This is how the marriage penalty might get you: when you combine incomes on a joint return, some of that income can push you into a highertax bracket than you would be in if filing as single. In recent years, Congress has made large strides toward alleviating the marriage penalty. The top of the 10% and 15% tax brackets on joint returns are now precisely twice as high as the ceilings on single returns (they used to be less than double)." (5)

    "While O’Brien doesn’t advise anyone to seek out a partner specifically because he or she has a business that’s losing money, it's worth noting that the negative numbers of one person in a marriage can help both spouses. The spouse who’s losing money may not take advantage of some deductions, including those dealing with the house, but the spouse who’s making money may use the loss as a tax write-off. “This is also true of high medical expenses,” O’Brien said." (2)


    "Our single woman earning $40,000 per year paid $245,000 in income taxes. Our married woman earning $40,000 paid $206,000 in income taxes—a difference of$39,000.

    Our single woman earning $80,000 per year paid $645,000 in income taxes. Our married woman earning $80,000 paid $490,000 in income taxes—a difference of $155,000." (7)


    Social Security:

    "If both women earning $40,000 retire at age 66, they will collect $333,600 if we assume our characters live for twenty years after retirement. If our characters both retire at 70, they would each collect $357,504 over the next 16 years.

    If they retire four years later, both our women earning $40,000 can collect an additional $23,904. But suppose during those additional years, our married woman takes her option to collect on her (now retired) husband's Social Security (in addition to her own income). Because her husband has earned $51,000 per year for the last 40 years, his wife would receive $39,768 for those four years, which is half of his Social Security (and doesn't diminish the amount he receives). That's $39,768 that our single woman did not have the option of receiving from a loved one.

    If our women earning $80,000 retire at 66, they will receive $496,080 over the next twenty years. If they can hold out on retiring for another four years, they will get $528,960 over the next 16 years.

    But again, our married woman earning $80,000 can defer retirement between ages 66 and 70 and earn an extra $55,896 in addition to her own income, simply by also collecting her husband's Social Security." (7)

    "According to MSN, prior to 2001 more thanhalf of married couples paid less in taxes than if they filed separately, but the couples paying more in taxes after getting married were the working poor. If the couple made $10,000 each over the course of the year, theearned income credit, a credit designed to keep the working poor out of poverty is often less for dual income households. Because of this, Congress closed themarriage penalty allowing married couples to make more money without taking on the penalty. Although the legislation is set to expire at the end of 2012, Congress is not expected to allow it to return." (8)


    Health Care Costs:

    "Our single woman with an income of $40,000 spent $189,600 on health over 60 years; whereas our married woman with the same income spent $165,600—a difference of $24,000.

    Our married woman with an income of $80,000 spent $331,200 on health over 60 years, and our unmarried woman with the same income spent $379,200—a difference of $48,000." (7)


    "Possibly the largest financial benefit of getting married is health insurance. If one person works full time and has access to company sponsored health insurance, he or she can add his or her husband or wife to the policy for an additional cost. If he or she isn’t married, his or her spouse would have to acquire health insurance from a different source." (8)



    Insurance Costs:


    "By pooling insurance needs, insurance costs go down. Multi-policy discounts and the lower price that comes with being married are just a few of the insurance benefits. According to Insure.com, a 23 year old living inIndianapolis, Indiana could see as much as a 26% drop in his or her annualpremium when he or she applies for coverage as a married couple. Other discounts include multi-car policies and bundlinghomeowners insurance with auto insurance." (8)


    "Michael Barry, Vice President of Media Relations at theInsurance Information Institute, confirms that “auto insurers have found that married couples are less likely to file claims than single policyholders, giving an actuarial justification to offeringlower rates to married drivers.” (9)



    We are over 19 trillion dollars in debt! Trillions! We need this taxation! (3)


    Marriage costs the government money. The more homosexual weddings take place, the more money it'll end up costing the government. This will amount to the government losing out on billions of dollars of potential tax revenue. We can not let this happen.


    Case 2: Freedom Of Religion


    The First Amendment reads as follows:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (20)


    Redefining marriage to include homosexuals would violate our first amendment rights


    "For example, after Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes."


    These are not the only examples. A clerk who refused to marry two homosexuals was taken to jail because she would not marry the couple. Her reason? It went against her legal convictions. (21)


    "A Colorado appeals court on Thursday ruled that a Denver-area baker cannot refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious belief.

    The decision comes as religious conservatives opposed to gay marriage fight to carve out exemptions to same-sex marriage and antidiscrimination laws—especially in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

    The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected the argument by lawyers for the cake-shop owner who argued that forcing him to create and sell a cake to a gay couple planning a wedding celebration violated his First Amendment rights.

    The ruling is the latest to limit the rights of religious business owners involved in wedding services to turn away same-sex couples." (22)


    Right to Refusal of Service:


    "The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination." (23)


    The government is getting too involved in our rights. We reserve the right to deny services to certain individuals. In certain faiths, even acknowledging gay marriage and homosexuality in general is sinful. 


    "Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." (24)


    1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (25)


    Romans 1:26-27

    "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (26)



    With this, it is clear why acknowledging homosexual marriages would go against their religion. The government does not have a right to interfere with an individual's right to practice his/her religion. Legalizing gay marriage and forcing everyone to go along with it clearly violates the first amendment. When you force someone to acknowledge gay marriage despite their right to freedom religion, you are casting aside a basic right given to anyone in the USA. That is true discrimination.



    Case Three: Homosexuality Is A Choice. Choices Have Consequences.


    "John D’Emilio, homosexual professor of history and of women’s and gender studies at the University of Illinois at Chicagoexplainedin an interview what many—perhaps most—homosexual academicians think about homoerotic attraction and biological determinism:

    What’s most amazing to me about the “born gay” phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn’t matter. It’s an idea with such social utility that one doesn’t need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible…. queer theory asks us…to be skeptical of seeing both gender and sexuality as fixed categories. Who can argue with that?

    In a post on the website Social (In)Queery, Jane Ward, who admits to being voluntarily homosexual, disputes the entire pseudo-intellectual edifice upon which Cassidy has built her teetering bill:

    But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic….But still, it wouldn’t make the idea true.

    People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.

    People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail….the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man….But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]

    Trudy Ring, writer for the homosexual magazine The Advocate openly admits the flawed nature of the central argument that homosexual activists have used to insist on special treatment based on their mutable erotic desires and volitional erotic activity—something which other groups similarly constituted do not enjoy:

    For years, much of the case for LGBT rights has been based on the argument that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable…..

    But an increasing body of social science research posits that a sizable number of people experience some degree of fluidity in their sexual and romantic attractions: being drawn to the same gender at one point in their life, the opposite gender at another.

    David Benkof explores the common view of homosexual scholars that the notion of an immutable “gay identity” is false and a-historical, a social construct of the last 150 years:

    Are gays indeed born that way? The question has immense political, social, and cultural repercussions. For example, some of the debate over applying the Constitution’s equal protection clause to gays and lesbians focuses on whether gayness is an inborn characteristic….

    Thus, if it’s proven sexual orientations are not innate, much of the scaffolding upon which today’s LGBT movement has been built would begin to crumble.

    According to the experts on homosexuality across centuries and continents, being gay is a relatively recent social construction. Few scholars with advanced degrees in anthropology or history who concentrate on homosexuality believe gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These professors work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts “born that way” ideology.

    Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate….

    [H]istorian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said “no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight.” And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: “Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it’s impossible that that’s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures.”

    Gay and lesbian historians aren’t just claiming that before the 19th century nobody was called “gay.” They’re saying nobody was gay (or straight). While various societies had different ways of thinking about and expressing gender, love, and desire, homosexuality was generally something one could do, not something one could be.

    Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, shared his experiences in a USA Today column:

    When I was chief psychologist for Kaiser Permanente from 1959 to 1979, San Francisco’s gay and lesbian population burgeoned. I personally saw more than 2,000 patients with same-sex attraction, and my staff saw thousands more. We worked hard to develop approaches to meeting the needs of these patients.

    …With clinical experience, my staff and I learned to assess the probability of change in those who wished to become heterosexual.

    …Of the patients I oversaw who sought to change their orientation, hundreds were successful.

    Since then, the role of psychotherapy in sexual orientation change efforts has been politicized. Gay and lesbian rights activists appear to be convincing the public that homosexuality is one identical inherited characteristic. To my dismay, some in the organized mental health community seem to agree, including the American Psychological Association, though I don’t believe that view is supported by scientific evidence.

    Gays and lesbians have the right to be affirmed in their homosexuality. That’s why, as a member of the APA Council of Representatives in 1975, I sponsored the resolution by which the APA stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and, in 1976, the resolution, which passed the council unanimously, that gays and lesbians should not be discriminated against in the workplace.

    But contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as “unethical” violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment. A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.

    Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient." (27)


    "Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

    “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

    Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

    The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.

    Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

    For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says." (28)


    If homosexuals want to be homosexual, they made the choice. As such, certain choices have certain consequences. For instance, if I choose to steal, I may get caught and face jail time. When people make choices, there are certain factors that come into play. If someone chooses to be homosexual, an institution does not have to conform to said choice and change their principals. 


    These are all my arguments for round one. Thank you for your time!


    Anime Openings:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F620o04858A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SjOKYXeHs








    1. http://tinyurl.com/2dxu7dv

    2. http://tinyurl.com/mcscy7q%C2%A0

    3. http://tinyurl.com/p3n6la%C2%A0

    4. http://tinyurl.com/z55fxku

    5. http://tinyurl.com/bq7ubx5

    6. http://tinyurl.com/z7jj9ky

    7. http://tinyurl.com/bj4fqkk

    8. http://tinyurl.com/hnflv7b

    9. http://tinyurl.com/zkv35qm

    10. http://tinyurl.com/jpchcfp

    11. http://tinyurl.com/zbgmd7m%C2%A0

    12. http://tinyurl.com/h4sbr5h%C2%A0

    13. http://tinyurl.com/jzn6htd

    14. http://tinyurl.com/hn3xbx7

    15. http://tinyurl.com/l2ds3h4

    16. http://tinyurl.com/j6nojv3

    17. http://tinyurl.com/ologaep

    18. http://tinyurl.com/cvbox3m%C2%A0

    19. http://tinyurl.com/o2qjopm

    20. http://tinyurl.com/oma8vnx

    21. http://tinyurl.com/qxdp4ve

    22. http://tinyurl.com/ov2v898

    23. http://tinyurl.com/mzr3s8x

    24. http://tinyurl.com/nfx86bt

    25. http://tinyurl.com/m6wyvmo

    26. http://tinyurl.com/zu9olym

    27. http://tinyurl.com/z9joepw

    28. http://tinyurl.com/pkukb5n


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-08 06:24:10
    | Speak Round
    BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)

    My opponent’s structure was a little hard to follow so I have done my best to work all of their argumentation into my speech in a structure that makes sense to me. If I have missed anything in this round I am quite sure my opponent will have no problem in pointing it out so I can deal with it in the next round. I am going to consider the debate under 3 headlines for this round:


     
       
    1. 1. Government involvement
    2.  
    3. 2. Morality and choice
    4.  
    5. 3. The purpose of marriage and the family
    6.  
     


    Through these arguments I will respond to my opponent’s material, highlight some inconsistencies and show why same-sex marriage being legalised in the US has not brought harms but it has brought benefits. This debate to people on both sides can be emotional however my opponent and I do respect each other and this debate is about having a detailed discussion on an important issue. With this in mind I encourage everyone who is voting to do so on the arguments presented within this debate rather than personal beliefs or personal knowledge that is not discussed by myself or my opponent. I expect this to be a complex and interesting discussion so I think I speak for both of us when I ask all judges  to provide a clear RDF. Hope you enjoy the debate.


    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————



    GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT


    The problem with this argument is that the second my opponent starts discussing marriage as a legal contract and about the state benefits that come from that legal contract he has conceded that there is government involvement in marriage already. For his argumentation to be consistent with his philosophy he would have to argue for all state recognised legal contracts to be removed and all state involvement in marriage to be stopped meaning marriage would only be a religiously recognised ceremony. This seems a stretch but I will talk through it using my opponents material to show the inconsistencies between his philosophy and his arguments. For now the best way I can sum it up is this: you go to court not God when you want a divorce.



     
       
    1. A. My opponents philosophy and the Constitution
       
       He states that his “value will be against Toltaliterianism. Simply put, this means I am against the government interfering with private institutions and practices.”
       
       He also defines marriage as “a legally accepted relationshipbetween a man and a woman in which they liveas husbandand wife, or the official ceremonywhich resultsin this:
       
       [C] a long and happy marriage (14)”
       
       This provides us with a detailed dictionary definition of the word marriage but does not describe it as set out by law or by any religious ceremony. This makes it difficult to actually determine at this point whether or not my opponent’s definition of marriage is consistent with his philosophy. So I am going to look at the definitions from both a legal and religious perspective now.
       
       Legal perspective in the US:
       
       “7. Definition of ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’
       In determining the meaning of any Act of Con- gress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpreta- tion of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘‘mar- riage’’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘‘spouse’’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”
       
       Supreme Court Ruling:
       
       “In the United States of America, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.[1][2][3] The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognise those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson.”
       
       Definition of marriage licence:
       
       “A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorising a couple to marry.”
       
       “Marriage license laws are governed by state and local laws, which vary by jurisdiction. Some areas require a waiting period, residency, blood testing, and other requirements. Some state prohibit certain people from getting a marriage license, such as cousins and persons of the same sex. Local laws should be consulted for the requirements in your area.”
       
       Religious rights:
       
       “Does everyone have to perform same-sex marriages, even if they are morally opposed?
       The answer to this question is also unclear, Murray said. Most states that allowed gay marriages before the ruling also provided religious exemptions.
       The 1st Amendment guarantees people the right to free expression, which could include expressing objections to same-sex marriage by not providing marriage services.
       But the extent to which services can be denied and by whom will likely depend on future challenges to the law and more court rulings, Murray said.”
       
       So after all that what does it mean? Well first of all it means that legally both church and state can provide marriage licences these are separate however the state has the power to implement policies using those licences. It also means that there is constitutional ground for religious institutions to not marry same-sex couples. This means while the government has involvement in marriage it does not mitigate the rights of religious freedoms.
       
       What does this mean for same-sex marriage? It ultimately means that the Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for the State to not allow marriage licences and the subsequent legal rights to same-sex couples but will ultimately not infringe on the rights of religions in the way my opponent is describing.
       
       This then undermines a couple of points my opponent has discussed. I will go through those in detail now.
       
    2.  
    3. B. Religious rights of marriage
       
       I have started to discuss this but I will be specific to the statements my opponent has made.
       
       “The government is getting too involved in our rights. We reserve the right to deny services to certain individuals. In certain faiths, even acknowledging gay marriage and homosexuality in general is sinful.”
       
      Yes some faiths consider anything other than heterosexuality sinful and others do not. With this policy the state is not enforcing all religious institutions to offer marriage licences to same-sex couples as I outlined above however for the religions and churches that do not view it as sinful they now have the option of marrying same-sex couples in their congregation. I will expand this is my second argument. Again with the right to refuse service on religious grounds it is up to the courts to in which cases the first amendment or the 14th amendment is more persuasive. It does not automatically dismiss religious freedoms it just accepts that the rights of same-sex couples are protected by the 14th amendment in the constitution. My opponent considers that these rights do not exist even though the Supreme Court ruling found they did. I will discuss this more specifically now.
       
    4.  
    5. C. Governmental legal rights and discrimination
       
       My opponent first considers that because heterosexual marriage exists then people of all sexualities can still get married so long as it is to a person of the opposite gender. By my opponent's own definition of marriage this does not count. He used the phrase "long and happy" relationship to describe a marriage and I think it is a misunderstanding of what homosexuality and other sexualities are to think that a person’s rights have been offered to them when the only option you offer is a marriage that would not be happy and would not be supportive, as my opponent claims a marriage should be. If you are in a marriage with a person that you are incapable of loving, if you are forced to have a family with that person (again a large qualifier my opponent uses to determine a legit marriage) when the very act of having sex with a person of the opposite sex is just as traumatising as homosexual sex would be for a heterosexual person then your rights are not being recognised because the marriage is not legitimate by my opponents own standards. Now my opponent disagrees with the Supreme Court on other or not same-sex couples have the right to marry but I am going to suggest that the Supreme Court judges understand the law better than us and therefore understand who is granted rights under the constitution better than us. I’m sure my opponent will push this point so we will continue this discussion in the rounds to come.
       
       The second thing that my opponent presents is the cost of the policy given that the state provides benefits and tax breaks to married couples. This is actually a reason why states must provide equal marriage opportunities to all couples. To deny them access to legal policies is legislative discrimination. The legal protections extend to such things as health insurance and when same-sex couples are denied these protections this is in direct conflict with the Equal Protection Clause which states:
       
       “The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws”."
       
       This is why states have a duty to provide marriage licences to same-sex couples. Again this is just from the perspective of states, the debate on whether religions should be forced to marry same-sex couples is a separate debate and does not mean that it should not be legally recognised by the state.
       
       It is illegitimate for the state to deny rights to one group when they are offered to another with the justification that we need the taxes of the first group to pay off our debts. If it is not possible economically for a state to provide equal rights for all because the benefits and tax cuts are to large then the more legitimate stance is to adjust the amount of tax breaks and benefits offered rather than deny a group rights that give them protection under the law.
       
       My opponent spends a lot of effort trying to prove that marriages are set up for the purpose of protecting the family and discussing the impact on whether this should prohibit same-sex marriage so I will devote my third argument to this idea.
       
       The final thing I will discuss in this argument is the issues my opponent raised about polygamy and common law marriages.
       
    6.  
    7. D. Polygamy and common law marriages
       
       My opponent suggested that because gay men in relationships will not be faithful in a marriage which will result in polygamy. I’m not sure why this would result in polygamy being legalised rather than just fall under adultery and be grounds for divorce. I am also unclear why legalising polygamy is a bad thing given that it would protect the religious rights of Mormons. My opponent has argued that religious grounds for marriage must be upheld so it would be consistent. He assumes that I am also not happy to support polygamous marriage but I am; I just consider it a separate debate.
       
       Now he argues that common law is accepted in many states therefore same-sex couples have that option. This site explains the common myths around common-law marriage and shows how it does not apply to same-sex couples and does not offer the same legal rights and protections. This is therefore not an option for the state to fulfil it’s duty to the 14th amendment for same-sex couples. Here s a quote to illustrate:
       
       “As mentioned, common law marriage is not recognized in most states today. So regardless of how many years you live together, you don't have to worry about a common law marriage.

    8.  States that do recognize common law marriage include the following: Alabama, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia (if created prior to 1997), Idaho (if created before 1996), Iowa, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only), Ohio (if created prior to 10/1991), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (if created before 9/2003), Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. Same-sex relationships or marriages are never recognized as common law.

    9.  In short, it pays to be familiar with the laws in your state. If you want your relationship with your partner to be officially recognized, take the necessary steps to give legal effect to the relationship. In states that recognize common law marriage, once the requirements have been met, the marriage is typically treated like any other marriage. Couples who do marry under common law are likely to have their marriage recognized in states where common law is off the books. The "full faith and credit" rule of the U.S. Constitution ordinarily compels sister states to recognize a marriage made valid under another state's laws.
       
       Rights to protecting a family residence and dividing family assets are only granted to legally married couples”
       
       in conclusion none of the harms my opponent presents actually happen under the legalisation of same-sex marriage and I have proven that same-sex couples do have rights under the constitution that must be upheld by the state which is why same-sex marriage should be legal. I have shown that the current involvement by the state into marriage is accepted and does not limit the freedoms of religion to provide marriage licences.
    10.  
     


    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————


    MORALITY AND CHOICE


    So my opponent argues that the morals of our society will decrease if gay marriage is allowed. I would like to here a bit more about what morals besides “the nuclear family is no longer the most respected choice” (I’m paraphrasing) will be weakened or damaged. I think is true to say that the acceptance of homosexuality moves the general societies moral compass away from traditionally held religious moralities (normally based on the idea of sins) but for this to be effective as a case my opponent needs to explain clearly what he believes this new goal frame work is, why that is bad and then pick a religious moral framework (I am assuming Christianity since that is my opponent’s denomination) and prove conclusively why the moral framework set out by the bible is the only one a society should have. He also has to prove that homosexuality is the main cause of the moral compass shifting and that legalising same-sex marriage will make this worse. I think he has made some attempt at this but none of it is coherent enough for me respond to this as a case yet. Therefore I would like to see my opponent present this specifically so that we can debate it properly in the next few rounds.


    Ok so the idea of choice mostly boils down to some sources have determined that there is no “gay gene” therefore it is a choice and also that this is a new concept which my opponent argues supports the fact that homosexuality is a choice rather than a natural development. For this I am going to refute my opponents sources with some other sources (get ready for a source battle) and show that these ideas are not held by the majority of the scientific community but mine are.


    The first idea that I want to tackle is that "new thing". So this source shows the history of homosexual relationships dates back to ancient Greece and discusses the the fact that two men having sex was described as pleasurable. This is more than just "they were not called gay then", it shows an active enjoyment from homosexual sex which to me is the best evidence we will find of homosexuality existing. Yes, it is more reverent now mostly because of the sexual revolution of the 70's more people are willing to explore sexuality and more people are willing to accept that they are not heterosexual and engage in different types of relationships. There is more societal acceptance for it now than there was 50 years ago so of course more people are willing to engage in the type of sex that is pleasurable to them even if it is not heterosexual sex because there is less punishment for doing so. This fact does not prove ether way whether sexuality is natural or chosen.


    The next thing I want to refute is the idea of identical twins having the same genetics. This is not how genetics works unfortunately, they would be clones not twins if they had exactly the same genetics. Thee are chromosomal differences as this source explains:


    “Geneticist Carl Bruder of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and his colleagues closely compared the genomes of 19 sets of adult identical twins. In some cases, one twin's DNA differed from the other's at various points on their genomes. At these sites of genetic divergence, one bore a different number of copies of the same gene, a genetic state called copy number variants.


    Normally people carry two copies of every gene, one inherited from each parent. "There are, however, regions in the genome that deviate from that two-copy rule, and that's where you have copy number variants," Bruder explains. These regions can carry anywhere from zero to over 14 copies of a gene.”


    Genes in identical twins are not identical that is why twins can have different illnesses which have been linked to genetics such as asthma or leukaemia. One twin will be ill and the other will not. This is therefore saying one twin is gay and the other is not therefore it is not genetics is not a good way of determining whether there is a “gay gene”. You can however use twins to help map out the pathways of those genetics to determine which genetic deviation between them could be the genetic markers for homosexuality. The most cited study on this was done in 2005 and is: The Hexosamine Signaling Pathway: Deciphering the "O-GlcNAc Code”. They Identify two parts of the genome that show links to homosexuality."


    The problem is that genetics is complicated and we haven't figured it all out yet. We are still not convinced that love and attraction are the same thing and whether there is a direct correlation between love (heterosexual) and genetics. There was a recent study that said that homosexuality os only partially to do with genetics and that other things have an influence as well. However to sole describe homosexuality as being a dichotomy between a choice and a gene does not fit the whole picture. When many teens commit suicide because they cannot live their life as gay that means that there is not a choice between homosexuality heterosexuality or any other sexuality. If there was then these teens would make the choice to be heterosexual and live. The fact that people come out as gay despite the fact that their religion has told them it is a sin, despite the fact that their family will disown them, despite the fact that they will be subject to violence, despite the fact that that it is likely that their life will be so hard they feel they have no other option but to commit suicide screams to the fact that this is not an active choice made by individuals. We don’t want to suffer as human beings and we will only endure torture and torment if there is something driving us through it. We might not know exactly which gene it is and we might not know how much our genetics influences our ability to love or who we love but it cannot simply be labelled a “choice”.


    So that leaves us with a few questions. Do we even need to base marriage laws on “natural decisions” or have we moved passed nature’s “laws” in order to form a civilisation? If so how does all this relate back to marriage and in particular same-sex marriage?


    These are pretty wild questions and most readers will probably think I have gone mad but I am going to take a step by step approach to this to show that we do not as a society base laws on what is “natural” and that civilisation is a construct that exists because we questioned whether we had to conform to our own nature or whether we could promote a different rational. If we get to the end of all that alive then it will show that particularly marriage laws (state marriage) should not consider what is natural/unnatural when looking at new laws but rather whether this is just and wether it provides a benefit or protects against discrimination. This will all then be used to undermine the supposed future harms my opponent has claimed and the very framework by which he has determined same-sex marriage should be illegal.


    Lets begin!


       
    1. A. The Philosophies of Civilisation
    2.      
    3. Civilisations grew out of a dissatisfaction with being confined to what our nature dictates. It thrives on the fact that we have provided a rationale for actions greater than just "instinct". The very fact that philosophy began was to attempt to rationalise and understand our world, our place in that world and whether we could do better. We developed a consciousness and intelligence that allowed all this to be possible and in my opinion is what differentiates us animals. We created states and developed the idea of "rights" and from there our societies have developed. I would argue that there are three fundamental rights that most other rights and laws depend on. 
    4. 1. Right to Life
    5. 2. Right to Consent
    6. 3. Freedom of Speech
    7. Our laws no longer depend on what is "natural" but what is justifiable and what rights are extended to people based on the fundamental rights we have built societies on. When it comes to the US this development of civilisation was enshrined in the Bill of Rights and does not say "our laws depend on what we can determine is "natural"". In fact the first sentence of the Bill of Rights is:
    8.  
    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    This is an active attempt to move away from justifying what we should do simply by whether it is natural or not but to use rationality and logic and philosophy. The very idea of Justice being reasonable to the crime and the fact that crimes can be determined by the infringement on someones rights is totally against the idea of "nature" being the most important factor in civilised human behaviour. Whether homosexuality is "natural" (i.e. is there a gay gene) or not is not a valid justification for the legality/illegality of same-sex marriage. 
       
    1. B. The Role of the State in Marriage Laws

    As with all laws the state must fulfil the Constitution as it is stated or must prove why an amendment to the Constitution is necessary. I have shown why it is within the Constitution already to allow same-sex marriage but I have not discussed why the state has a role in marriage in the first place. This is again a legal issue. The state provides a marriage licence as a legal recognition that although you are not related genetically you are considered family by law and therefore have access to legal protections due to that status, just like a birth certificate is a legal document proving your genetic relations. The state must provide Equal protections under the law. It would be impossible to ensure this protection for every married couple unless there was a way of showing the legitimacy of the marriage under the state (This is extended in the next argument and is completed at the end of the debate). 
       
    1. C. Why it is Inconsistent With the Sate’s Function to Make Same-sex Marriage Illegal

    The state has to protect the equity of people as set out by the constitution and should always protect the a citizen's rights if it is consistent with the principles of that state not whether the act is "natural". I have to then prove why same-sex marriage is consistent with the principles of the US state to show that it truly is inconsistent for the state to make same-sex marriage illegal.


    I will do this in my next and final argument.


    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————



    THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY



    So my opponents argument of the purpose (and therefore legitimacy) of marriage fundamentally comes down to the possibility of children occurring from the marriage and the ability to raise those children by the standards my opponent deems necessary. My opponent’s arguments and justifications on this are again inconsistent with the principles he has claimed. I also want to propose that in order for the first amendment to actually be fulfilled state recognised marriages and marriage licences are necessary. I also want to show that state marriages and Religious marriage ceremonies have separate purposes both of which are protected by the first amendment and why therefore same-sex marriage does not actually infringe on the rights of religions to perform marriage ceremonies.



       
    1. A. The Potential for Children
       
       My opponent claims that the purpose of marriage is grounded in the couples ability to have a family and that this ability is the only reason that marriages exist. He also claims earlier in the debate that if the government were to select a group of heterosexual adults and say that they were not allowed to marry then this would be actual discrimination (this is when he discusses the civil rights movement). Unfortunately in his attempts to justify why all marriages must be related to the formation and protections of families his analysis has become inconsistent with his principles and they then undermine each other.
       
       So he talks about infertile couples and how they still have the potential for children. This is true but not through natural means. The very fact that they are infertile (either infertile sperm or eggs or the lack of sperm or eggs) means that children are a natural impossibility. I think what he is discussing when there is a probability is that some medical cases show probable infertility (meaning it is not possible at that point to determine with 100% accuracy the fertility of the couple however the evidence suggests a child is highly unlikely). Where there is definite infertility my opponent has the approach of “well if they were able to they would have so it’s fine”. The interesting thing is that they can conceive a child with the help of a surrogate mother or IVF (and sometimes both). This also extends to same-sex couples and is indeed how many same-sex couples have children. I would be interested to hear my opponents opinion on this. If he concedes that IVF and surrogates offer the possibility for couples to have children then same-sex couples also have a right to do so by my opponent’s own definition of marriage. If my opponent does not agree that IVF and surrogates constitute the ability to have a family then he concedes that the heterosexual couples who would require IVF or surrogates to have a family do not meet his golden standard for a legitimate marriage. This is then the type of selective reasoning that my opponent argues is “actual discrimination”. He seems to think that even if the couple is 100% infertile they are still kind of legitimate because they are “the right gender” combination. However the only analysis my opponent provides for why a male and a female is the “right” combination is because of the ability to generate children. If this heterosexual couple is genetically just as incapable of generating children as my opponent believes same-sex couples to be, then allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry must be justified beyond the idea of gender. There must be something else that justifies their marriage as legitimate because they contradict my opponents idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because children must be created in marriages.
       
       So what is this other justification and why is it fundamental to the state’s definition of marriage? Why is there a difference between the fundamental justification for marriages being legitimate before the state and legitimate under religions? What on earth does this nonsense have to do with whether same-sex marriage should be legal or not?
       
       I’ll answer these questions now.
       
       
    2.  
    3. B. Consent, harms and religious ceremonies
       
       Quite simple the other justification is consent. You’d be forgiven for believing that because the political compass deemed me a “bleeding-heart progressive” I would be all for arguing this from the hippy perspective of love (my opponent is certainly forgiven for making that assumption) however I understand that laws are pragmatic and there must be a consistent and pragmatic justification for a law being enacted. The principle behind the state legally recognising marriages is one of consent. This is why the state has mandated that child marriages are illegal; because we have determined that a child cannot consent to a marriage. If it was simply due to the ability to have children and for them to be raised by a mother and a father then it should be legitimate for marriages between children from when they start to have the ability to produce children themselves (i.e. when they hit puberty). My opponent says this is not allowed because it is harmful to the children however the state allows their citizens to subject themselves to harm and danger under the status quo (smoking, alcohol, even participation in violent sports and so-called “adrenaline sports”). The reason this is the case is because the state has deemed that so long as a person can consent to the harm and the danger and it does not provide any third party harms then the state has no duty to interfere. The state has determined that children are not capable of consenting to marriage or sex because they cannot consent. This idea of consent is so fundamental that the state considers child marriages illegal even over religious rights (a religion cannot perform child marriages even if they argue that it is their religious right to do so). This is the fundamental limit on when a marriage should legitimate and therefore legal. So long as each person within the marriage can consent to the marriage taking place then the State should allow it. My opponent therefore must provide analysis on why it is impossible for people to consent to same-sex marriages if he wants to prove that the Government has any ability to make same-sex marriage illegal.
       
       The only thing that over rides this is if there is a foreseeable long term harm. In the case of sibling relationships there is the long term harm of the children’s diluted genetics which gets worse and worse with each generation as this article shows. When the harm is this great and it is undeniable going to occur then the state can and does take precautions to stop it. So far the only harms that my opponent has presented is that he believes children should not be raised by same-sex couples however the analysis he provides for this again creates an inconsistency with his values. He analyses why growing up without a mother or a father is a harm. If he truly believes that this is a suitable reason for states to step in (more than just with child services) and make same-sex marriage illegal then he must also deny the legitimacy of heterosexual marriages that do not provide the level of parenting that he deems necessary for a marriage to be legitimate. His analysis of not having father or mother causing distress to the child (wondering where mum is or wondering where dad is) also occurs to children who have long periods of separation from a parent due to work commitments. If this harm occurs after the parents spend a sufficiently minimal amount of time with their child then by my opponents own analysis it is consistent to make it illegal for heterosexual marriages to exist if either parent would be unable to meet the minimal standard of time spent with their prospective child. This means to be consistent my opponents argument must support selective marriage decisions that he deems discriminatory. He must prove that the government can determine beyond all doubt that same-sex marriages will cause substantial harm to the children that requires same-sex marriage to be banned. If he cannot do that then the harms he brings are circumstantial and it is then up to child services to determine which child is at risk and provide protection just as with heterosexual marriages. My definition of marriage under the state only relates to the the idea that it is possible for same-sex couples to consent to a marriage and this is separate from the issue of family. Therefore the legality of adoption and IVF for same-sex couples is considered a separate issue by the state and therefore does not limit the state’s capacity to grant same-sex marriage licences. Therefore my opponent cannot argue harms to children as a reason that same-sex marriage licences should not be legal.
       
       Ok so I keep separating state marriages and religious ceremonies so I need to make it clear why it is legit to do this. So a state marriage as what allows two consenting adults who are not considered family to be legally recognised as family so as to access the laws that require legal recognition of family (i.e. a birth certificate or a marriage licence). A religious marriage focusses on the ceremony that shows these people are married under the eyes of their deity and are therefore required to follow their scripture on what is required of that religions marriage. As I spoke about previously the state recognising each religious marriage as equally legal under the eyes of the law and issuing a marriage licence allows couples to be protected no matter what the religion is, in line with the first amendment. It also protects couples made up from different religions and the only qualifier is that that both partners should be able to consent. With same-sex marriage the same philosophy applies as exists with atheist couples. Churches are not required to marry atheist couples or couples of a different denomination but those marriages are considered legal by the state and the couples are offered the same legal protections as demanded by the 14th amendment. Each religion has a different standard for marriage if my opponent wants to argue that a religious standard must be enforced to all marriages rather than the state having some involvement my opponent must then either argue that a single religion is correct and their moral standard should be enforced or they have to argue that marriages are only legitimate by each individual religions standard. If he argues the first then he has to argue against the first amendment because he would be infringing on the freedom of all religions to enforce only the views of one. If he argues the second then he must show how he can protect the rights of each couple under the first and 14th amendments as a Jewish marriage may not be accepted as legitimate by Islam and this therefore gives the right for Islamic institutions or people to then have the right to refuse services considered legal to married couples because that Jewish religion is not deemed legitimate under Islam. As I said before the only way to ensure the first amendment is upheld is to have an oversight by the state and to have marriage licences. 

    4. I wanted to make that clear because it shows that there is different duties that religions and states have to uphold with marriages and that the state can legalise the issuing of marriage licences to same-sex couples without enforcing it on religious ceremonies and it is necessary for the state to do so.
    5.  


    —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————


                                           

    If you got to the end of all of that I applaud your commitment so I will simply conclude by saying I hope this is enough to convince you to vote Con.
     
     


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-10 04:08:24
    | Speak Round
    Cross-Examination
    cooldudebro: I would like to point this out
    cooldudebro: The debate is not whether or not it is legal now
    cooldudebro: The debate is about whether or not it should be legal
    cooldudebro: I would like to challenge some of your court cases here in cross ex
    cooldudebro: Even if we take this new ruling as fact; and take it as the base of your argument
    cooldudebro: The one that overturned baker
    cooldudebro: It was found his methods were not legal
    cooldudebro: "We think Justice Kennedy was right then, and we think he — and his rationale — were wrong last month when he wrote the majority opinion finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy blew past the line separating the judiciary from the executive branch, and its responsibility to enforce policy, and the legislative branch and its responsibility to make law. He employed emotional and political language and little legal acumen. His ruling poses a threat to America’s great constitutional democracy, emboldening jurists top to bottom of the judicial system to legislate
    cooldudebro: Justice Kennedy blew past the line separating the judiciary from the executive branch, and its responsibility to enforce policy, and the legislative branch and its responsibility to make law. He employed emotional and political language and little legal acumen.
    cooldudebro: His ruling poses a threat to America’s great constitutional democracy, emboldening jurists top to bottom of the judicial system to legislate and politicize issues with little regard for the restraint the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution.
    cooldudebro: End quote
    cooldudebro: He did not go through the needed process. This law should not even be legal.
    cooldudebro: Could you give me examples of religions that are widely-practiced that view heterosexuality as immoral?
    cooldudebro: Also, if your "Equal Protection Clause" applies to this, then how come there are thirty states that side with me?
    cooldudebro: In which case did I say the "nuclear family" was the ideal way of living?
    cooldudebro: You did not adequately address a lot of my points
    cooldudebro: I will address the "gay gene" next round
    cooldudebro: I will address your arguments in full next round
    cooldudebro: I would also like to ask you something. Simply acknowledging marriages is against Christian's morals; whether it be through the state or through the church. You seem to look past my point in which I said that people simply having to go along with it goes against their relgion
    cooldudebro: I will make my moral value clear here. I am against the government interfering with the institution of marriages in it's core. This was done by the court case you pointed out earlier; which ended up failing miserably.
    cooldudebro: Allowing same sex marriage is interfering with the institution; which I am against.
    Bifurcations: So my opponent has argued quite a lot here and I am unsure of what some of his statements are referring to. I will list these statements and ask for them to be clarified after I have posted the responses to the rest of the points he raises.
    Bifurcations: I don’t believe CX is a good place to sufficiently argue about court cases so I have no issue if my opponent wishes to expand this in the next round and I will be happy to provide a sufficient response in my post.
    Bifurcations: Could you give me examples of religions that are widely-practiced that view heterosexuality as immoral?: I am going to ask a counter question here to understand what you are asking. Can you explain the relevance of a religion viewing heterosexuality as immoral to this debate and can you clarify why the religious belief must be widely-practiced for you to consider it relevant?
    Bifurcations: Also, if your "Equal Protection Clause" applies to this, then how come there are thirty states that side with me?: First of all it is not my Equal Protection Clause it is the American constitution’s. Secondly you are going to have to cite which states your discussing and show that they are in agreement with you and then prove why that means that the Federal Government or the Supreme court have no ability to mandate this law.
    Bifurcations: In which case did I say the "nuclear family" was the ideal way of living?: This is simply a reference to the way in which you have analysed what a family is (mother and father) and your analysis on the reason families exist is to have and raise children.
    Bifurcations: You did not adequately address a lot of my points: I would beg to differ but then that is simply our own opinions. I am sure you will highlight what you feel I did not give a response to and why you feel my responses were inadequate in your next post.
    Bifurcations: Allowing same sex marriage is interfering with the institution; which I am against.: You are perfectly entitled to be against this value however you have conceded that some level of state interference already exists and I have shown why this is a law passed under the Government and not one that has to be recognised by religions. You appear to be arguing that because it is against the values of the Christian faith it must be illegal.
    Bifurcations: However as I said in my post you have to prove why the government can protect the First Amendment rights of every religion if marriages are not given legal recognition as well as religious recognition if that is what the couple desires. 

    Bifurcations: Simply acknowledging marriages is against Christian's morals; whether it be through the state or through the church. You seem to look past my point in which I said that people simply having to go along with it goes against their relgion: I have no idea what it is that you are trying to ask me here so clarification is required before I can answer.
    Bifurcations: The debate is about whether or not it should be legal: Yes, and I have been arguing why it should remain legal. Not quite sure what you are referring to here.
    cooldudebro: the relevance of religion is that when homosexual marriage is common place, the population has to acknowledge it. A lot of the people in the USA are Christian. It goes against their religion to acknowledge it. Also, I still would like an answer.
    cooldudebro: If the "Equal Protection Clause" pertained to everyone, then why are their states agreeing with me? Check my arguments for the data.
    cooldudebro: Then, yes. I agree the Nuclear Family is ideal
    cooldudebro: Simple everyday tasks, such as the lady who was arrested for not providing a marriage certificate; or the man sued for not providing a wedding cake, have to acknowledge it on a daily basis along with other religious people. It goes against their religion; since it is forced by the government, goes aginst their first eamendment rights
    cooldudebro: People having to marry, or are legally forced to see the homosexual couple as married goes against their religion
    Bifurcations: So your arguments and points raised are based on the philosophy of some christian denominations but you have to show why the American government should pass laws solely on whether christian churches think the policy is a good idea or not. There are many things that a are legal at the moment which goes against the religious beliefs of many different religions. Prove to me that there is no separation between church and state and that it is only christian denominations that should be listened to.

    Bifurcations: In terms of this offending christian people (as a separate issue to their churches), the largest denomination of christians is Catholicism and the majority of American Catholics actually agree that same-sex marriage should be legal.

    Bifurcations: Again the debate on right to refuse service is a separate issue and just because a few court cases have argued in favour of the couple it does not mean that that will be the president set. You have to do a lot of work to show why that precedent will be set and why the right to refuse service outweighs the reasons for having same-sex marriage legalised.


    Bifurcations: I probably would find it difficult to name a religion that views heterosexuality as a sin but if you make it a case and you make it clear then I will be happy to respond to it.
    Bifurcations: Check my arguments for the data: You’re going to have to repost the data in your second post. Like I said it was very difficult trying to go through your argumentation and understand it in a cohesive manner because the structure for me was unclear. I said then and will repeat now, highlight clearly in your next case what I have missed from your first post and I will respond to it.
    cooldudebro: The stance that Catholics support gay marriage is simply not true
    cooldudebro: I am arguing that acknowledging gay marriage goes against their right to freedom to religion; which is not allowed.
    cooldudebro: "I probably would find it difficult to name a religion that views heterosexuality as a sin but if you make it a case and you make it clear then I will be happy to respond to it." I doubt there is a major religion that find heterosexuality sinful
    cooldudebro: Right to Refusal of Service: "The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination."
    cooldudebro: Therefore, the majority of the US acknowledges that some religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Catholicism are against gay marriage; and, it is not legal for them to force them to acknowledge the weddings. However, allowing gays to get married goes against their religion. Them simply having to acknowledge them as husband and husband (or wife and wife) goes against their religion. This goes for a business owner, florist, baker, etc.

    Return To Top | Speak Round
    cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
    Rebuttal to Governmental Involvement in Marriage:
    This is incorrect. I have pointed out that the government is using the institution to make money; which is not changing the institution in any way. the government does not interfere when they collect money from an institution. However, the government does interfere when it changes the institution itself. The government changing the institution itself clearly leads to Toltaliterianism; which is what I am against. If you do not get the point, allow me to elaborate. 

    Let's say you start a business selling anime. The government is allowed to tax the anime you sell. However, the government does not have the right to tell you exactly what anime you have to sell; since you have a set guide of what you want to sell; regardless of what the government. For instance, the court case and the legislation that changed interracial marriage did not change the institution itself; since it morally had the obligation to fulfill the right for a man and a woman to marry. However, the government does not have the right to redefine the set rules and guides that the institution goes by. Therefore, editing the rules and guides that the institution of marriage goes by would not be legal.  

    I would like to assert that the government must factor cost into their decision. Allowing homosexuals to marry costs the government money. The government needs money to keep the country stable and the people happy. This is why free healthcare and the same lifestyle as the rich is not guaranteed Therefore, a key argument, which is the economic argument, should be in high regard in this debate.

    Rebuttal to Philosophy and Constitution:
    My opponent tries to attack my definition which a court case. Let me elaborate. This is a debate whether it SHOULD be legal or not. Not whether IT IS legal or not. However, let me demonstrate why the court case is flawed. 

    "We thinkJustice Kennedywas right then, and we think he — and his rationale — were wrong last month when he wrote the majority opinion finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

    Justice Kennedy blew past the line separating the judiciary from the executive branch, and its responsibility to enforce policy, and the legislative branch and its responsibility to make law. He employed emotional and political language and little legal acumen.

    His ruling poses a threat to America’s great constitutional democracy, emboldening jurists top to bottom of the judicial system to legislate and politicize issues with little regard for the restraint the Founding Fathers placed in the Constitution." (1)


    "This ruling is not about marriage equality, it's about marriage redefinition,” Huckabee said. “This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court's most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny."

    Huckabee also questioned the authority of the Supreme Court.

    "The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than it can the law of gravity,” Huckabee said. “Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment." (12)


    The court case was out of its bounds. It needed to go through the legislative branch in order to make gay marriage legal. Therefore, gay marriage, in current day, should NOT be legal today.


    When it comes to court cases in general, here is my view:


    "The Supreme Court renders decisions, and it should surprise no one that sometimes its decisions are, well, wrong. TheCourt was wrong when it concluded in the Dred Scott decision in 1857 that blacks had no rights as citizens, it was wrong when it upheld segregation and “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, and the Court was wrong when it upheld the constitutional validity of same-sex marriage. A third wrong, of trampling on the religious liberties of Americans, would be the final injury of this wrongheaded decision." (1)


    I push for a movement to overturn the decision. 


    My opponent quote the first amendment. The first amendment gives us freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have shown examples where their right to express disdain for homosexuals and refuse them service was denied. My opponent seems to be confused about how religion views homosexuals. Simple, everyday religious people would have to acknowledge a homosexual couple as married. Whether it be for social, economical, or political reasons. This goes against their religion. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the first amendment. Allowing homosexuals to marry would force religious members to betray their religion; which goes against their first amendment rights. Whether he marriage be religious or secular, it would infringe upon our first amendment rights. i have shown many examples in my previous arguments about how it infringed on people's rights. I extend those arguments.


    Religious Rights And Marriage Rebuttal:


    I have addressed why even if the marriage is secular, it will still infringe upon the people's first amendment rights.What my opponent is trying to do is to clash amendments against each other. Which is more important? Well, my opponent makes the assumption that the fourteenth amendment pertains to homosexual marriage. However, she must not know the history behind it. Allow me to elaborate.


    "The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

    Some may say, "Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We've evolved since then."

    That's addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don't have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have "evolved" on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently "evolve" – they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That's the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

    If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a Constitution at all? If it's "evolving" or "living," then it's not really a collective agreement of the people – it's a pretext that allows judges to invent rights and impose any moral (or immoral) position they want against the will of the people.

    Imagine if the people were to pass an amendment guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage. Would you consider the Supreme Court to be legitimate if it imposed its own position and overturned the amendment? No – the people decide what the laws are, not the Court.

    Third, the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn't even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the "equal protection" clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that "equal protection" does not guarantee a woman's right to vote but does guarantee a woman's right to marry another woman?

    Since the people "evolved" on voting rights, they convinced supermajorities in Congress and of the state legislatures voted to add the 15th and 19th Amendments in 1870 and 1920 respectively. The courts knew they shouldn't act as legislatures to grant rights not addressed by the Constitution. Neither should this Supreme Court.

    Fourth, despite all the talk about equal rights, everyone already has equal marriage rights. Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don't have equal rights. The "born that way" justification doesn't work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement "marriage," which means the logic behind it is absurd. The Court needs to acknowledge the fact that natural marriage, same sex-marriage, incestuous marriage, and polygamous marriage are all different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats those behaviors differently while giving every citizen the equal right to participate in marriage whatever its legal definition is.

    Finally, the states make marriage law, not the feds. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia's ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013Windsordecision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.

    Legal reasons such as these are all the Court is constitutionally permitted to consider. Polls and policy considerations are for the people or their legislatures, not the courts. Ryan T. Anderson writes in his recent column titled "Memo to Supreme Court: Nothing in the Constitution Requires States to Redefine Marriage":

    "The overarching question before the Supreme Court is not whether an exclusively male-female marriage policy is the best, but only whether it is allowed by the U.S. Constitution. The question is not whether government-recognized same-sex marriage is good or bad policy, but only whether it is required by the U.S. Constitution." (2)


    "Laymen logically deduce that if the Fourteenth Amendment as written had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, that’s the end of the matter. After all, Justice Douglas succinctly described the Amendment in his autobiography: “The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship.”

    But for those lawyers who want unelected judges to set the public policy of our nation, it simply doesn’t matter what the Framers intended. And neither does it matter to many judges who are all too willing to give effect to their own political views. Discovering the “authorial intent” of the Framers is only a small part of their concern — a step they sometimes skip over entirely.

    Recently, Justice Alito observed that “[s]ame-sex marriage presents a highly emotional ... question ... but not a difficult question of constitutional law.” [United States v. Windsor, 570 US, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 2714 (2013) (Alito, J., dissenting)]:

    The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue. It is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. [Id. at 2714-15.]" (13)


    This proves that the fourteenth amendment and the "Equal Protection Clause" was not meant to guarantee marriage to homosexuals; and has nothing to do with marriage between homosexuals.


    Government Legal Rights and Discrimination:


    As addressed in my arguments, the government can not test to see if a couple is infertile; as it would be against their privacy. The same applies with happiness in marriage. This means we must focus on "between a man and a woman." My opponent makes the false assumption that homosexuals would be forced to marry and have heterosexual sex. This is not true. I am arguing that homosexual marriage should not be legal. Not that homosexuals should be forced to marry heterosexuals. The point is, homosexuals have the right to marry heterosexually if they please; just like every other person. If they choose not to, then that is their own personal choice. It is clear that the judge did not know the law better than me; since he took an action which was not legal. I have shown that above. I have also shown why the fourteenth amendment does not pertain to homosexual marriage.


    I have already explained why the fourteenth amendment does not apply to homosexuals. If you so viamently believe this, allow me to ask you something. If a single person can not get the same rights as a married person, is that discrimination? With your values, it is outlined to be so.


    The government does not have the right to interfere with the institution in the first place. I have shown why the fourteenth amendment does not apply to gay marriage. However, the government does have the right to refuse homosexual marriage; for it does not change the institution of marriage, which saves them money. Homosexual marriage is not guaranteed by any law.


    Just as the government does not allow us to purchase sex (prostitution), the government can set a ruling that does not allow homosexuals to marry each other.


    Rebuttal to Polygamy and Common Law Marriages:

    My argument does not pertain as to whether or not polygamy is moral. My argument is about whether or not polygamy is allowed; which it is not. In a study conducted, 50% of homosexual men were in an open polygamous relationship with their partner. 


    "New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners." (3)

    This will come into play in Case 1: Kids Need A Dad and A Mom.


    Two states have already passed a law allowing common-law marriages among homosexuals. (4)


    This means polygamous marriages between homosexuals can and will take place; that is not legal. Therefore, if homosexual marriage ends in likely accepted polygamy, it would be illogical to legalized it. Since polygamous relationships are illegal as of now, it would be logical to not allow homosexual marriage based off this basis. Note, my definition of polygamy does not pertain only to marriage. It also pertains to lovers outside of marriage. 


    In conclusion, my opponent fails to point out how current legislation would support homosexuals marrying; while I point out clear contradictions in current legislation that are against said idea.


    Morality:


    My opponent goes on to try to prove why her idea of morality is better. However, I would like to make my own case before I get into rebuttals.


    Case 1: Kids Need A Dad and A Mom


    First, let's point something out. Children raised in a homosexual marriage would be lacking a mom or a dad. This will be important later on.


    Kids Without A Dad:


    "In a study examining father involvement with 134 children of adolescent mothers over the first 10 years of life, researchers found that father-child contact was associated with better socio-emotional and academic functioning. The results indicated that children with more involved fathers experienced fewer behavioral problems and scored higher on reading achievement. This study showed the significance of the role of fathers in the lives of at-risk children, even in case of nonresident fathers." (5)


    "Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families." (5)


    "Data from three waves of the Fragile Families Study (N= 2,111) was used to examine the prevalence and effects of mothers’ relationship changes between birth and age 3 on their children’s well being. Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers. Living in a single-mother household is equivalent to experiencing 5.25 partnership transitions.

    Source: Osborne, C., & McLanahan, S. (2007). Partnership instability and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 1065-1083.

    Father Factor in Maternal and Child Health

    Maternal_Child_Health_IconInfant mortality rates are 1.8 times higher for infants of unmarried mothers than for married mothers.

    Source: Matthews, T.J., Sally C. Curtin, and Marian F. MacDorman. Infant Mortality Statistics from the 1998 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

    Father Factor in Incarceration

    Incarceration_IconEven after controlling for income, youths in father-absent households still had significantly higher odds of incarceration than those in mother-father families. Youths who never had a father in the household experienced the highest odds.

    Source: Harper, Cynthia C. and Sara S. McLanahan. “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 (September 2004): 369-397.

    Father Factor in Crime

    Crime_iconA study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency.

    Source: Bush, Connee, Ronald L. Mullis, and Ann K. Mullis. “Differences in Empathy Between Offender and Nonoffender Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 29 (August 2000): 467-478.

    Father Factor in Teen Pregnancy & Sexual Activity

    Pregnancy_IconBeing raised by a single mother raises the risk of teen pregnancy, marrying with less than a high school degree, and forming a marriage where both partners have less than a high school degree.

    Source: Teachman, Jay D. “The Childhood Living Arrangements of Children and the Characteristics of Their Marriages.” Journal of Family Issues 25 (January 2004): 86-111.

    Father Factor in Child Abuse

    Abuse_IconA studyusing dat a from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study revealed that in many cases the absence of a biological father contributes to increased risk of child maltreatment. The results suggest that Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies have some justification in viewing the presence of a social father as increasing children’s risk of abuse and neglect. It is believed that in families with a non-biological (social) father figure, there is a higher risk of abuse and neglect to children, despite the social father living in the household or only dating the mother.

    Source: “CPS Involvement in Families with Social Fathers.” Fragile Families Research Brief No.46. Princeton, NJ and New York, NY: Bendheim-Thomas Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Social Indicators Survey Center, 2010.

    Father Factor in Drug and Alcohol Abuse

    Addiction_IconEven after controlling for community context, there is significantly more drug use among children who do not live with their mother and father.

    Source: Hoffmann, John P. “The Community Context of Family Structure and Adolescent Drug Use.” Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (May 2002): 314-330.

    Father Factor in Childhood Obesity

    Obesity_IconThe National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found that obese children are more likely to live in father-absent homes than are non-obese children.

    Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.

    Father Factor in Education

    Drop_Out_IconFather involvement in schools is associated with the higher likelihood of a student getting mostly A's. This was true for fathers in biological parent families, for stepfathers, and for fathers heading single-parent families.

    Source: Nord, Christine Winquist, and Jerry West. Fathers’ and Mothers’ Involvement in Their Children’s Schools by Family Type and Resident Status. (NCES 2001-032). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001.




    Kids Without  A Mom:

    Mothers and Fathers parent Differently

    • Dr. Pruett: By 8 weeks of age, infants can tell the difference between a male or female interacting with them. This diversity, in itself, provides children with a broader, richer experience of contrasting relational interactions—more so than for children who are raised by only one gender. Whether they realize it or not, children are learning at earliest age, by sheer experience, that men and women are different and have different ways of dealing with life, other adults and children.

    Mothers and Fathers Play Differently

    • Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children….Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security….Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy.

    Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security

    • Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress.Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.

    Mothers and Fathers Communicate Differently

    • Father’s talk tends to be more brief, directive and to the point. It also makes greater use of subtle body language. Mothers tend to be more descriptive, personal and verbally encouraging.

    Fathers and Mothers Prepare Children for Life Differently

    • Dads tend to see their child in relation to the rest of the world. Mothers tend to see the rest of the world in relation to their child.

    Fathers Provide a Look at the World of Men; Mothers, the World of Women

    • Girls and boys who grow up with a father are more familiar and secure with the curious world of men. Girls with involved, married fathers are more likely to have healthier relationships with boys in adolescence and men in adulthood because they learn from their fathers how proper men act toward women. They also learn from mom how to live in a woman’s world. This knowledge builds emotional security and safety from the exploitation of predatory males.
    • Mothers help boys understand the female world and develop a sensitivity toward women. They also help boys know how to relate and communicate with women.

    Fathers and Mothers Teach Respect for the Opposite Sex

    • FACT: A married father is substantially less likely to abuse his wife or children than men in any other category. This means that boys and girls with married fathers in the home learn, by observation, how men should treat women.
    • The American Journal of Sociologyfinds that, “Societies with father-present patterns of child socialization produce men who are less inclined to exclude women from public activities than their counterparts in father-absent societies.”Scott Coltrane, “Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study,” American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988) p. 1088.
    • Girls and boys with married mothers learn from their mothers what a healthy, respectful female relationship with men looks like." (7)


    "Dr. David Popenoe says,

    "We should disavow the notion that 'mommies can make good daddies,' just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that 'daddies can make good mommies.' …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary — culturally and biologically — for the optimal development of a human being."(8)


    I assert that the "Nuclear Family" is the best idea when it comes to family life and morality. My source in my last argument proves how homosexuality would be bad for this idea; as well as morality in general (refer to morality section in R1 argument of mine).


    Now, to refutations.


    Gay Gene Is Not Real:


    "If you use this strategy, chances are you will find a positive result through random chance alone. Chances aresome combinationof methylation marks out of the original 6,000 will be significantly linked to sexual orientation,whether they genuinely affect sexual orientation or not. This is a well-known statistical problem that can be at least partly countered by running what’s calleda correction for multiple testing. The team didn’t do that. (In an email toThe Atlantic, Ngun denies that such a correction was necessary.)

    And, “like everyone else in the history of epigenetics studies they could not resist trying to interpret the findings mechanistically,” wrote John Greally from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in a blog post. By which he means: They gave the results an imprimatur of plausibility by noting the roles of the genes affected by the five epi-marks. One is involved in controlling immune genes that have been linked to sexual attraction. Another is involved in moving molecules along neurons. Could epi-marks on these genes influence someone’s sexual attraction? Maybe. It’s also plausible that someone’s sexual orientation influences epi-marks on these genes. Correlation, after all, does not imply causation." (9)


    "I'm not sure it gets any clearer and less ambiguous than that: "The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay."

    One problem all along for gay activists is that even a cursory survey of sexual orientation among identical twins makes the "born that way" meme impossible to accept.

    Identical twins have identical DNA, which is why they are called identical twins. If one has blue eyes, so will the other. If one has black hair, so will the other. If one is tall, so is the other.

    If sexual orientation is genetically determined, then the concordance rate among identical twins should be 100%. If one twin is gay, so should be the other. Alas, the concordance rate, according to researchers Peter Bearman from Columbia and Hannah Bruckner from Yale, is somewhere between 5% and 7%. Oops.

    The Guardianswallows hard, but notes this fact:

    "The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective thanflipping a coin."

    In other words, the genetic evidence for biological causation is so poor you'd have better luck predicting orientation by throwing darts blindfolded.

    Bailey adds, "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factorsinvolved."

    We have often argued that environment has by far the largest impact on a young child's sense of sexual identity. The nature of a young boy's relationship with his father and with this mother can play an outsized role. Same-sex abuse at an early age can leave a lasting imprint on a boy's sense of his sexual identity.

    One of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders chimes in this way: "When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification. There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story."

    Bearman and Bruckner put it this way: "[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."

    Another way to put it is that Rick Perry was exactly right, when he said this in San Francisco:

    "Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that. I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

    It looks like Gov. Perry is the progressive one here, articulating a view that is much more in line with the latest biological and scientific thinking than our friends in the gay lobby.

    I am not persuaded that genes are even a contributing factor – but even if they are, the great news is that if individuals are not biologically predetermined to pursue the homosexual lifestyle, then change is possible as a matter of scientific fact. This leads to one simple, salient truth: there is hope for the homosexual." (10)


    "The twinstudy conducted at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, finds that homosexuality may be triggered by environmental factors after birth. The research uses an algorithm covering epigenetic markers from several genomic sites of 37 sets of identical male twins to predict homosexuality in males, with 70 percent accuracy, as presented at theAmerican Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting in Baltimore." (11)


    I hate to break it to you; but the twin study mentioned to into account epigenetics. They took into account the chromosomes as well. I believe this is enough to make my case.

    Rebuttal to Philosophy of a Civilization:
    I agree! It is based on the fact of whether or not it is rational/logical; as well as going along with the rights of the people. Through this argument, I have proved why my stance is the one to do that; while yours falls short.

    Rebuttal to the State of Marriage Laws:
    As I have shown earlier, laws and court cases are meant to be changed. The moral obligation of providing children with the best possible upbringing is vital to our future success. I have shown why the government does not have an obligation to provide marriage to homosexual couples. I have shown why it would be wise for the government to side with me. 

    Rebuttals to State Function:
    No, it is not the obligation of the state to give same sex couples the right to marry each other as I have shown earlier. It is also not wise.

    The Purpose of Family:
    I have shown exactly why my view is best supported and should be held. I have addressed the point that religious people would still have to recognize said marriages; which would go against their right to practice their religion.

    Rebuttal to Potential For Children:

    I have shown why same-sex couples would be a lot worse for children. Allow me to quote from the previous rounds regarding infertility.
    "Are you saying that married couples who don't have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren't really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can't reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

    A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

    Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

    There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

    Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even toleratethe government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

    Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex."


    Rebuttal to Consent, Harm, and Religious Ceremonies:


    Does anyone else love how she said a "bleeding heart progressive"? I find that hilarious. 


    I would like to ask Con why children can not provide valid consent for marriage?


    When it comes to siblings, she goes along with my philosophy that marriage is about children. However, I have shown how intact families with a mom and a dad are better than homosexuality. I would like to say that the incestuous couple could get a surrogate baby without any defects. So, why does the government still not allow that? The kids with parents that work a lot are still proven to do better than any other type of family (look at my arguments above) as they fall under said "nuclear family". This shows that the government agrees with my opinion that children are central to marriage.


    I have addressed the same-sex marriage legislation/rights/ETC.


    In Conclusion:


    Con's case is all holes and personal opinion; along with flawed legislature as well as a lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand. Thank you for your time. 


    Anime OP:










    1. http://tinyurl.com/zrzrgcn

    2. http://tinyurl.com/j8xrrmm

    3. http://tinyurl.com/h4sbr5h%C2%A0

    4. http://tinyurl.com/hz36r4z

    5. http://tinyurl.com/ln6th3v

    6. http://tinyurl.com/pflw2yw

    7. http://tinyurl.com/hjq4mzj

    8. http://tinyurl.com/hwak464

    9. http://tinyurl.com/q4jt27z

    10. http://tinyurl.com/mewlwdx

    11. http://tinyurl.com/ozvadnz

    12. http://tinyurl.com/nrgk35w

    13. http://tinyurl.com/hu2gm42


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-12 04:09:56
    | Speak Round
    BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
    I'll again be discussing three arguments in this round bringing in the material and responses that my opponent has argued.
    All of my analysis from the previous round is extended and I intend to use this round for clarity and rebuttal.
    1. Court cases and legalization
    2. Marriage and Children
    3. Religions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. COURT CASES AND LEGISLATION

    I did not make the argument that it was legalized therefore should be legal, instead I said there were reasons for the legalization of same sex marriage and those are legitimate. So lets look at this further given my opponents responses.

    Let's start with my opponent's value and whether this is a realistic set up of this debate. My opponent was worried I did not understand what Totalitarianism was but rest assured I do. For my opponents value to be consistent he would have to argue for the ending of all Government involvement in marriage. He firstly contradicts himself because in this round he has argued that the government makes money off of marriage as an institution but in the previous round he argued that same-sex marriage could not be legalized because of how much it would cost the Government in terms of dishing out benefits and tax breaks. He needs to pick one of these arguments.

    Then we get the argument that the Government using the institution to make money is in no way showing involvement in the institution.It shows that the Government sees the institution as useful and is therefore providing for it in legislation. This means that they are discriminating against couples by not allowing them to access these benefits because the Government would not give them a marriage licence. Marriage licences and the fact that the state provides marriages is a pretty good indicator that the state is involved in the institution of marriage.See all of my analysis in the first round about what that means and why it is different to a religious marriage.

    For my opponent to argue for his value he needs to show why it is first of all possible to protect couples without legal and constant protection of marriages by the state, why it is possible for the Government to exit from their involvement marriage, and why this is an argument specifically linked to making same-sex marriage illegal rather than a different debate about whether the state should provide marriage licences in general. If he can not answer these then his argument of his value is nothing more than his personal opinion and does not fit within this debate.
    The only argumentation that I get about whether the Supreme Court decision is not justified is that:

    "It needed to go through the legislative branch in order to make gay marriage legal. Therefore, gay marriage, in current day, should Not be legal today."

    As my opponent helpfully pointed out at the start of his post this debate is about whether gay marriage should in general be legalized not about it's current legal status. Let's then propose to put it through the correct legislative branch rather than over turn the whole decision. Most of my opponents arguments then focus on religion which I will deal with in my final argument.

    He then goes on to misinterpret the arguments on the 14th amendment and my argumentation about discrimination. He says the 14th amendment was not put in place for the purpose of allowing same-sex marriage. True, however this does not mean that it does not actually then provide legal grounds for allowing same-sex marriage. It does and this is why it was argued. To answer my opponents confusion ("If a single person can not get the same rights as a married person, is that discrimination?) the answer is potentially. However this debate is about couples not single people. Therefore my argumentation why the recognition of some couples and not others is valid for this debate. "homosexual marriage is not guaranteed by any law", exactly and this is discriminatory based on all other analysis I have shown and funnily enough this is the debate we are supposed to be having.

    I would encourage my opponent to read up on the differences between cheating, open relationships and polygamy before he insults any more people.As for your argument on polygamy you do have to prove why polygamy is bad if you want to argue that it is the reason gay men should not be allowed to get married. I would urge you to drop the argumentation though because all you argue is that where there is the possibility for cheating, open relationships or polygamy we should ban marriages. All of these assertions apply to heterosexual couples as well and is a terrible argument for what law should or should not happen.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN

    My opponent has not engaged with my argument on this issue and this has made for a rather messy few rounds. I have argued that the states reasons for being involved with marriage are different to the religious reasons hence why you can have a state marriage or a religious one. So far my opponent has argued that the government should not be involved at all and that the only institution of marriage we should accept is the an extreme Christian narrative.  First of all since we are having this debate in a world where there is state influence on marriage (see all of my round 1 argumentation and my previous argument) my opponent has to provide some logic as to why the state should accept marriages only on the basis families. If he can't then all of his argumentation on why families need a mum and a dad falls outwith this debate and should only be considered in a debate on whether homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt or access IVF. 

    My opponent would like some reason as to why children cannot consent to marriage. This is because they are children and have not lived enough of their life to know if they should be married to someone. See every reason that children cannot consent to things currently.

    My opponent then claims that my argument on incest means that I have agreed with him on why incest is illegal means that I have apparently conceded marriage is all about the kids. This is not true. Incest is illegal whether marriage is involved or not. It has nothing to do with marriage licences and everything to do with the fact that if it was allowed and children kept being produced from those relationships serious harm would be done to those kids genetically. This is simply an example of the level of harm that my opponent has to met if he wants to say the Government has any ability to make same-sex marriage illegal.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. RELIGIONS

    My opponent has largely based this argument on the idea that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry then people cannot automatically claim that their religious freedom means they cannot serve that person or that person should not be allowed to rent a flat from them. This is not true. Again the very reason that court cases happened to determine whether this was true or not shows that the legislation itself does not automatically rule it out. Take work place and hiring rights for example:

    "Many Americans may assume the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefellwill have a direct bearing on cases of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s not quite right, said Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University. “The question of how you treat discrimination against gay people is just a different question [than] whether you allow them to marry,” he said. “Allowing them to marry is a question of what the state does. The other question is a question of how you regulate private actors and for what reason.”

    A 2014 survey found that roughly 75 percent of Americans believed that federal law prohibits firing or refusing to hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation. Roughly 75 percent of Americans were wrong. Despite repeated attempts to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and similar pieces of legislation in Congress, no federal protection has ever been put in place. As my colleague Joe Pinsker wrote in The Atlanticon Wednesday, the recent EEOC decision is an important first step toward creating these protections at the federal level, but lower courts could dispute the Commission’s interpretation of Title VII. The final interpretation of this statute would have to come from the Supreme Court, particularly if lower courts challenge the Commission’s decision."

    This all means that the idea of whether refusal of service etc should still be allowed is a separate issue to the one of legalization of same-sex marriage. Why? Because the legislation is separate. My opponent will argue that it will automatically be the case that this legislation will happen specifically due to the federal governments legalization on same-sex marriage but again this is not true. Each state has been making that decision no matter what the supreme court decision was. Again this is because issues like right to refuse service happen no matter whether it is a couple or a single LGBT person. The very act of serving someone who is gay could be seen as infringing on the shopkeepers rights. This has to be decided on a case by case basis as is already being done. 

    My opponent has sidestepped most of my challenges on this issue and instead of dealing with the reality of the situation (that both state marriages and religious marriages exist and the state can legislate for state marriages while leaving religious ones alone) he has said he wants Totalitarianism or that "seeing" a same-sex couple as married by the state infringes on religious rights. Is my opponent really trying to claim that religious people cannot cope with the state implementing policies that go against their beliefs and that we should bow down any religion whenever there is the possibility that they might be offended? Again I challenge my opponent: which religion is it that the US government should be listening to and when you only select one religion to govern the states policies how do you intend to protect the religious freedoms of every other religion?

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    My opponent has said there are holes in my case, the problem though is that he has undermined his own analysis on multiple occasions and is fighting on grounds that are outside this debate. The rest of the responses that he has given to my case in round one miss the point of my argumentation entirely and I encourage the reader to re-read what I wrote to see that.


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-14 01:06:50
    | Speak Round
    Cross-Examination
    cooldudebro: I disagree. Again, you are misrepresenting my value. I stand against toltaliterianism
    cooldudebro: of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state
    cooldudebro: My value is that the government can not interfere with an institution.
    cooldudebro: Asserting that my value would end all government involvement with marriage is simply not the case. Just as I said in my last argument, the government can tax your anime store; but it can not interfere with what anime you sell.
    cooldudebro: The government mandating that a certain institution does something different is changing the institution and bringing rise to a dictatorship-like rule of marriage; which I am against
    cooldudebro: As for the 14th amendment, I explained that if people want gay marriage to be legal, they have to amend the constitution. If they do not do this, then gay marriage is not protected by the 14th amendment
    cooldudebro: It was written to give the races equal rights. It was not written to give homosexuals marriage. For that detail to change, one must amend our constitution. Therefore, gay marriage is not protected under our 14th amendment
    cooldudebro: This is what I would like to argue over. The rest of your points will be properly refuted in the next round
    cooldudebro: You really love misrepresenting my views and cases. :/

    Return To Top | Speak Round
    cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
    I am not arguing for the end of government involvement in marriage. Con is simply misrepresenting my case (she does this quite often.) As I said before, the government can tax your anime store; yet, they can not tell you what anime to sell. I argued the government does not have the right to interfere with the institution of marriage.

    Toltaliterianism: absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution. (1)

    To make things clear for voters, I am against absolute control of a private institution. I am not against taxation of an institution. Changing the institution as a whole would mean the government has absolute authority over said institution. I would like to ask Con to stop blindly assuming and taking my arguments to extremes.

    As I said before, set rules brought forth by a private institution is set rules. I stand by the value that the government can not mandate a private institution change by legislature. Just as the government can not force me to sell yaoi/yuri anime (gay anime) in an anime store, they can not force a private institution to change its morals and rules. That would be toltaliterianism; which I am against. The state can provide the service. That does not mean the state owns said service.

    I do not have to answer your questions. I have made my value clear. I would ask that you stop misrepresenting my value. It may confuse voters.

    I argue we should overturn the decision as the judge made a poor judgement. I have explained why he did.

    The 14th amendment does not guarantee gay marriage. As I pointed out, Justice Douglas specifically said the 14th amendment was written for the sole purpose of granting African-Americans the same rights as any other citizen. My opponent does not seem to get my argument. If the 14th amendment guaranteed homosexual marriage, Justice Douglas would have specifically said that it was meant for more than giving African-Americans the same rights as any citizens. Again, when this amendment was written, homosexuality was a crime. This would go against their legislation at the time. There is no way that the 14th amendment was meant to guarantee marriage to homosexuals based on the premise it would go against their legislature at the time.



    “Judge Sutton points out that ‘[n]obody in this case … argues that the people who adopted the Fourteenth Amendment understood it to require the states to change the definition of marriage,'” they write.

    “Laymen logically deduce that if the Fourteenth Amendment as written had nothing to do with same-sex marriage, that’s the end of the matter,” they said.

    “After all, Justice [William] Douglas succinctly described the amendment in his autobiography: ‘The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to give blacks first-class citizenship.’ … But for those lawyers who want unelected judges to set the public policy of our nation, it simply doesn’t matter what the framers intended. And neither does it matter to many judges who are all too willing to give effect to their own political views. Discovering the ‘authorial intent’ of the Framers is only a small part of their concern — a step they sometimes skip over entirely.”

    The analysis comes as a decision is expected any day on the case, which could change the definition of marriage that has prevailed for millennia. Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsberg already have taken a public stand on the issue by performing ceremonies for same-sex couples.Generally, courts have ruled for same-sex marriage using either the ‘due process clause’ or the ‘equal protection clause’ of the Fourteenth Amendment, or both,” the analysis explains.

    “That raises a simple question: is it really possible that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 the framers intended that it sanction same-sex marriage? Of course not. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage. Then, how could the Constitution be manipulated to support a decision that isn't even constitutional? 


    The meaning of marriage is to guarantee children have the best chance at a good life with good parents. Here is what polygamy does to children.


    "The review found more mental health problems, social problems and lower academic achievement for children and adolescents from polygynous than monogamous families. Similarities between children and adolescents from polygynous and monogamous families included self-esteem, anxiety and depression scores. Although polygynous family structures appear to have detrimental effects on children and adolescents, the mediating effects of parental education, economy and family functioning need to be investigated." (1)


    For the women in the polygamous relationship:

    "Findings reveal differences between women in polygamous and monogamous marriages. Women in polygamous marriages showed significantly higher psychological distress, and higher levels ofsomatisation, phobia and other psychological problems. They also had significantly more problems in family functioning, marital relationships and life satisfaction." (2)


    While I will not lie to the voters and say polygamy only affects homosexuals, it has been shown to be a lot more common in homosexual relationships. In my previous arguments, my study quoted that around 66% of homosexual men practice open polygamy. With this negative affect on the people involved, it would not be wise to legalize gay marriage; since polygamy is extremely likely to happen; especially when compared to heterosexuals.


    Polygamy in marriages or just plain cheating causes a higher rate of HIV infections.


    "Polygamy is a major factor in the spread of HIV/AIDS, Miss Cynthia Afenyo, Chairperson of Central Youth Group, a Community Based Organisation (CBO) within the Central Gospel International Church, Apam has said. She was speaking at an HIV/AIDS workshop organised by the CBO for the Moslem community at Gomoa Ankamu near Apam. The workshop, which was sponsored by the Ghana AIDS Commission, was on the causes and prevention of the deadly disease." (3)


    This is where polygamy is legal. As you can see, there is a negative affect all the way around. Polygamous marriages in the U.S. are against the law. If we allow homosexuals to marry, they are extremely likely to practice polygamy; leading to horrible effects.


    Marriage and Children:


    I have shown that children raised by intact, heterosexual families is the best for raising kids. As I have developed my ideas, I have shown why marriage is for the benefit of children. 


    I will quote from my previous argument:

    ""But isn't marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

    If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny "marriage" to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

    All right--but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn't that what most people would consider "marriage?"

    It's getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

    In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) are unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this dec-ision paves the way for same-sex "marriage." But in an ironic way, the Court's rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

    So--what IS marriage, then?

    Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

    Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."

    Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." [emphasis in original]

    Are you saying that married couples who don't have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren't really married? If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can't reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

    A couple that doesn't want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an older man from conceiving children with a younger woman outside of marriage. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

    Admittedly, society's interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple's privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

    There is no reason, though, to extend "marriage" to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable--ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent--of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

    Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even toleratethe government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your "best friend?" The answer is undoubtedly "no"--which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

    Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce without risk, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one's choice of marriage partner--just as they are central to the restriction against "marrying" a person of the same sex.

    But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

    The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy, successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves--things that every culturemust do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

    Foster the bonding between men and women

    Foster the birth and rearing of children

    Foster the bonding between men and children

    Foster some form of healthy masculine identity

    Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults

    Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that "children need mothers and fathers" and "marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.


    Redefining marriage would further distance marriage from the needs of children and deny the importance of mothers and fathers. It would deny, as a matter of policy, the ideal that children need a mother and a father.

    Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and their biologicalchildren and for men and women to marry before having children. The concern is not so much that a handful of gay or lesbian couples would be raising children but that it would be very difficult for the law to send a message that fathers matter when it has redefined marriage to makefathers optional.

    In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that marriage is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This view reduces marriage primarily to emotional bonds or legal privileges. Redefining marriage represents the culmination of this revisionism and would leave emotional intensity as the only thing that sets marriage apart from other bonds.

    However, if marriage were just intense emotional regard, marital norms would make no sense as a principled matter. There is no reason of principle that requires an emotional union to be permanent. Or limited to two persons. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive (as opposed to “open”). Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.

    In other words, if sexual complementarity is optional for marriage, then almost every other norm that sets marriage apart is optional."



    In fact, my opponent keeps admitting the government passed laws forbidding certain acts, such as incest, to protect children. From her argument:

    "Incest is illegal whether marriage is involved or not. It has nothing to do with marriage licences and everything to do with the fact that if it was allowed and children kept being produced from those relationships serious harm would be done to those kids genetically."


    Even if the siblings never reproduce and adopt a kid, it is illegal. Why? The government is protecting children.


    Religion:


    My opponent basically side-steps my whole argument. I have argued that having to acknowledge homosexual marriage in everyday life would go against their religion. My opponent has dropped that. I would like to extend that argument.


    While again, the right to refusal of service and a job is a right reserved to the business in the majority of states. 


    The government should listen to the religions that refuse to accept homosexual marriage; such as Christianity and Catholicism. A lot of other religions are against gay marriage. The rest simply do not care or do not have any set docterine saying same sex marriage is mandatory in a civilization.


    I am not saying we should bow to ANY religion. Again, you are misrepresenting my views. (You've been doing that all debate. How come I'm not surprised?) However, there are a mass amount of religions which would be offended by such legislation to allow gay marriage. It would prohibit our right to practice our religion. 


    Conclusion:

    Con keeps misrepresenting my case in hopes for favorable votes. That is really annoying. She is also claiming my case did not address her issues; which it did. Con's cases fall short of any valid reasoning and have a lot of holes. Vote Pro.









    1. http://tinyurl.com/gwqua56

    2. http://tinyurl.com/hr97xmb

    3. http://tinyurl.com/zmts89b


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-16 03:32:19
    | Speak Round
    BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
    My opponent asked this of me:

    "I would like to ask Con to stop blindly assuming and taking my arguments to extremes."

    I am not assuming anything of my opponent's claim and I am not taking his arguments to extremes, what I am doing is holding his argumentation to a high standard and asking for it to be logically consistent. There are still inconsistencies with my opponent's claims that are shown in his third round argumentation. I will discuss these first before my final look at the legality of the situation and again the ideas of family and marriage which my opponent is intent on insisting. 

    Again all of my argumentation from previous rounds is extended.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. LOGCAL INCONSISTANCIES 

    a) Government involvement in marriage

    My opponents claims:

    "I am not arguing for the end of government involvement in marriage."
    "I argued the government does not have the right to interfere with the institution of marriage."
    "they can not force a private institution to change its morals and rules"
    "I am against absolute control of a private institution. I am not against taxation of an institution."

    My response: 

    Taxation is not the only way the state is involved with marriage. The fact that it is a legally binding contract (i.e. marriage licence) means that the government is involved in marriage already. I have shown that the state can legislate for state marriages to be open to same-sex couples but this does not mean religious institutions are automatically forced to provide same-sex marriages. The state or religions can give out marriage licences and just because the state is mandated to give out marriage licences equally this does not mean that religions do. This means the state is not enforcing religions to change their morals with this policy. Also the idea that seeing same-sex couples goes against a religious person's rights is just a bit silly but I'll get to that next. Finally for my opponent to argue that he does not want the state involved at all with marriage but he only asks that same-sex marriage is made illegal is ridiculous. He seems to say so long as the state does not disagree with my particular religious beliefs then I won't argue for my political values to hard. If my opponent wants to argue that the government does not have any right to be involved with marriage then to remain logically consistent he has to argue that the state should not give out any marriage licences and therefore end the government's involvement in marriage.

    b) Religion

    My opponent's claims:

    "I have argued that having to acknowledge homosexual marriage in everyday life would go against their religion."
    "the right to refusal of service and a job is a right reserved to the business in the majority of states"
    "The government should listen to the religions that refuse to accept homosexual marriage; such as Christianity and Catholicism. A lot of other religions are against gay marriage. The rest simply do not care or do not have any set docterine saying same sex marriage is mandatory in a civilization."
    "I am not saying we should bow to ANY religion."
    "However, there are a mass amount of religions which would be offended by such legislation to allow gay marriage. It would prohibit our right to practice our religion."

    My responses:

    My opponent claims I have misrepresented his case but unfortunately he has misunderstood my case. There are many things that offend religions that are protected by the constitution because the state has objected to take a neutral stance on religion in order to protect all of their rights to practice. That is my main theme for this point and I'll explain it in detail however I want to make a quick point first. Just because something exists does not force a religious person to accept that it is in line with their religion. By saying that people should not be able to act in a way that goes against my religious beliefs goes against the practicing of that religion and then becomes the mandated rule of that religion on people who do not follow your religious beliefs. You have the right to practice religion not enforce it on other people. As I said before the state is not forcing religions to practice same-sex marriage but they are also not allowing religious narratives to be the reason that other people cant enter into a legal contract as witnessed by the state.

    Let's look at religions and the state now. The one that springs to mind is blasphemy. The Torah and Sharia both say that blasphemy is punishable by death however the US constitution protects it under free speech. In fact quite a bit of the constitution does not line up with Sharia. Many religions exist in a society that has a different legal and moral standard to them therefore the idea of "seeing something prohibited by their religion" somehow damages that person's ability to practice their religions not something that stands when it comes to what the US state should or should not mandate for. My opponent misunderstand's the point of all this so I will make it a bit clearer. The state cannot mandate policies on religious grounds because there are so many conflicting grounds between different religions. My opponent seems to think that so long as the majority of people believe in a certain religion  then it is perfectly acceptable of the state to mandate for that religion. However my opponent refuses to show how this would allow the state to protect the religious freedoms of all religions. If the state were to make policies based on the teachings of the catholic church then how would they protect the interests of Protestants or Muslims or Jews. The point is that the state cannot and actively does not (as I showed to begin with) mandate for policies based on religious teachings. There are many religions that do sanction same-sex marriage and actively making this illegal and not allowing them to legally register these marriages so as to provide protection for them actively goes against that religions beliefs (all for the sake of the Catholic church?). (LINK FOR IMAGE)


    If so many religions prohibit same-sex marriage then many religious people must be against it so there might be a population majority that would vote against this policy? There actually is not. Let's look at some research and some polls. This PewResearch Centre study is actually really interesting and shows that there is a 55% majority support for same-sex marriage legalisation and only a 39% legalisation overall. But surely anyone who is catholic would be against this because there church is? Nope. 57% of Catholics actually support same-sex marriage. The person most likely to vote against same-sex marriage is a 84 yo black, conservative, republican, Protestant. So even if this policy is only mandated on the grounds of popular public support it should be legalised. Yes, many are unhappy with the supreme court taking this ruling out of the public's hands however I don't have to defend the way in which is becomes legal in this debate just that it should be legal. If it has to be done by public vote it can and should be done.

    My opponent has do more than say "some religious people won't be happy" to justify why the US state should mandate policies based on the opinions of the largest church then he has to prove how he will protect the religious rights of all people within this given that he argues protection of religious rights are the most important thing. This to me is an impossible and inconsistent argument.

    I extend all of my previous analysis on the issue of right to provide service since all my opponent says against it is that those rights exist therefore same-sex marriage should be illegal. This is just a repeated assertion and I encourage the reader to re-read what I have written on this in previous rounds.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. STATE LEGISLATION AND THE SUPREME COURT

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    The original intention for an amendment doesn't mean that it is the only possibility for the amendment. That is what the Supreme Court argued. Whether they went through all the possible avenues in which to make it legal doesn't matter for me arguing that that argumentation is still legitimate for this debate. Again whether it has to be enacted by the Supreme Court is another matter that I dealt with by showing that there is popular support for the policy in the US. This debate is not about in which way it should be legalised but rather that is should be legal. I have shown that there is popular support for the policy and now I will again show why the wording of the constitution shows why it is already an idea that should be protected by the state.

    It starts with "All persons born or naturalized" so this means it applies to everyone.
    Then there is this line: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". By enforcing same-sex marriage as illegal while providing privileges for married couples means that the state is actively undermining this part of the constitution.
    Then we have the final line: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.". Given that I have shown previously that there are religions that do allow same-sex marriage and there are many people who are agnostic or atheist who would allow same-sex marriage, by specifically making same-sex marriage illegal the state is not allowing same-sex couples, who are married before their religion or are married by way of life, equal access of laws which would protect their marital status. 

    By having state mandated and enforced illegality of same-sex marriage it actually goes against everything that the 14th amendment stands for. This means that there is constitutional protection for same-sex marriage even if this was not the intended consequence of the amendment. I have also shown that the act of making same-sexmarriage illegal is not justified and goes against the constitution. 

    Whether by Supreme Court mandate (done properly) or by a popular opinion vote same-sex marriage can and should be legal. 

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    3. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY

    For this section I am going to show how marriage and the reasons for marriage as changed over time so as to show my opponent's argument "you can't change marriage" is not valid.

    My opponent continues to argue that the state should not be involved in marriage only the church however originally neither institution was involved in marriage.

    "In European nations, marriage was traditionally considered a civil institution. Around 5AD great Christian theologians such as Augustine wrote about marriage and the Christian Church started taking an interest in the ceremony.
    It was at this point that Christians began to have their marriages conducted by ministers in Christian gatherings, but it was in the 12th century that the Roman Catholic Church formally defined marriage as a sacrament, sanctioned by God."

    The Catholic church then made babies as part of marriage optional.

    "In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if awoman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.
    "The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience."

    Now the state starts to get involved:

    "In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States."

    So what did all this mean and why has marriage as a social concept changed so much? Well it begin out of necessity; the idea that a union had to be formed in order to protect the ownership of land and money. Also as a way of using marriage to create alliances and increase power. This can be seen with pretty much every royal wedding of ancient history. Clans were constantly under attack and there had to be some way of maintaining and consolidating power so they used marriages for that. This then had the historical impact of inheritance through children. This is seen as monogamy starts to become important but men were still allowed to sleep around; any child created would be illegitimate because they had to protect the inheritance remaining to the "legitimate" children. So yes originally children were important but only in terms of power and economics. So how did that change?

    Our societies developed and so did our economies. This has had the largest impact on what marriage means. Remember originally the unions were necessities and were normally arranged marriages. This was because inheritance for the most part was tied up in land or agriculture. You were dependent on your parents controlling the inheritance for you to be able to start your life essentially. But economic markets developed and this allowed youngsters more financial independence. This was the start of marriage because you want it rather than marriage because it is necessary. Another way growing economic markets changed marriages was their role in giving women independence. No longer did a young woman have to be dependent on her father and then on finding a husband to support her; she could financially support herself. This meant more and more women were able to make their own decisions on marriage suitability. It was still some time though before marriage was seen as a "partnership of equals".
    Men were still the dominant partner and a woman's place was in the kitchen or raising children. So how have these gender roles changed and what does that mean?

    The rise in feminism and the increasing legal equality between men and women allowed women to have greater control and choice of more of their lives. One of those important factors was work and education. More and more women were seeking greater education in order to engage in work that was originally dominated by men. This often meant higher payed labour. With greater access to higher payed jobs and further education and more women believing that they were indeed capable of this path then traditional gender roles broke down. Marriage became about the equal division of labour allowing both men and woman to have more choice in the relationship. This lead to the idea of marriage securing companionship because both parties could go into the marriage as equals. So again what does all this mean and what does it mean for same-sex marriage.

    Marriage was historically between a man and a woman because if they had a child both their families inheritance would be combined and protected.  When monogamy was introduced to this and society developed a bit it became about gender roles more than gender. The idea that the man should work and the woman should look after the house. This was independent of whether that marriage was about raising a family or not. When those gender roles broke down the idea of choice and consent to the choice became more important than anything else. It was accepted that men and women could be equal in terms of their education and ability to succeed in the work force. This meant that woman no longer had to look for the husband that could provide for her the best because she could provide for herself. So marriage became about who you wanted and was no longer defined by specific gender roles. This paved the way for marriage of equals to be extended to same-sex couples. 

    The idea that marriage is just about family is outdated and the idea that the definition or usage of marriage cannot change is silly because it already has changed. Marriage is simple just the legal recognition that two people have chosen to become family (i.e. married to each other). Nothing says those people then have a duty to go on and raise children. The state's involvement in marriage only extends as far as the legal protection of the married couple. Given that marriage is now socially about choice in partnership and legally about your ability to consent to that choice then same-sex marriage fits within that frame work. 

    My opponent continues to insist that same-sex couples cannot raise children and therefore should not be allowed to marry. He misses the point though; the only way same-sex couples can have children is through adoption or IVF. This means that for same-sex couples being married and resigning a family are two separate issues. The state can still legislate against same-sex couples being able to adopt or get IVF treatment. This is a different debate and does not impede the state's ability to legalise the marriages of same-sex couples.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CONCLUSION

    I have shown that all of my opponents reasons for making same-sex marriage illegal are not valid reasons for a state to mandate for or against a policy. I have shown that based on popular opinion same-sex marriage can and should be legal and I have shown that there are constitutional reasons for same-sex marriage being legal. Based on all of this I believe I have fulfilled my burden of showing why same-sex marriage should be legalised and urge the judges to vote con.

    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-17 14:32:21
    | Speak Round
    cooldudebrocooldudebro (PRO)
    Due to familial issues, I must extend the round. I ask that you do not let Con cloud your judgement and misrepresent my arguments. Vote Pro.
    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-20 06:41:07
    | Speak Round
    BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
    I will also simply extend my arguments for this round. Sorry to hear my opponent's situation, best wishes.


    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-21 11:16:15
    | Speak Round
    BifurcationsBifurcations (CON)
    I'll simply leave this round as a brief summary.

    I have shown that there is constitutional grounds for same-sex marriage and whether the Supreme Court executed that perfectly is irrelevant because my opponent points out that if done through all proper channels then it would be legitimate. I have also shown that there is public support for the policy so even if it is decided on a majority opinion it should still be legalised.

    My opponent raised a few concerns one of those being about the point of marriage and in his opinion that was the raising of children. I have shown how historically the purpose of marriage has evolved so the idea that we should stop marriage from changing is moot. Further to the point I have shown that the Government's involvement in marriage is to safeguard a legal contract between two consenting adults; same sex couples have the ability to consent to that relationship and for the Government to make it illegal for them to get a marriage licence actively excludes select couples from the protection offered by the legal recognition of their marriage. My opponent continues to claim that the only thing that should concern the Government is the protection of children in these relationships however since a same sex couple is not going to have children naturally giving them a marriage licence does not automatically mean kids get hurt. That is a separate issue on whether or not same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt or have access to IVF.

    My opponent raises the concern over religious freedoms. I have stated quite clearly that the states ability to give out marriage licences does not mean that all religions are going to be forced to have the same measures again that is a separate debate. My opponent had two responses under the category of religious freedoms; that this means these marriages must be accepted by religious people who are against same-sex marriage and that there would be issues with other areas such as the right to refuse service. My main challenge to this whole idea is that my opponent is suggesting that the Government use the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church to guide what should and should not be legal. I showed this was problematic in terms of the government being able to protect the religious freedoms under that policy and this is further substantiated by the fact that the US government is separated from religion and there are many laws in place that go against many different religious teachings such as freedom of speech v blasphemy. The government has a duty to balance the rights of all people not just a selective bunch otherwise this is a misuse of power as my opponent concedes. In more direct rebuttal to the two concerns raised I made these points; I showed that because there is constitutional grounds for same sex marriage individual cases of interference with other rights have to be argued out in court as is happening at the moment. Where there is legal precedent for both the courts should decide that's what they are there for. In terms of having to see a same-sex couple and be forced to accept their marriage, I find this strange. You can accept that they are legally registered as a couple without you seeing them as a legitimate couple under the eyes of your religion. 

    This was obviously a very brief summary of what was discussed during this debate but I believe I have fulfilled my burden of showing why same-sex marriage should remain legal and shown how my opponents harms are limited within this debate.

    Thank you for reading.

    Return To Top | Posted:
    2016-04-25 06:29:45
    | Speak Round


    View As PDF

    Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

    You need to be logged in to be able to comment
    Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
    @Fogyreef
    This debate is really on how marriage ought to be rather than how it currently is.
    Yes, it is true that Gay marriage was already legal in our current society, but they wanted recognition due to it not being a normal thing. Gays were denied marriage because it was seen as very strange and even mentally unstable to want to marry someone of the same sex for love.
    I will answer some of your questions and points:
    "are we not bound by and required only to consider the scope of marriage as it is codified in law? "
    Nope, people may hold different views on what marriage is and what it ought to be.
    "Is not access to the legal benefits granted legally-married people the true and only issue at stake?"
    No.
    "One might instinctively seek to expand the scope of marriage to include things commonly associated with marriage in our culture, such as religion, rings, ceremonies, etc., but, alas, they are neither legally required nor is the lack of them prohibitive to being married."
    Well, if you look at PRO's case, they assume that marriage exists without the state and interfering with it in ways like allowing gay marriage or polygamy is "totalitarianism". This is a completely different way of looking at it.
    "Supporters and non-supporters both need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS."
    Marriage is a societal construct that may vary from different societies and can be changed.
    Of course, this isn't so with PRO's case in this debate.

    Even you are making assumptions regarding what you believe marriage to be.
    Posted 2016-10-11 20:51:54
    adminadmin
    @Fogyreef Welcome! If you need any help etc let me know :)

    I think sometimes in debates it is valid to challenge the scope of legal and social norms. For example, there might be a difference between what marriage is and what marriage ought to be.
    Posted 2016-10-11 09:13:46
    FogyreefFogyreef
    New to the site. Quite impressed with the thoroughness. When I have more time I'd like to come back and read some more. In the meantime I'd like to just dip my toe in. Perhaps I'll start my own debate entry some time; just not so early in the morning. Whereas Pro and Con had lengthy(!) write ups, I feel the answer can be found quite succinctly.

    Primary considerations are religious implications, legal realities and what defines marriage in the USA with relationship the rights being sought by gay-marriage proponents. Arguments involving historical precedent of what marriage is, has been or should be bear little weight in that the only marriage under consideration is legal marriage currently codified in our laws.

    Fundamental tests to define religious or any other non-statutory involvement in legally-recognized marriage in the USA can be based around questions such as: Is there any other legally-recognized marriage other than one where a state-issued license is the sole test in allowing the enjoyment of the full litany of legal marriage benefits? Conversely, what happens when someone otherwise claiming to be married tries to claim state-granted benefits without being in possession of a marriage license granted by the state?

    Whereas BioHazard mentions "assumptions", are we not bound by and required only to consider the scope of marriage as it is codified in law? Is not access to the legal benefits granted legally-married people the true and only issue at stake? One might instinctively seek to expand the scope of marriage to include things commonly associated with marriage in our culture, such as religion, rings, ceremonies, etc., but, alas, they are neither legally required nor is the lack of them prohibitive to being married.

    The following is in regard to legal marriage and the rights being sought by gay marriage proponents. It seeks to refocus what marriage actually is; an application for benefits.

    "Marriage" isn't about love.
    You can be in love and not be married.
    You can be married and not be in love.


    “Marriage" isn't about sex.
    You can have sex and not be married.
    You can be married and not have sex.


    "Marriage” isn't about morality.
    You can have morals and not be married.
    You can be married and have no morals.


    "Marriage" isn't about children.
    You can have children and not be married.
    You can be married and not have children.


    "Marriage" isn't about religion.
    You can be religious and not be married.
    You can be married and not be religious.


    "Marriage" isn't about tradition.
    You can be traditional and not be married.
    You can be married and not be traditional.


    "Marriage" isn't about happiness.
    You can be happy without being married.
    You can be married and not be happy.


    "Marriage" isn't about weddings ceremonies.
    You can hold a ceremony and not be married.
    You can be married with no ceremony.


    "Marriage" isn't about rings.
    You can wear rings without being married.
    You can be married without exchanging rings.


    "Marriage" isn't about vows.
    You can make vows without being married.
    You can be married without vows, only an affirmation; "I do".


    Supporters and non-supporters both need to learn what marriage ISN'T before trying to argue what it IS.


    Marriage is legally only about property, citizenship, kinship and inheritance. The marriage license is an application for State and Federal benefits granted a specific class of people and available equally as guaranteed by the Constitution. Without a compelling reason to protect the nation, where sexual orientation is not a legally compelling reason, the government is forbidden from withholding benefits from people otherwise meeting the qualifications of "married". Though some jurisdictions my explicitly stipulate "one man and one woman", such sexual discrimination is inherently unconstitutional at the highest level of our legal system. Ergo, any laws forbidding gay marriage are unconstitutional from their inception. Ergo gay marriage has always been legal in the USA, recognized. It has been only the mood of the People preventing the indictment of the officials who codify, enable or ignore the discrimination.

    In summary, where the rights granted by the state and sought by gay marriage proponents exist only by legal statute and only to pair bonds as defined in the statutes, and the cultural and religious practices associated with marriage are not valid tests as to the legal validity of the marriage, and the rights of individuals are independent of the cultural practices of other individuals, and the Constitution forbids a sexual orientation test for the application of benefits afforded certain classes of citizen, gay marriage may not be (have been) recognized in the USA, but it has always been legal.
    Posted 2016-10-11 07:29:44
    adminadmin
    I think part of the skill of debating is to catch those assumptions and call opponents out on them. Good catch!
    Posted 2016-09-05 05:04:28
    Bi0HazardBi0Hazard
    To those it may concern: @cooldudebro @Bifurcations
    The PRO and CON sides both relied on different assumptions.
    PRO assumed marriage is an institution existing independent of the state, like it is an objective institution above next to moral law. Something not to be intruded by the state.
    CON assumed that marriage is simply an institution creation by the state for its citizens, and without the state, marriage doesn't exist.
    Different assumptions means different conclusions.
    I just wanted to point that out.
    Posted 2016-09-05 05:01:17
    DebatingAngelDebatingAngel
    ok! thank you!
    angel xxx
    Posted 2016-05-10 18:46:45
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @DebatingAngel

    The main charities in England are Debate Mate and the ESU. The other option you have is getting in contact with the nearest university to you and asking their debate society to offer coaching in the school. The best way of going about this is to explain what debating is to your teacher and show them how to get in contact with one of the charities or universities to let them organise it.
    Posted 2016-05-10 18:35:08
    DebatingAngelDebatingAngel
    ok bifurcations!
    thanks for excepting my apology! 😃 and i live in england!
    Posted 2016-05-10 17:44:07
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @DebatingAngel Apology accepted :)

    Are you in England/Scotland/Wales/Ireland ? Don't need to tell me where but there are different groups that do debating in each country so I can link you too the one in your area. They can work with you and your school to teach you about debating and judging.
    Posted 2016-05-10 10:01:07
    DebatingAngelDebatingAngel
    soz people, it was late and i was really upset and cranky and i needed to rant! didn't mean what i said at all, i was losing my mind like mad! admin, your edeb8 is the best and i'm sorry for being sarcastic and everything like that! and bifurcations (good name) so sorry for being really sarcastic. and yeah! i would love to talk about the whole s*x thing and the gay marriage thing! but admin i am sooooooo sorry for saying you are never online! i feel sooooooo bad!
    never gonna be sarcastic anymore!
    sorry about my irrelevant rant!
    Angel xxx
    P.S soz!
    Posted 2016-05-10 07:23:06
    adminadmin
    @DebatingAngel

    Just two little points:

    1 - if you check your messages you'll see I did reply, and that I banned your second account. Since it was an honest mistake however, you can keep your current account (just promise not to make more, kay?)
    2 - I am online the most of any user lol, I'm just on the opposite side of the world to you so most of the time when you're online, I'm asleep. I usually get things fixed pretty quick though.
    Posted 2016-05-09 21:27:05
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @DebatingAngel Hi there, you seem a bit on the defensive and I am not sure why but hopefully I can calm the whole thing down a bit and we can chat pleasantly about this.

    We are all welcome to our own opinions no one gets banned from this site because of their opinions so you don't need to worry about that :) There are plenty of ways of developing your debating career at school even outside this site. If you want I can link you to some of the ways you can get involved in "real life" debating since I am also in the UK.

    The issue with having two accounts on this site is that it becomes unfair and impractical. For example on one of the other debates you used both accounts to make a judgement which means that you could potentially award a speaker 8 points rather than the normal maximum of 4 points. I'll let @admin further this since it is his site.

    In term of the admin being online more, he does reply to everything that he is sent/tagged in as far as I can tell. The difficulty that you might be having is that he is in New Zealand so he is in a different time zone to us in the UK. So when we might be online the admin is probably asleep. This does mean there is a little bit of a delay but he will get back to you as soon as he is able.

    In terms of the issues you had with the word "s*x", I apologise for offending you however this is the correct legal term for the way I was using the word. In this case the word is referring to whether or not you are a male or female. The context I have used it in is for the legally proper description of "gay marriage". More than happy to talk about this further if you would like.

    Just a final thing you can put an @ symbol before the name of the person you are discussing in order to tag them. This means they get a notification of the discussion and they are more likely to be able to respond quickly.

    Hope this helps :)
    Posted 2016-05-09 21:18:10
    DebatingAngelDebatingAngel
    ok. no one judge me for my opinions. I'm sorry if i think differently. admin go ahead and band from the sight if you really want to and if your desperate. all you'll do is probably ruin my childhood debating career. no biggie! so could you answer me about that 2 accounts thing cause i don't want my childhood debating dream to be ruined all because of the famous admin. sorry if i was being to harsh but let debating angel😃(yeah that's me Bifurcations) say whatever she wants to say. admin, i've told you my feelings now so could you please do something to help this website. no offence or anything but you need to be online the most because your the computer thingamajig. i am trying to be kind but it's really hard cause inside my heart is burning with anger.
    this is one of the reasons why i chose cooldudebro,
    he doesn't use the word s*x as much a that burfications person. And yes you can dodge this word.
    Posted 2016-05-09 20:19:34
    adminadmin
    @Bifurcations yip
    Posted 2016-05-07 15:51:53
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @admin you close to rounding up your arguments?
    Posted 2016-05-07 13:04:36
    adminadmin
    Man the arguments in this debate are tough to summarize. The key issues are pretty clear but I'm having trouble condensing my analysis on the decision lol. Don't worry, I'll get around to it.
    Posted 2016-05-01 10:40:29
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @cooldudebro huh?
    Posted 2016-04-08 21:55:25
    cooldudebrocooldudebro
    *religious convictions
    Posted 2016-04-08 21:52:04
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @cooldudebro can you site your sources in the order you used them in future rounds? There is enough work to do in the short time to post without getting lost in citations :P
    Posted 2016-04-08 08:38:24
    adminadmin
    @cooldudebro why do you have both hotlinks and a sources list :P
    Posted 2016-04-08 07:35:44
    cooldudebrocooldudebro
    Me too. You too.
    Posted 2016-04-08 01:23:39
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    : ) looking forward to it. Good luck
    Posted 2016-04-08 01:23:10
    cooldudebrocooldudebro
    Alright! Let's do this!
    Posted 2016-04-08 01:21:24
    The judging period on this debate is over

    Previous Judgments

    2016-05-02 11:03:35
    DebatingAngel😃Judge: DebatingAngel😃
    Win awarded to: cooldudebro
    Reasoning:
    I vote for cooldudebro!🏆
    5 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
    2 comments on this judgement
    adminadmin
    Would you care to give reasons why you think cooldudebro won?
    Posted 2016-05-02 13:22:56
    BifurcationsBifurcations
    @DebatingAngel:) you can explain the arguments that you found persuasive and the arguments you didn't find persuasive. Writing more gives you more points.
    Posted 2016-05-02 17:38:01
    2016-05-10 17:59:06
    DebatingAngelJudge: DebatingAngel
    Win awarded to: Bifurcations
    Reasoning:
    I think bifurcations won this round. after reading the debate thoroughly and properly, i realised i was wrong voting for cooldudebro! sorry cooldudebro! Anyway, although bifurcations's debate used the word s*x more, i think it was amazing! the quality was exceptional as well! this is why i am changing my vote and giving a point to bifurcations! well done! tres bien as the french people say in francais!
    😃
    Angel xxx
    3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
    1 user rated this judgement as biased
    0 comments on this judgement
    2016-05-07 18:50:00
    adminJudge: admin    TOP JUDGE
    Win awarded to: Bifurcations
    Reasoning:
    Alright, I think this is just about as good as I'm going to get it...

    For those who have read this debate, you'll know that it is very long. Very, very long. I'm not going to review every single argument raised in this debate. I'm going to focus this on the most relevant ones. Genetics, for example, while certainly fascinating, wasn't too relevant in the end.

    For me, this debate came down to two key questions:

    1. Is the imposition of such a law totalitarian?
    2. Does the institution of marriage as opposite-sex protect society?

    The first question was further broken down into two key contentions from pro:

    1. The idea that freedom of religion would be destroyed
    2. The notion that the state would be violating judicial or legal limits (although this was somewhat less relevant, as pro also correctly pointed out this was a "should" debate as opposed to an "is" debate)

    Con counter-attacked along very similar lines, which is unusual, and I'm not sure a somewhat straighter case was actually the best one for them here, especially in a longer-format debate.

    Con levelled three key attacks against the religion argument. On the one hand, con argued that religions conflict, and therefore cannot be used as grounds for state policy. While valid, I felt pro's argument was rather that any imposition of state authority into what has traditionally been a religious question is a slippery slope to totalitarianism. As such I didn't see the link. Apparently pro didn't either and, in the third round, pro spent a good deal of time begging con to cease misrepresenting their case. Secondly con argued that such developments can be integrated into the model, for example by providing that churches could refuse to accept a gay marriage. In general I felt this idea that religious rights can trump gay rights to be a strange line for the neg here, and probably one that hurt con's narrative. Nonetheless I accepted the point. Pro's "secular" counter-attack was a mere smokescreen for the second argument.

    There was considerably more analysis on the second subpoint, largely a sequence of vicious attacks and counter-attacks about laws, court cases, and amendments. Having read this debate about 4 times, I don't think either side clearly won this discussion. Much of it was extended source material quotes and complex legal interpretations on which (both sides agreed that) even top scholars disagree. As noted above, the whole argument was somewhat less relevant anyway.

    Con also raised an important issue of their own, which was to model marriage as a form of expression of consent. This was a clever argument as it not only refuted the affirmative totalitarian line (I'm pretty surprised con wasn't clearer about preventing gays from marrying being an exercise in totalitarianism, because it totally is) but it also played into a variety of pro's constructive points. I don't think pro provided a detailed rebuttal to the notion of marriage laws as safeguards of a legal contract, but con's framing of the point seemed to assume such contracts are legal in the first place (and their "philosophy of civilization" was premised on the rationalization of its justice). So while an interesting principle with a lot of potential, con's particular framing of it begged the question.

    On the whole, I thought the neg probably won this but only very narrowly. Aff needed to show why religion would be significantly unjustifiably imposed upon, and while I did accept the policy might be inconsistent with a handful of religious teachings, by the end of the debate, there wasn't enough of a narrative there for me to accept that as a dystopian totalitarian future.

    The second question had more interesting clash.

    Mostly this was about the quality of families with respect to raising children. Pro also questioned the cost of the program, which was curious given his advocacy here of taking more money from non-homosexual families (and letting gay people be richer). This wasn't totally lost on con, and the argument fizzled out quickly. Rather the point from pro that was impactful was whether gay marriage undermines the institution of a child-rearing family, whilst con argued that the policy was discriminatory on a state level.

    What made pro's arguments better here had to little to do with clash and much to do with analytical narrative. In particular with the role models point, it set the debate in terms of real-world impacts like crime, rather than metaphysical or abstract politically philosophical impacts. Such arguments naturally weigh a bit heavier in the judging, and con could have easily secured the same advantage, but I don't think the neg did nearly enough to explain the harm of homophobia in this debate. In the end, pro was able to successfully parry the entirety of con's substantive into the legal analysis, which was a shame because discrimination is a point that's so much more significant than the legality of it.

    That being said, con had a decent response to pro's first subpoint - that marriage is not about rearing children, and that pro failed to demonstrate a concrete harm. The first point was relatively mooted by the end of the debate, because nobody really showed harms either way on what the marriage institution should be considered as. Nonetheless I think this spurred pro to developing their point, and we got a number of harms of children growing up in non-opposite-gender households.

    I didn't understand exactly why this would happen under pro's model, since pro was so feverently arguing that gay people cannot reproduce, but con seemed to accept this premise (maybe adoption or something as a mechanism?) Instead con's response was exactly two sentences, which was basically "prove that states should care". As a judge this was bleedingly self-evident, as unlike all the other philosophical points in the debate so far, this one of all points seemed like the sort of thing a state should care about, even under con's own model of the role of the state! What undermined this, however, was that pro themselves dropped it! Instead they spent most of the third round repeated, verbatim, their case from the first round. Nonetheless it was enough for me to give this point, very narrowly, to the aff.

    In the end, family issues prevented the debate seeing its conclusion. For me as a judge, I'm left feeling like this was a learning debate, full of missed opportunities, lots of irrelevant fluff, strategic misdirection, distraction, and really, really bad structure. On the plus side it was detailed - there was great analysis offered at times by both sides.

    In the end, religion and totalitarianism was the more significant argument. And neg won it. Therefore the neg wins this debate. But pro had a lot of chances. I thought aff won the argument about the social harms. A disastrous third round, the late introduction of the actual harms, a focus in the first round on this weird taxation argument, and probably also aff's early retirement from the debate, all contributed to that in some way.

    Feedback:
    I feel like nobody understood this debate well. A lot of this was argued in an abstract space, and I felt like dragging both of you down to earth on occasion. What does this mean for the average gay person? What does it mean for church goers? Etc. Not as in "Their freedom of speech..." but as in, how this actually plays out in society.

    Structure might have helped with this and this was a weakness in the debate. I feel like too much of, esp the rebuttal, was insufficiently thematic. Con did a better job of it than pro but even so, I don't think con really integrated a single bit of rebuttal smoothly. My notes ended up all over the place.

    As a final bit of advice, if you can tell a point will not be in your final summary, don't even bother to argue it. It's not worth your time. Focus on the key points of the debate, and win them. Never drop a key line.

    Otherwise, good debate :)
    1 user rated this judgement as good
    2 users rated this judgement as exceptional
    2 users rated this judgement as constructive
    1 comment on this judgement
    adminadmin
    Further to this - I think if pro had outright made their principle about "free religion" rather than "totalitarianism", the debate may have played out quite differently as well.
    Posted 2016-05-07 18:52:19

    Rules of the debate

    • Text debate
    • Individual debate
    • 4 rounds
    • No length restrictions
    • Reply speeches
    • Uses cross-examination
    • Community Judging Standard (notes)
    • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
    • Images allowed
    • HTML formatting allowed
    • Rated debate
    • Time to post: 2 days
    • Time to vote: 2 weeks
    • Time to prepare: 3 hours