Governments should legally recognize same-sex marriage
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
(1) I'm Pro; my opponent is Con.
(2) Burden of proof is shared.
(3) No new arguments in the final round.
(4) Character limited to 10,000 characters per speech (i.e. Pro gets 10,000 characters in Pro's R1, Con gets 10,000 characters in Con's R1, and so on) -- anything above 10,000 characters should not be considered by judges; if a speech exceeds 10,100 characters, it is an auto-loss for the debater whose speech exceeded that amount. Characters include spaces.
(5) Judges should award a tie on "sources," "conduct," and "spelling and grammar" points.
(6) For judges, DDO standards for "select winner" judging apply and RFDs are required for all votes. The standards are accessible here (http://www.debate.org/forums/Debate.org/topic/68208/).
(7) This debate does not take place in any particular country; however, neither debater is required to argue for or against this policy in extreme circumstances. I expect this debate to be a reasonable debate rather than one where the semantics of this topic are exploited (e.g. Con can't make an argument that says "Pro's plan would be harmful in North Korea").
(8) Con's advocacy has to be that opposite-sex marriage is permitted while same-sex marriage is not, while I'll argue that same-sex marriage should be permitted. In other words, both Pro and Con assume that opposite-sex marriage should be permitted; Con has to explain why same-sex marriage, and same-sex marriage alone, should be illegal, while I have to argue for marriage equality.
(9) Pre-fiat kritiks, theory shells, and "tight calls" are not allowed.
 Youd Sinh Chao, Intercultural Communication, p. 184
A couple of years ago, Elon University decided that it had enough with the sexual violence that was taking place on college campuses all around and was going to take a fierce stance against it; this University determined that it needed to do what it could to put it stop to sexual violence and sexism against women. So what courageous course of action did the University take? It banned the use of the term freshman on its campus. Freshman is, after all, an inherently sexist term and clearly one that "has often been felt to refer to the vulnerableness of young women in college for the first time."
Elon University isn't alone in its courageous campaign to rid the word of vile and harmful language. Last year the British Medical Association did just that by informing it members "not to call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ because it might offend transgender people; by ridding the UK of the inherent evils of the term expectant mothers, they are "celebrating diversity."
Of course, there has been no greater vigilant effort in the battle against vile and harmful language than the efforts divined by edX corporation. EdX is online course corporation that has recently started a program titled "Teaching Social Justice Through Secondary Mathematics." This program is premised on the notion that “For centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool,” and “mathematics formulae also differentiate between the classifications of a war or a genocide and have even been used to trick indigenous people out of land and property.”
I could go on and on and on with such stories, but anyone with access to google can see that the examples I've provided are but the tip of iceberg for what appears to be an increasingly growing movement. A movement summarized in two meager words: Political Correctness.
Political Correctness is "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against." And whether or not that be the honest intentions of those who urge political correctness, the examples I've provided and many others would serve to indicate the well known adage that the path to hell is paved with good intentions and that the path of political correctness is frankly not one any healthy society should tread upon.
Now naturally, you might be wondering why in the world I am talking about political correctness in a debate about the legalization of gay marriage? Simple. Because that is precisely what PRO's case is. Political correctness dressed up and disguised in honey-laced terms such as justice and equality.
But as I endeavor to prove today, his case has nothing to do with these concepts, which is best illustrated by his R1 desire to restrict any debate about civil unions. Little wonder that as most of PRO’s case is broken down into denial of benefits (all of which can be addressed without saying a word about gay marriage).
Make no mistake: Two loving people should not be denied the means to be together. But as I will show today, the government’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with whether two loving people want to be together and never has. Rather, marriage is a different beast entirely and should be left alone both for its historical value as well as to slay the demon that is political correctness. A position that everybody, be they black, white, gay, straight, transgender or otherwise, should stand behind!
[ Definitions ]
PRO has defined marriage as being “the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.” I reject this definition because it is an effort to avoid the heart of the issue in that PRO is trying to argue in favor of the change of a concept that had persistently been interpreted differently throughout human history and across countless civilizations. And for all those civilizations, marriage was readily understood to be the union between a man and a woman.
Was this understanding a result of hate and bigotry as PRO might have us believe? Was it the result of some discriminatory political movement or some hate mongering religious groups? Of course not. Marriage arose “in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.”
Marriage is rooted in procreation. And not just in providing incentives for the continued survival of our species, but also so that deadbeat dads don’t run around sleeping with women left and right and spawning legions of bastard children whose societal involvement (be it through welfare or the criminal justice system) will inevitably serve to greater expand the ever expanding government dole. Political Correctness demand that we steer clear of this ugly truth, but that is what the government’s interest in marriage boils down to!
A problem which gays and lesbians couples should not be treated merely like their heterosexual counterparts, but should instead be given benefits each year for not contributing to! I say gays and lesbians should be handsomely awarded benefits for their impeccable decision to live a lifestyle that has zero risk of burdening the rest of society!
[Contention 1: Gay Marriage is Required By Justice]
First, PRO tells us that gay people would be denied health and financials benefits without gay marriage. False. See above. Any argument about benefits can be tossed out the window.
Second, PRO tells us that traditional marriage is discrimination and whatnot. False. Marriage has a unique function tailored to fixing a problem gays and lesbians don’t cause. Government has no interest whatsoever PRO’s romanticized notions of marriage and gays and lesbians certainly don’t need to make themselves willing participants in the harsh financial slavery that is divorce litigation, alimony and child support, much less the math hating insanity that is political correctness. Instead, we as a society should (1) Acknowledge that two people who love each other can be together just fine, (2) One doesn’t need daddy government’s acknowledgment or approval for said love to transpire and (3) Political Correctness must be rejected across the board for the good of society.
[Contention 2: Gay Marriage benefits gay and bisexual individuals]
PRO uses a study to argue that people in traditional marriage states suffer mentally. This study should be dismissed on the grounds of it being faulty logic to make such assessments in regards to heavily politicized issues. Reductio ad Absurdum: PRO’s study was taken at a time when its polling participants would be frustrated with Bush II’s back to back victories, but research conducted during and after Bush II’s second victory indicates that being a Republican is better for your mental health than being a Democrat. ).
PRO then provides studies to make the point that marriage encourages stability and that gays would be better off due to some notions of “poor health outcomes” and “mortality.” PRO’s argument fails to take into account the fact that gays are generally more open minded about non-monogamous relationships (with there even being indication that gays are actually happier with the freedom to have different partners) and are thus able to adjust better than their heterosexual counterparts. Further, going by PRO’s logic, one can just as easily argue that the unfair “stigma” against non-monogamous relationships can be attributed to the results provided in his studies and lack of stigmatization would surely improve non-monogamous relationships.
PRO then goes on to say that the bans on gay marriage encourage stigmatization against gays. False. Hysterical notions about people “being denied the right to be together” pushed by people on both sides of the aisle has done that. People who are legitimately homophobic should be opposed without question and efforts to make society more unified should always be encouraged, but the fact of the matter is that gay and straight couples are not the same and that marriage is a tool designed to solve a problem only the latter is capable of causing.
[Contention 3: Gay marriage improves the wellbeing of children]
PRO says gay marriage increases the rate of adoption, but provides no evidence of this. A NY Times article saying “The AP reports adoption agencies and lawyers are planning for an adoption increase once the new law takes effect on July 24” is not evidence of an increase, but is rather a premise that presumes it conclusion is true (begging the question). New York already had a positive upward trend for gay adoptions since 2009, according to PRO’s own article, indicating instead that greater social acceptance of gay people is the cause as opposed to daddy government rubber stamping a new law after the fact.
Lastly, PRO tells us that children with gay parents are more accepted with gay marriage legalized. He offers some anecdotal evidence (cite 23), inadvertently raises the issue as to why certain benefits should not be accessible to productive child rearing couples regardless of marriage or sexual preference (cite 24) (no child, be their parents straight, gay, unmarried or whatever should have to suffer just because their parents decisions) and makes the deadly mistake of citing a study that discusses the need for children to have positive father and motherly role models in their households (cite 25).
 See above.
 See above.
 See above.
 https://tinyurl.com/gquwvbl (Roberts Dissent).
(2) PRO tries to dance around the fact of alimony being a harsh financial slavery by simply declaring that “marriage allows significant financial benefits.” There’s nothing significantly beneficial about you having to pay someone $1500/month for the rest of their life because some guy in black robes didn’t like the fact that you arrived to court five minutes late, much less being thrown in jail for six months because said judge decides to hold you in contempt of court when you miss payment! In my society where gay people are encouraged to be themselves, the last thing I want is to subject them to the kind of insanity PRO appears to be trumpeting!
(3) Realizing that his benefits argument is dead, PRO tries to accuse me of promoting “discrimination based on sexual orientation”, but this is absurd for two reasons: (1) PRO’s relying on a US legal standard that is overcome when the government has a “compelling interest narrowly tailored by the law to achieve that interest.” There’s no interest more compelling and narrowly tailored than incentivizing gays to be true to themselves and thus limit overpopulation, decrease the ever expanding government dole by limiting the number of newly bastard children predating the streets and simultaneously greatly reducing the crime rate. (2) Strawman fallacy since I’m promoting benefits in exchange for behavior (being true to oneself) as opposed to characteristics. Gays could just as easily exchange in nonsense like “gay conversion therapy” or “stay in the closet” and live a lie by pretending to be heterosexual and consequently be denied benefits.
[Re: Protecting the health of LGBT people]
All I ask is that gays stand strong , gays be proud of themselves and that gays reject the lies and deceit of political correctness that PRO’s case is premised upon!
On the one hand, we have PRO’s pathway. A pathway that pretends to be acting on behalf of gay people but is in reality an effort to make them shoulder responsibility for a problem heterosexuals cause and shackle gays to the chains of financial slavery that PRO has been reduced to advocating the need to reform. PRO’s does this for the sake of the vile demon that is political correctness (hereinafter P.C.).
On the other hand, we have my pathway. A pathway that rewards gays for being the bastions of our society, a pathway that tells gays that they don’t need to blindly conform to a heterosexual institution, a pathway that tells gays to be proud of themselves and a pathway that allows gays and the rest of society to stand triumphant as they slay P.C. once and for all! PRO falsely says these pathways are the same.
By claiming that ‘his case = my case’, he concedes that my case fixes all of the problems he has raised throughout this debate. Even going by PRO’s own logic, a CON vote is mandatory since my plan not only fixes everything in his plan, but destroys P.C., encourages open-mindedness on open relationships and opposes the slavery that is the divorce process -- making my plan objectively better.
PRO says I dropped the overview from his R2, but this notion that “my plan is his plan” has no basis in fact.
=Re: What is the purpose of marriage?=
Marriage is a tool to fix a problem that heterosexuals cause. Marriage is leash and the financial slavery PRO keeps harping on and on about is ample indication of this. THAT is government’s interest in it; to keep heterosexuals from running around left and right and spawning legions of bastard children on society. PRO’s tactic on this point was to try and show that the government had an independent interest in redefining the definition of marriage, but his examples were unpersuasive.
He talked about various economic benefits, but as I showed last round, the government does not hand out benefits for the sake of benefits; there must be an actual policy justification.
He talked about symbolic/emotional benefits, but as I pointed out in R1, government has no interest in PRO’s romanticized notions of marriage. Look no further than the horror stories in my alimony cite to see how much the government prioritizes vague notions of “emotional benefits.” We don’t pay taxes to subsidize people’s “emotional benefits.”
He tried to say that the government had an interest in decreasing the rates of STDs , but as shown in R1/R2, gays are very open-minded when it comes to open relationships and PRO conceded that the STDs were a result of the stigma against open relationships (thereby conceding my plan’s superiority). In R3, he tries to requote what he said in R2, but my response in R2 is more than sufficient.
He says I failed to prove “that marriage was a specific incentive against irresponsible procreation”, but look back to my R1 cite 8 and the sources cited within to see why this is false. Sources PRO did not contest.
He talked about the economic benefits of weddings, but this was a strawman on his part. In his R3, he tries to equivocate this argument by saying that government redefining the definition of marriage is an incentive to have a wedding in the first place, but PRO is dodging the issue. I’m not saying gays are banned from having weddings, so why is the government redefining marriage a prerequisite for anything PRO is talking about? The only possible answer PRO could offer is something about stigmatization, but we’ve beaten that horse to death extensively and PRO concedes that my plan fixes this problem.
Lastly, disregard PRO’s talk about “harm” as I’ve addressed it ad nauseum (slavery, blind conformity, P.C, etc).
(1) Refer to what I said on “housekeeping.”
(2) First, “my plan = your plan” kills the benefits argument by his own admission. Second, my plan keeps gays from harsh financial slavery while simultaneously giving them benefits. Third, PRO has not once explained to us why the benefits he talks about (i.e. court arbitrarily granting one party alimony and making the other party a permanent indentured servant) are worth the evils of this system. They’re not worth it and gays shouldn’t be made to clean up heterosexual messes just so they can be thanked with slavery. PRO says the system can be reformed, but offers no explanation how And that’s because none exist. Gays should REJECT their own enslavement!
(3) PRO’s says his argument isn’t based on a US legal standard, but it doesn’t matter as we make laws premised on innate characteristics all the time, which is why years of case law has cultivated in the standard I cited in R2. By PRO’s logic, laws permitting college enrollment to encourage racial diversity in their applications (thus combating stigmatization) is “evil” since race is an innate characteristic. PRO doesn’t utter a word about the compelling interest rationale I offer, so consider it a concession on his part.
=Re: Who better upholds the interests of LGBT people? =
(1) PRO repeats himself rather than address my counter-argument to his R1 source’s bad logic, so consider his mental health point refuted by his own tacit admission. Sources 11, 13, 14 can additionally be dismissed due to PRO’s “my plan = your plan” logic.
(2) Again, look back to PRO’s devastating R2 concession that the stigma for open relationships is the source of the STD problem in the first place when he says “stigma against non-monogamous relationships allows for the spread of [STDs]. I agree.” Again ,my plan erases the stigma and thus resolves the problem!
(3) Again, PRO’s points on stigmatization are dead and he knows this! Any plan that heralds gays as the bastions of society destroys stigmatization completely!
= Re: Would legally recognizing same-sex marriages benefit society as a whole? =
PRO tries to undermine his concession to my case when he says that (A) legalizing same-sex marriage doesn’t automatically mean you can’t oppose negative aspects of P.C., (B) I haven’t shown why “taking action to reduce discrimination is bad” and (C) the effects of P.C. are minimal, but these are all new arguments and he waived the issue in R2. I’ll address these points for fun, but PRO concedes.
(A) Strawman. One can support gay marriage and reject certain areas of P.C., but my case is that P.C. is fundamentally bad and that it ALL should be rejected. Math is neither oppressive nor evil and traditional marriage is not an evil institution that stigmatizes gays but is instead an institution designed to fix a heterosexual problem.
(B) False. I’m sure those who are behind the R1 examples I cited believed they were “reducing discrimination”, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
(C) False. The empirically cancerous effects of P.C. are well documented . The three examples I provided in R1 illustrated the problem, which is a tendency to prohibit free-thought for the sake of falsehoods or absurdities.
PRO additionally tells us that his new arguments should be accepted, but there was no “clash” about anything I said throughout my R1 Introduction, hence PRO saying I had no “offense” in his R2. PRO concedes.
He lastly tells us that even if you think he conceded, there’s “very little, unquantified magnitude and under-warranted probability”, but any society that subscribes to the philosophy illustrated in my three R1 examples is not a healthy society to live in. P.C. is an empirically documented evil that must be crushed!
(1) In R1, PRO provided a cite arguing that gay marriage increases adoption rates. In R1 and R2, I demonstrated how the cite PROVED THE OPPOSITE, instead positing the argument that social acceptance increases the rate of adoption. His evidence proved my point and PRO has no response; he merely reiterates what he said in R1. PRO concedes.
(2) Clrl + F “father” or “mother.” Again, the study is premised on the parents being “mothers” and “fathers” and the individual effects they have on the family unit. That PRO continues to push this garbage undermines his case, is a microcosm of the P.C. he is advocating and illustrative of why gays need to turn away from the Faustian bargain he is proposing! Moreover, PRO has continually claimed ‘my case = his case’ and has thus conceded that gay families would not be deprived of the economic benefits he keeps talking about merely because the government won’t redefine the word marriage!
Over the years, the gay community has made great strides in having their thoughts heard and overcoming injustice. However, as the adage goes, with success brings enemies. And there is no greater enemy than the enemy that lies within! In this case, the saboteur! And for the gay community, that saboteur is political correctness. A saboteur that seeks to mislead the LGBT movement with sweet lies like what we’ve seen expressed from PRO’s case. Lies which have been exposed as an effort to make you blindly conform to a system that will not hesitate to enslave those who partake in it! Lies which have been exposed to discourage your open-mindedness and your sense of adventure. And lies which seek to undermine just how instrumental you are to society!
There is nothing wrong with being different! Be the bastions to our society! Be the inspiration for open-mindedness! And be the slayer of the demon that is political correctness! BE WHO YOU ARE AND YOU GO FAR! VOTE CON!!!