Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Davka · 12-10-2011, 12:45 PM

Given: Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the USA

Arguing for: Kohai
Arguing against: Achwienichtig

This is to be an open-ended debate, with a maximum of 1000 words per statement, and a maximum one-week break between statement. Opening statements shall be written concurrently.

The Peanut Gallery can be found here.

Achwienichtig · 12-14-2011, 10:19 AM

It is, as always, a great pleasure to once again defend a position I disagree with. That position is the “traditional” stance that marriage is constricted to those relationships between one man and one woman. So that I am not mistaken for a fundamentalist homophobe, allow me to take some time at the beginning of this debate to clarify my actual position, or lack thereof, on this topic.

I grew up in a religious family where the traditional idea of marriage wasn’t so much pounded into my head as it was simply taken for granted. I carried my beliefs with me into college, but as my education in philosophy gradually developed, I began not so much to question my beliefs as to contrive new logical formulas to defend them. In terms of the issue of homosexuality, I had never been completely satisfied with the traditional defenses of the one-man-one-woman concept. I sought new ways to defending this traditional position, and the method I developed was as follows.

I began to use a radical liberal critique of marriage itself as a point for undermining the liberal push towards gay marriage. Working under the assumption that liberalism involved both a critique of sexual values and a push towards revaluation, I attempted to pit liberalism against itself, arguing that liberalism, as a deconstructive force in social norms, was not capable of reconstructing similar norms that were not themselves subject to the same rules of deconstruction. I shall reserve my actual argument for later in the debate. For now I am telling a story.

I ended up submitting a paper to my college’s annual philosophy conference on this topic. I had managed somehow to write with enough subtlety so that both my mom (a strict conservative) and a radical feminist I met at the conference both somehow agreed with me. I won an award for that paper too. However, I came to realize that my method, originally constructed to defend a conservative view, was equally able to stand on its own within an entirely liberal framework. I had argued that a genuinely liberal push towards gay marriage undermined itself, however, this was only possible to do if the liberal viewpoint undermined the conservative notion of traditional marriage as well.

Not only in the course of my reasoning had I asserted that the liberal viewpoint contradicted itself, but I also found myself arguing that the liberal contradiction was a reality being lived out and ignored, that it needed to be taken serious because it was real. It was happening. However, this reification also indicated to me that the liberal critique of the tradition of marriage was also, in fact, a real happening.

Unable to come up with an argument for traditional marriage that stood on its own feet, I was stymied. We are living in a contradiction when it comes to marriage. This I took for granted. But if I cannot come up with a solid argument for sticking to traditional marriage, then I have no argument for resolving the contradiction in my favor. What I perceived as a contradiction in the liberal point of view turned out to simply be a contradiction in the general subject matter, one which would exist within any point of view, simply because it existed in reality.

Where does all this lead? Well, it simply means that my philosophical investigations at the moment have led me to a state of indifference. I have little to argue for either position, since both seem to lack the sort of substance I am looking for. On the other hand, the substance I am looking for doesn’t exist anywhere. I became, as it were, for gay marriage by default, not because I consider it a great injustice that gays can’t be married—I don’t believe marriage can bestow justice—but because I came to realize, “You know, gays probably just want to have a normal life like everybody else.”

Having explained my general progression of philosophical thought, I must now mention that I have found myself adopting different mores in my own life. My wife and I lived together before marriage. God forbid, she was even pregnant before we were married!

At this point in our lives, my mom had the courtesy of speaking on God’s behalf and letting us know that we and our son in utero were all going to hell unless we repented. I told my mom off.

Since that time, I have been of two minds. On the one hand, being a non-believer and a practitioner of the secular lifestyle, I have become more open to alternative lifestyles in general, including the gay lifestyle. On the other hand, after having witnessed the birth of my son, I have become more a naturalist, for lack of a better term. I can have sex with my partner and a baby can result from it. Gays can’t do that. They can find other ways of having children, but they can’t do that. A part of me wants to retain this linguistic difference between gay and straight to reflect this very plain and simple fact. On the other hand, along with this also comes a desire to abolish traditional marriage. A man and a woman can make babies with or without being married, and this natural relationship of family is surely superior to the artificial constructs of marriage.

So that’s where I stand today.

In the coming weeks of this debate, I shall be presenting arguments consistent with my view and some not so much consistent with my view. I shall be playing devil’s advocate on some accounts, but I also have my own insights derived from my own position in life. Which ones I largely use will depend on the types of arguments Kohai employs. I will be taking up the position that gay marriage should not be legal, and I shall employ arguments in defense of this view, whether I agree with them or not. Kohai goes first.

DoubtingDave · 12-17-2011, 09:50 AM

This opening argument was used from a similar debate done on debate.org

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and hope it will be engaging for the two of us. I will be making a case for gay marriage and ask that you read my argument with an open mind.

Contention 1: The Harm Principle

Same-sex marriage is no more capable of harming anyone than heterosexual marriage. Consider the people that we do allow to marry: Pimps, drug dealers, arsonists, felons of all kinds, known pedophiles, and many more people who have committed terrible crimes are free to marry and do so on a daily basis [1]. Indeed, it is reduction ad absurdum to say that we are preventing gay marriage to avoid harming society. In fact, gay marriage bans harm those of in a homosexual union. It is estimated that there are at least 1,049 legal rights that are denied to homosexual partners [2].

Contention 2: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment requires that “[no State shall] deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [3] Bans on SSM are in violation of this Equal Protection Clause for at least three reasons: (1) They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice; (2) They single out and harm a suspect class by preventing them from marrying; (3) There are over 1,000 rights they are denied simply because they cannot marry. [See source 2]

Indeed, gay marriage bans are unjust because they discriminate against gay couples by preventing them from forming legal valid marriages. This is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Contention 3: Legalization of gay marriage benefits society

If gay marriage were to be legal, then all would benefit. Undoubtedly there are many people who feel that gay marriage does not benefit society, when in fact, the exact opposite is true.

Contention 3.1: Economics

Alongside the better treatment of homosexual counterparts, there is a betterment of the economic status of society as a whole, meaning that legalization of SSM would be beneficial to the community.

It has been estimated that there would be an immediate revenue gain of about $17 billion if gay marriage would be made legal nationally. According to Market Watch “one thing is abundantly clear: legalization of gay marriage would mean a windfall for the wedding industry.” (Keep in mind that wedding industry are about a $70 billion/year business)! [4]

Contention 3.2: Children

Currently, there is an estimate of 16.2 million double-orphans in the world today [5]. Rather than providing these children with the opportunity to be in loving homes, adoption agencies are continually denying a stable home to the child simply because the potential parents are gay.

Gay parents are equally able to raise children as their straight counterparts. Dr. Ellen Perrin says, “The vast consensus of all the studies show that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way—in some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures—they did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychological difficulties in home and at school [6].”

Another study done by the USC sociologists say children with gay parents show more empathy for social diversity and are less confined by stereotypes. This study indicates that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationship or on the medical health of the children. [7]

Let’s recap:

Same-sex marriage does not harm anyone;
Same-sex marriage bans violate the equal protection clause;
Legalization of gay marriage benefits society economically; and
Gay people are just as able to raise children as their straight counterparts, thus being able to provide a home for orphans and the needy.

Thank you!

DoubtingDave · 12-17-2011, 01:57 PM

Bibliography: http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Ma...d-be-Legal/17/

Achwienichtig · 01-06-2012, 11:47 AM

I have decided to address Kohai’s points one at a time to make sure each gets the depth it requires. The first point is that of the harm principle, and that is what I shall concentrate on in this post.

There are two particular issues I shall address. The issue of the current state of marriage must first be investigated. As Kohai pointed out, it seems ridiculous to say that gay marriage should be illegal because it causes harm when we have murders, pimps, pedophiles and other dangerous individuals getting married legally. Isn’t this a double standard?

I can understand Kohai’s point. I personally have a friend who supports gay marriage, despite the fact that he thinks it’s wrong, simply because, in more or less his words, a couple more fake marriages won’t cause any more harm than all the current fake marriages.

However, there is an important distinction to be made here. Allowing a murderer to marry is in no way showing approval for murder, whereas allowing a gay to marry is, in essence, showing approval for gay relationships. I don’t think anybody would say that a pro-death-penalty conservative is showing favor to a death row inmate by allowing him to marry. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a certain parity to a worldview that takes marriage away from gays and life away from murderers. If married drug dealers harm society, taking away their drugs would surely solve the problem just as well as taking away their marriage. For this reason, I don’t think one can properly argue for gay marriage on account of criminal’s marrying.

The argument that gay marriage harms society, I believe, can be taken on its own terms. Either it does or it doesn’t. If it does, then that is reason to hinder its implementation, regardless of other issues.

On this topic, I am afraid I am not read up on the most current incriminating evidence of the evils of gay marriage, for there is surely some out there whether real or made up. I shall simply have to use popular psychology.

It is commonly held that part of the advantage of a nuclear family is the prospect of growing up in an environment where a child has an example of both a male and female figure. The complimentarity of the sexes allows for a well rounded growth in the child’s personality. Notice, I am not merely saying that a boy must have a man to look up to, or that a girl needs a woman to look up to. I believe in minimal gender roles, but even without such roles, a child will be exposed to more personality traits in an environment with a mom and dad than in one with just a mom or a dad.

I suppose the question I am posing is, does one find a similar mixture of personality traits among gay couples? Will a child raised by such a couple be sufficiently well rounded. It would be nice of Kohai to present evidence that there is a sufficient diversity within the gay community. As it is, the stereotypical gay loves fashion, lives in an eccentric house, dances with his ballsack hanging out in the local gay pride parade, and speaks with a lisp. Unfortunately, these stereotypes are not only propagated by the right, but are also advanced in mainstream television shows (Project Runway and Queer Eye come to mind).

This is not so much an argument for my own position as much as it is a challenge for the other side. This is not an argument I stand by, but I am interested in hear Kohai’s response.

The second issue is Kohai’s contention that gays are denied the rights associated with marriage. My response is, if there are rights which married people get that single people don’t, then there is obviously a much larger base of people who are being denied their rights than just gays, namely, all single people.

I read an article back when the healthcare bill was passed about a woman who hoped she could finally get divorced. She was trapped in a marriage due to the fact that the only way she could get health insurance to cover her medical conditions was through her husband. She and her husband agreed to stay together for this reason alone.

The problem is quite obvious. A right that all people should have has been given only to married people. If the law should not discriminate, then surely it should not discriminate based on marital status. Healthcare is only one issue. (We shall have to wait to see if the current healthcare overhaul fixes this.) But how many other issues are there like this? How about spousal privileges in court? How about visitation laws? Every single of those 1049 rights denied to gays is at issue.

If these laws discriminate, they surely do so against all unmarried people, not just gays. Allowing gays to marry does not fix the injustice. It only fixes the injustice for gays, and among them it only fixes the injustice for those that want and have the opportunity to marry.

The Onion once posted a parody of gay rights politics with a video highlighting the right of people to live in loveless marriages. Now I see the wisdom in that video. If marriage is about love, are we going to say that people who have never found love are not entitled to certain rights? Are we to tell people they should enter into marriage unhappily in order to secure those rights? That is what society has told gays for centuries, that they must be in an unhappy heterosexual relationship to secure those rights. Well, is the gay community to say the same to, for instance, ugly people?

What is needed is justice across the board, which means the same rights for all, married and unmarried.

Davka · 02-12-2012, 01:18 PM

Debate has concluded. Discussion in the Peanut Gallery is now permitted for the debate participants.

12-10-2011, 12:45 PM	#1
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	Kohai v Achwienichtig: Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the USA Given: Same-Sex Marriage Should be Legal in the USA Arguing for: Kohai Arguing against: Achwienichtig This is to be an open-ended debate, with a maximum of 1000 words per statement, and a maximum one-week break between statement. Opening statements shall be written concurrently. The Peanut Gallery can be found here.

12-14-2011, 10:19 AM	#2
Achwienichtig Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Albany NY Posts: 2,308	Con #1 It is, as always, a great pleasure to once again defend a position I disagree with. That position is the “traditional” stance that marriage is constricted to those relationships between one man and one woman. So that I am not mistaken for a fundamentalist homophobe, allow me to take some time at the beginning of this debate to clarify my actual position, or lack thereof, on this topic. I grew up in a religious family where the traditional idea of marriage wasn’t so much pounded into my head as it was simply taken for granted. I carried my beliefs with me into college, but as my education in philosophy gradually developed, I began not so much to question my beliefs as to contrive new logical formulas to defend them. In terms of the issue of homosexuality, I had never been completely satisfied with the traditional defenses of the one-man-one-woman concept. I sought new ways to defending this traditional position, and the method I developed was as follows. I began to use a radical liberal critique of marriage itself as a point for undermining the liberal push towards gay marriage. Working under the assumption that liberalism involved both a critique of sexual values and a push towards revaluation, I attempted to pit liberalism against itself, arguing that liberalism, as a deconstructive force in social norms, was not capable of reconstructing similar norms that were not themselves subject to the same rules of deconstruction. I shall reserve my actual argument for later in the debate. For now I am telling a story. I ended up submitting a paper to my college’s annual philosophy conference on this topic. I had managed somehow to write with enough subtlety so that both my mom (a strict conservative) and a radical feminist I met at the conference both somehow agreed with me. I won an award for that paper too. However, I came to realize that my method, originally constructed to defend a conservative view, was equally able to stand on its own within an entirely liberal framework. I had argued that a genuinely liberal push towards gay marriage undermined itself, however, this was only possible to do if the liberal viewpoint undermined the conservative notion of traditional marriage as well. Not only in the course of my reasoning had I asserted that the liberal viewpoint contradicted itself, but I also found myself arguing that the liberal contradiction was a reality being lived out and ignored, that it needed to be taken serious because it was real. It was happening. However, this reification also indicated to me that the liberal critique of the tradition of marriage was also, in fact, a real happening. Unable to come up with an argument for traditional marriage that stood on its own feet, I was stymied. We are living in a contradiction when it comes to marriage. This I took for granted. But if I cannot come up with a solid argument for sticking to traditional marriage, then I have no argument for resolving the contradiction in my favor. What I perceived as a contradiction in the liberal point of view turned out to simply be a contradiction in the general subject matter, one which would exist within any point of view, simply because it existed in reality. Where does all this lead? Well, it simply means that my philosophical investigations at the moment have led me to a state of indifference. I have little to argue for either position, since both seem to lack the sort of substance I am looking for. On the other hand, the substance I am looking for doesn’t exist anywhere. I became, as it were, for gay marriage by default, not because I consider it a great injustice that gays can’t be married—I don’t believe marriage can bestow justice—but because I came to realize, “You know, gays probably just want to have a normal life like everybody else.” Having explained my general progression of philosophical thought, I must now mention that I have found myself adopting different mores in my own life. My wife and I lived together before marriage. God forbid, she was even pregnant before we were married! At this point in our lives, my mom had the courtesy of speaking on God’s behalf and letting us know that we and our son in utero were all going to hell unless we repented. I told my mom off. Since that time, I have been of two minds. On the one hand, being a non-believer and a practitioner of the secular lifestyle, I have become more open to alternative lifestyles in general, including the gay lifestyle. On the other hand, after having witnessed the birth of my son, I have become more a naturalist, for lack of a better term. I can have sex with my partner and a baby can result from it. Gays can’t do that. They can find other ways of having children, but they can’t do that. A part of me wants to retain this linguistic difference between gay and straight to reflect this very plain and simple fact. On the other hand, along with this also comes a desire to abolish traditional marriage. A man and a woman can make babies with or without being married, and this natural relationship of family is surely superior to the artificial constructs of marriage. So that’s where I stand today. In the coming weeks of this debate, I shall be presenting arguments consistent with my view and some not so much consistent with my view. I shall be playing devil’s advocate on some accounts, but I also have my own insights derived from my own position in life. Which ones I largely use will depend on the types of arguments Kohai employs. I will be taking up the position that gay marriage should not be legal, and I shall employ arguments in defense of this view, whether I agree with them or not. Kohai goes first.

12-17-2011, 09:50 AM	#3
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Opening Arguments This opening argument was used from a similar debate done on debate.org I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and hope it will be engaging for the two of us. I will be making a case for gay marriage and ask that you read my argument with an open mind. Contention 1: The Harm Principle Same-sex marriage is no more capable of harming anyone than heterosexual marriage. Consider the people that we do allow to marry: Pimps, drug dealers, arsonists, felons of all kinds, known pedophiles, and many more people who have committed terrible crimes are free to marry and do so on a daily basis [1]. Indeed, it is reduction ad absurdum to say that we are preventing gay marriage to avoid harming society. In fact, gay marriage bans harm those of in a homosexual union. It is estimated that there are at least 1,049 legal rights that are denied to homosexual partners [2]. Contention 2: Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment requires that “[no State shall] deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [3] Bans on SSM are in violation of this Equal Protection Clause for at least three reasons: (1) They deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice; (2) They single out and harm a suspect class by preventing them from marrying; (3) There are over 1,000 rights they are denied simply because they cannot marry. [See source 2] Indeed, gay marriage bans are unjust because they discriminate against gay couples by preventing them from forming legal valid marriages. This is a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Contention 3: Legalization of gay marriage benefits society If gay marriage were to be legal, then all would benefit. Undoubtedly there are many people who feel that gay marriage does not benefit society, when in fact, the exact opposite is true. Contention 3.1: Economics Alongside the better treatment of homosexual counterparts, there is a betterment of the economic status of society as a whole, meaning that legalization of SSM would be beneficial to the community. It has been estimated that there would be an immediate revenue gain of about $17 billion if gay marriage would be made legal nationally. According to Market Watch “one thing is abundantly clear: legalization of gay marriage would mean a windfall for the wedding industry.” (Keep in mind that wedding industry are about a $70 billion/year business)! [4] Contention 3.2: Children Currently, there is an estimate of 16.2 million double-orphans in the world today [5]. Rather than providing these children with the opportunity to be in loving homes, adoption agencies are continually denying a stable home to the child simply because the potential parents are gay. Gay parents are equally able to raise children as their straight counterparts. Dr. Ellen Perrin says, “The vast consensus of all the studies show that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way—in some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures—they did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychological difficulties in home and at school [6].” Another study done by the USC sociologists say children with gay parents show more empathy for social diversity and are less confined by stereotypes. This study indicates that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationship or on the medical health of the children. [7] Let’s recap: Same-sex marriage does not harm anyone; Same-sex marriage bans violate the equal protection clause; Legalization of gay marriage benefits society economically; and Gay people are just as able to raise children as their straight counterparts, thus being able to provide a home for orphans and the needy. Thank you!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-17-2011, 01:57 PM	#4
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Bibliography: http://www.debate.org/debates/Gay-Ma...d-be-Legal/17/

01-06-2012, 11:47 AM	#5
Achwienichtig Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Albany NY Posts: 2,308	I have decided to address Kohai’s points one at a time to make sure each gets the depth it requires. The first point is that of the harm principle, and that is what I shall concentrate on in this post. There are two particular issues I shall address. The issue of the current state of marriage must first be investigated. As Kohai pointed out, it seems ridiculous to say that gay marriage should be illegal because it causes harm when we have murders, pimps, pedophiles and other dangerous individuals getting married legally. Isn’t this a double standard? I can understand Kohai’s point. I personally have a friend who supports gay marriage, despite the fact that he thinks it’s wrong, simply because, in more or less his words, a couple more fake marriages won’t cause any more harm than all the current fake marriages. However, there is an important distinction to be made here. Allowing a murderer to marry is in no way showing approval for murder, whereas allowing a gay to marry is, in essence, showing approval for gay relationships. I don’t think anybody would say that a pro-death-penalty conservative is showing favor to a death row inmate by allowing him to marry. Whether you agree with it or not, there is a certain parity to a worldview that takes marriage away from gays and life away from murderers. If married drug dealers harm society, taking away their drugs would surely solve the problem just as well as taking away their marriage. For this reason, I don’t think one can properly argue for gay marriage on account of criminal’s marrying. The argument that gay marriage harms society, I believe, can be taken on its own terms. Either it does or it doesn’t. If it does, then that is reason to hinder its implementation, regardless of other issues. On this topic, I am afraid I am not read up on the most current incriminating evidence of the evils of gay marriage, for there is surely some out there whether real or made up. I shall simply have to use popular psychology. It is commonly held that part of the advantage of a nuclear family is the prospect of growing up in an environment where a child has an example of both a male and female figure. The complimentarity of the sexes allows for a well rounded growth in the child’s personality. Notice, I am not merely saying that a boy must have a man to look up to, or that a girl needs a woman to look up to. I believe in minimal gender roles, but even without such roles, a child will be exposed to more personality traits in an environment with a mom and dad than in one with just a mom or a dad. I suppose the question I am posing is, does one find a similar mixture of personality traits among gay couples? Will a child raised by such a couple be sufficiently well rounded. It would be nice of Kohai to present evidence that there is a sufficient diversity within the gay community. As it is, the stereotypical gay loves fashion, lives in an eccentric house, dances with his ballsack hanging out in the local gay pride parade, and speaks with a lisp. Unfortunately, these stereotypes are not only propagated by the right, but are also advanced in mainstream television shows (Project Runway and Queer Eye come to mind). This is not so much an argument for my own position as much as it is a challenge for the other side. This is not an argument I stand by, but I am interested in hear Kohai’s response. The second issue is Kohai’s contention that gays are denied the rights associated with marriage. My response is, if there are rights which married people get that single people don’t, then there is obviously a much larger base of people who are being denied their rights than just gays, namely, all single people. I read an article back when the healthcare bill was passed about a woman who hoped she could finally get divorced. She was trapped in a marriage due to the fact that the only way she could get health insurance to cover her medical conditions was through her husband. She and her husband agreed to stay together for this reason alone. The problem is quite obvious. A right that all people should have has been given only to married people. If the law should not discriminate, then surely it should not discriminate based on marital status. Healthcare is only one issue. (We shall have to wait to see if the current healthcare overhaul fixes this.) But how many other issues are there like this? How about spousal privileges in court? How about visitation laws? Every single of those 1049 rights denied to gays is at issue. If these laws discriminate, they surely do so against all unmarried people, not just gays. Allowing gays to marry does not fix the injustice. It only fixes the injustice for gays, and among them it only fixes the injustice for those that want and have the opportunity to marry. The Onion once posted a parody of gay rights politics with a video highlighting the right of people to live in loveless marriages. Now I see the wisdom in that video. If marriage is about love, are we going to say that people who have never found love are not entitled to certain rights? Are we to tell people they should enter into marriage unhappily in order to secure those rights? That is what society has told gays for centuries, that they must be in an unhappy heterosexual relationship to secure those rights. Well, is the gay community to say the same to, for instance, ugly people? What is needed is justice across the board, which means the same rights for all, married and unmarried.

02-12-2012, 01:18 PM	#6
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	Debate has concluded. Discussion in the Peanut Gallery is now permitted for the debate participants.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.