Marriage Equality

I appreciate those who stuck it out with us until the end. It's been a fun debate, and I'm hopeful the DDO community will look at the arguments set forth and consider the merits to each of them. Without further ado, let's go right down the list. Conduct The structure of the debate set up in round one was clear: dropped/conceded arguments are conceded for the debate. Con broke this rule by bringing up the "chain reaction" argument in round four after dropping it in round three. He tried to get around the issue by saying he ran out of space, but in all fairness, both debaters were stuck to 8,000 characters and running out of space isn't a reason for failing to answer an argument. As the rules stated, this is conduct for Pro and the argument shouldn't be evaluated. Spelling/Grammar Back in round two I made the mistake "we wouldn't have establish" instead of "established." However, Con has several spelling and grammatical errors throughout each of his rounds. I believe it's fair to say Pro wins spelling/grammar. Sources Con gave a few sources, but none of them added substance to the debate. ushistory is just a link to the Declaration of Independence. balancedpolitics only gives an unwarranted template of the "pros" and "cons" to "gay marriage." gaymarriage.procon does the same as the last link, but cites a few outside links. The other two sources were an online dictionary and a link to the homepage of a religious site(?). In round four, he relists the balancedpolitics webpage and the wikipedia article on same-sex marriage. As Pro, I've listed several credible sources (aside from the images that I couldn't resist throwing in there), including the American Psychological Association's research on sexual orientation. Three independent sources report how sexual orientation is a mixture between nature and nurture. Con demanded I prove my point, well, I kind of did in round two, but he failed to argue it, so I assumed it was conceded. I cited the Human Rights Campaign and used specific economic burdens placed on homosexual couples. On top of that, I linked my response to language being fluid to an essay by Peter Kahrel, edited in Oxford University. With several credible sources, I believe sources rightfully go to Pro. Arguments Framework: This debate is heavily centered on the role of the Federal Government. Contrary to what Con claims, I haven’t been shifting the goalposts at all. When I presented the framework, which is to determine the role of the Federal Government, I made the debate clean by saying, “Con needs to win X, and Pro needs to win Y.” Con committed himself to the majoritarian mindset, where the majority decides everything and the government acts on the will of the majority. Throughout this debate, it’s become clear the government does not uphold majoritarian ideals. I listed several historical examples where majoritarian interests were rejected in favor of individual morals (suffrage, slavery, workers’ rights, etc.). The only “secured” blessing in the Constitution is liberty. All others are “promoted”, “provided”, or “insured”. But, liberty is “secured”. It shouldn’t be taken away. While the constitution doesn’t explicitly talk about marriage equality, it lays the framework for evaluating various issues, which is the entire point of making the resolution around a constitutional amendment. Con hasn’t met the BoR to show the majority has anything to say about individual rights. His rhetoric doesn’t hold weight against empirical examples. Con may claim the consequences outweigh the framework next round. But, Con has mistaken individual consequences with societal consequences. Marriage equality does not infringe on the liberties of others, and therefore should be supported by the Federal Government. Impacts: Here is where the consequences come into play. Throughout the debate, I’ve repeated several times there are 1,138 individual economic benefits granted to married couples, which are necessarily denied to homosexual couples in the status quo. For Con to win, he had to win the framework and fulfill the BoR by showing the impacts of marriage equality outweigh those of Pro. On the nature of homosexuality (point “b” of Con’s harms), Con asked me to prove my points, which I already had done… so I can only think this is a concession on the nature of homosexuality. The worst impact I see in this debate for Con to work with is the increase in disease. In round four I explained marriage and sex are not intrinsically related. People in love are most likely going to engage in sexual acts; it’s a given. There are also effective ways to prevent these diseases. Like I said, condoms are highly recommended (from the CDC). Con may argue next round that homosexual men are more likely to get AIDS. But, if this is strictly within the individual, it is the risk they put towards their own bodies, which don’t harm society. Con may try to continue with the drug analogy, but the difference is drugs harm others, while marriage equality does not inherently do so. My second answer was in round four, where I mentioned homosexual women are less likely than heterosexuals to get AIDS. Con’s argument that diseases should be prevented falls apart because there isn’t a link between marriage and disease. Con wasn’t able to provide that link in the last three rounds, so this impact should be considered moot in comparison to the economic burden and oppression homosexual couples deal with every day. The last arguments Con presented revolve around tradition. He has used plenty of rhetoric and repetition of how important tradition is and no doubt will continue with it in his next round. What we need to look at is the value of this tradition in comparison to oppression. The framework section of the debate spilled over here. However, the link between changing the traditional concept of marriage, on a legal standpoint, and societal impacts, is essentially nonexistent. Con may try to argue society is structured around tradition, but that’s not true. Repeatedly, the government has gone directly against tradition, both religious and secular. The “expectations” debate falls under the tradition fallacy, and I’ve pointed out gender roles are diminishing (likely starting in the 1900s during the waning of the “domestic sphere”). Appealing to tradition for tradition’s sake is a terrible way to determine moral rights and wrongs, and is certainly a flawed way in making and enforcing laws. The impacts of marriage inequality are numerous, ranging from oppression and discrimination to economic and legal burdens. Con’s impacts rely on assuming tradition is correct and always will be. Con didn’t actually defend the slippery slope argument in round for, merely alluding to it in his conclusion. There’s a reason it’s an informal logical fallacy. Con needed to show the link between equality among humans and extending that beyond. Without this link, there is no argument. Con’s rejection of the analogy of a hamster voting proves the link doesn’t exist. Marriage equality is a human rights issue, where advocates want people to be equal. Some traditions need to change, and marriage is one of them. After debunking Con’s arguments and showing the systemic harms from marriage inequality, I urge everyone to vote arguments to Pro. Thank you everyone who stuck it out to the end, and thanks to Con for debating this issue with me.