The Instigator
JimmyRusltler
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Stonewall
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

A secular debate about gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Stonewall
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,415 times Debate No: 39546
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (7)

 

JimmyRusltler

Pro

I see a lot of debates of gay marriage yet none of them secular. Every one of them has religious terms and for once, a secular debate about it must be made Just to clear things up i am for it and con will be against it. No references to religious terms will be made.
Good luck challenger.
Stonewall

Con

I accept. Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic; I look forward to it.
Debate Round No. 1
JimmyRusltler

Pro

Thank you for accepting

I will structure my first argument on three main points.
1. Gay marriage will create more opportunities for social progression
2. It will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation
3. It has the potential to create less discrimination in the public

I will now expand these points.

1.Gay Marriage will create more opportunities for social progression
Social progress is the idea that societies can or do improve in terms of their social, political, and economic structures.[1]
Generally speaking it is the idea that society can progress. Same sex marriage is that kind of progression as it will end segregation between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, by giving them the same rights, freedoms and responsibilities that the rest of the married population has. The legalization of gay marriage also has the potential to change some of the population to being more accepting of homosexuals because of the new laws in place. This will cause a more stable and accepting society and may even branch off into other aspects of humanitarian rights and freedoms.

2. Gay Marriage will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation
Relationship exploitation is where a two people pretend to be in a relationship or are in a relationship to reap the financial or other gains. Gay marriage will counteract some of this as they will become legitimate couples, at the moment Civil Unions are not seen as full marriage and are under constant scrutiny for exploitation as they are easier to obtain. [2] An example of this exploitation would be in the event of a split up between the parents of a child in a civil union, the parent who would usually have to pay child support, does not have to. [3] Loopholes like these limit Civil Unions, which is why they now should have Same sex marriage instead.

3. Gay Marriage has the potential to create less discrimination in the public.
There is much discrimination in any society, whether it be racism, sexism, different beliefs, ideals and generally anything. Most people would agree that this discrimination is a bad thing, then why would we discriminate homosexuals?
Discrimination is defined as Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice[4]. Meaning that homosexuals are being discriminated against because of lack of public acceptance. Personally I think that the legalization of homosexual marriage is a step in the right direction towards less segregation of people based on their sexual preference. Many people reject homosexuals as they do not share the same sexual preference as them, so making them equal may be able to change some peoples perspectives and create a less discriminative society.

Hope to hear back from you soon. :)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Stonewall

Con

I will start by refuting your points, and then continuing by developing my own. Two of your points are very similar, and are lumped here for simplicity's sake.

"Gay Marriage will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation."

Or, these people could just not get married in the first place. How many unmarried couples have exploited the system just by not getting married? I actually know of two heterosexual adults (like, in their 40s) who do this to get more money at their jobs. Making it okay to get married is not going to "abolish" these loopholes. These two ideas are essentially unrelated.

"Gay Marriage has the potential to create less discrimination in the public... Gay Marriage will create more opportunities for social progression."

We should legalize more things to make it acceptable for those who do bad things. Like drugs, murder, and abortion. Obviously, these are extreme examples, but the concept remains. Making something legal in order to gain acceptance for those who do illegal and mostly frowned-upon things is very backwards and non-progressive.

___

First of all, the amount of people who support the legalization does not warrant a change in our marriage laws. Today, almost half of all Americans don't support the idea- only 52% do (1). A mere 52% should not dictate a law- this idea is ludicrous. It would require 66% of the House and Senate to overturn a veto on that law. The only time we should consider the idea of passing such a law when such a majority exists.

Second, the legalization of gay marriage would open the door for worst exploits of marriage. Homosexual relationships were a a major stigma as of 50 years ago. They were kept behind closed doors and seen as not only taboo, but abhorrent as well. Even though a (slight) majority favor the passing of such laws, this merely shows other minority groups that force enough pressure will make their endeavors a potential reality. NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) could start putting their message out. After all, if both parties are consenting and truly love each other, where's the harm in it? Same goes for those engage in relations with dogs. What makes wrong and the other okay? Just because half of America thinks it's okay? You say, "Of course no American in their right mind would ever encourage the legalization of those." Meh, give it 50 years. Gay marriage has come a long way in that time.

1. http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JimmyRusltler

Pro

I see i need to clarify some of my points as they were slightly misinterpreted.

1). Gay Marriage will abolish many loop holes for relationship exploitation
What i was saying that by these gay couples getting married, the partner is more legally bound than before. Meaning that many loopholes regarding civil unions and custody of children would not exist. I don't know how your rebuttal was relevant to my statement, but cllearly my point was relevant to what i said. As for you point about the two adults not getting married technically that's not illegal (as far as i know) and that IS irellavent. To sum up i was meaning the couples on civil unions have less responsibility and accountablility to the partner than marriage would.

2) Gay Marriage has the potential to create less discrimination in the public... Gay Marriage will create more opportunities for social progression
Legalizing different things is, again, irellevant. Gay marriage is not a "bad" thing and can potentially benefit society, as i have said previously. also in regard of " Making something legal in order to gain acceptance for those who do illegal and mostly frowned-upon things is very backwards and non-progressive.", that point is wrong becasue it is not in order to gain acceptance, but to progress in fairness and human equality which we are holding back. Not to mention that it is non-progressive to not let same sex marriage as there is NO PROGRESSION in that action. The progression of society is based on our actions and what we actually do, not what we don't do.

I will now rebut your points.
_____
1. I am not sure if the statistic which you have shown is about the politicicians or the people. If it's the politicians then they do not speak for the populations opinion. If it's the population you have gone into the specific of America. As i am Australian i am not 100% familiar with the American legal system but in Australia Canberra has legalized marriage, but since it is just one state (well territory in this case) then it is not recognized in the whole nation until the whole nation does legalize it. New Zealand [1] has legalized gay marriage and has been ultimately successful among the public. I am not just talking about America legalizing it, but the world becoming more accepting of this. Also since you have referenced politics in that point, i would like to say that it is the politicains present opinion and not what is "right" or wrong, opinions change, as they should. I would also like to point out that the source you showed, said that many of the people who voted against gay marriage, were religious, meaning some religious bias/reason behind it may be present.

2. I see no proof in your statement of that, as gay marriage may have been "taboo" 50 years ago, gay couples were still present. Beastiality and pedophilia are not the kind of things a progressing society would agree on. The minority of this being gay couples, wanting the same right to marry as other couples. They have been more accepted into society so why not accept them fully? What makes one wrong and the other ok is the fact of knowledgeable consent. A minor does not know the decsion he/she is making fully as they are not up to a full maturity level, that is why they are not a legal adult. The same goes with dogs. They do not have a choice in the matter, so that's what makes them different. Also as this is your opinion and you have no evidence of such claims except the "50 years ago it was taboo" fact is therefore invalid.
________
I will now state some further points.

1. Limiting the rights of others.
Essentialy, not legalizng same sex marriage is limiting the rights of certain people. This is discrimination and a working society has not room for it. Just like other events in history of progression, gay marriage is the next step towards social equality and the acceptance of others. Why limit someones right to get married because of their own biology and what they want as a person. That's a bit cruel if you ask me. Who are we to dictate other's beliefs and limit them ourselves. To be honest i don't think gay marriage should have been an issue anyway.

2. It will not change
The legalization of gay marriage will not change any other heterosexual relationship or any other form of marriage. (i am mainly listing this because this is a reason many people contend it) Heterosexual marriage will still exist and legalizing gay marriage wont "encourage people to be gay" it will encourage people to be themselves. To be happy with who they are and to stop worrying whether they will be judged on whoo they are as a person. Being homosexual is not a choice. It is like saying being heterosexual is a choice. Homosexuals won't cease to exist, and neither will heterosexuals, why can't we just accept it?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Last round :)
Stonewall

Con

"What i [sic] was saying that by these gay couples getting married, the partner is more legally bound than before. Meaning that many loopholes regarding civil unions and custody of children would not exist."

All I was saying was just because we get rid of one loophole, it won't eliminate dozens of others. I was using the two people not getting married (which is textbook relationship exploitation) as an example of how the whole thing could be exploited anyways. It's not as though people went into civil unions thinking, "Well, worst comes to worst, I won't have to pay for the kid." All of this is entirely relevant.

"Gay marriage is not a 'bad' thing and can potentially benefit society..."

I've shown how it is a bad thing and can potentially be a detriment to society. Whether or not these can be considered just opinions (we'll leave that to the voters to decide), we've both made efforts to prove that, but neither can pass it off as straight fact.

"(Legalizing gay marriage) is not in order to gain acceptance, but to progress in fairness..."

You're contradicting yourself. As you yourself said in Round 2, "The legalization of gay marriage also has the potential to change some of the population to being more accepting of homosexuals because of the new laws in place." Also, you say that it is necessary to legalize gay marriage so we can "progress in fairness". It shouldn't be necessary to cater to less than four percent of the population (1) (Note: I use America as a general idea- I can't find data for the entire world). Five percent of Americans believe that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by the Beatles, and seven believe that the moon landing was faked. Twenty percent believe that vaccinations cause autism. Thirty percent believe Saddam Hussein was in on the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2). Can you image if we catered to these insane groups? Of course not, so why should we deem it necessary to try to gain acceptance of an even smaller percentage of people, especially when only 50% of people wish to do so?

"The progression of society is based on our actions and what we actually do, not what we don't do."

It wouldn't be progressive to legalize every drug, and yet many people (not a majority, but some) feel that we should. Obviously, we can't deem legalizing things as the solution to the progression of fairness. This isn't always beneficial.

"I am not sure if the statistic which you have shown is about the politicicians [sic] or the people... If it's the population you have gone into the specific of America."

First of all, the statistic was for the population. Second, I used America as a general idea. I can't fit every statistic from every country into one debate. If I had to guess, though, I'd wager that if I did have the statistics, it would balance out to about 50%-- and that's being generous. There are just as many countries that fully support it as there are who are completely against it.

"...i would like to say that it is the politicains [sic] present opinion and not what is "right" or wrong..."

I apologize for the confusion. I wasn't saying that politicians represent a right or wrong, I was merely showing and comparing that it would require 66% to overturn a veto on a law. Thus, we should not legalize gay marriage until such a majority (66%) of people support it. We should not simply change laws because only 50% of people want to. A world where we simply favor a slight majority would fail miserably.

"I would also like to point out that the source you showed, said that many of the people who voted against gay marriage, were religious, meaning some religious bias/reason behind it may be present."

Key term being, "may". I'm sure there are people who are religious and do not support gay marriage for other reasons, as there are people who are atheist and vote for the legalization of gay marriage simply to stick it to the church. People have their reasons, and finding out all of those reasons would likely be impossible.

"I see no proof in your statement of that, as gay marriage may have been "taboo" 50 years ago, gay couples were still present."

... I didn't think I needed to provide proof for this; I thought it was common sense. 50 years ago, every state criminalized homosexual sex, and many thought it was abhorrent (3). I think this speaks to its taboo status. Just because gay couples were present doesn't mean they were accepted; that doesn't even make sense.

"A minor does not know the decsion [sic] he/she is making fully as they are not up to a full maturity level..."

Are you saying a minor can't know the decision they are making? This is false-- minors weigh pros and cons all the time, and if they are informed about sex (I had a full sex education in middle school), why couldn't they do the same? You cannot say a minor "does not know" as this is not a universal standard. At what point can they know fully? And who are you to judge that? I'm sure there are 13-year-olds who understand the benefits and consequences of sex better than some adults. If a minor can consent, then pedophilia is not inherently wrong. And, if pedophilia is inherently wrong, so too must homophilia. Absolutely no one but the people involved can know if the decision is consensual. If we are not ones to judge that, then every -philia should be legalized, as long as it's consensual. If you believe we are able to judge that, then pedophilia and homophilia are in the same boat; all it takes is enough people to think it's okay.

"(Dogs) do not have a choice in the matter, so that's what makes them different."

Consent is a human standard. No one can prove a horse consents to being ridden, goldfish to being kept in a bowl, or dogs to sexual relations. If it's all instinct, then animals never had an opinion in the first place. If they can have a choice (which they arguably can-- ever seen a dog pick a treat or a bone?), then bestiality is not inherently immoral.

"Beastiality [sic] and pedophilia are not the kind of things a progressing society would agree on."

Very, very few people 50 years ago thought that gays would have the right to marry in the near future. And look at us now... we are on the cusp of legalizing it almost world-wide. What makes you think that pedophilia or bestiality couldn't do the same? Like I said, all it takes is enough people to think that it's okay, and you do not get to decide what a "progressing society" would do any more than a fundamentalist Christian does.

__


Overall, most of my opponent's arguments for the legalization of gay marriage hinges on the fact that it would be more fair and that it would progress our society. In these few rounds of debate, however, he has failed to show how "progress" is defined or even measurable. He also did not show how homophilia is necessarily a "good" thing or why we should legalize it outside of fairness-- which, again, went undefined.

In conclusion, homophilia is not widely enough accepted yet to by considered legalization-worthy, and homophilia can potentially open the door for pedophilia and bestiality. Since the latter are considered taboo, immoral, or mental issues, we should treat homophilia the same way. We should not cater to such a small portion of the world any more than we could (and, perhaps, should) cater to pedophilia and bestiality. If my opponent agreed that pedophilia and bestiality were comparable and likewise should be legalized (at least to a certain degree), I might be tempted to hand the debate over. But since my opponent essentially practices doublethink in this matter, it is evident that there are still too many questions and issues to be had with gay marriage to even consider legalizing it yet.

Voters, vote for whoever made the better argument, not on the debate itself.
___

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.nydailynews.com...
3. http://harvardmagazine.com...
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
I'm having trouble deciding who had more convincing arguments. I think Pro's arguments were better but irrelevant to what Con had said, whereas Con's weren't as good presented in a more convincing way that actually responded to Pro's arguments.
Posted by MattsDebate 3 years ago
MattsDebate
Also I must add that your argument of legalization and the comparison of murder and drugs is completely ludicrous. There is no relative importance to the topic because these are legalizations which affect those in society and are a danger rather than marriage which does not detrimentally affect the public nor those involved with the marriage as it is their choice. Completely stupid and unfair.
Posted by MattsDebate 3 years ago
MattsDebate
Some great arguments however I feel as though con concluded a lot of its arguments by making more claims about the contradictions of pros arguments or if they're accurate despite its sources rather than proposing more opposing arguments to form your own solid, straight to the point points (I am not saying you had none I just felt let down that you had barely any in comparison to pro). Still a decent debate.
Posted by Stonewall 3 years ago
Stonewall
Meh, not a whole lot we can do about that on either side.
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
It seems that the people who vote for a particular side were already on that side... Prefer it if the voters had ties opinions or changed opinions rather than just bias vote one side.
Posted by Stonewall 3 years ago
Stonewall
Just trying something I don't agree with.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
Stonewall, I looked at your profile and saw you were pro gay marriage. Has your opinion changed since then or are you just attempting to see your skill in defending a side you don't agree with?
Posted by MattsDebate 3 years ago
MattsDebate
But Genesis said that we can't do it!! Your arguments are invalid and should incorporate the bible!
Posted by MattsDebate 3 years ago
MattsDebate
But Genesis said that we can't do it!! Your arguments are invalid and should incorporate the bible!
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
I did the same thing, but lost because I phrased it badly:

Both Pro and Con might find it interesting to read:

http://www.debate.org...

Good luck!
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to ignore most of Con's arguments. My vote goes to Con.
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: The argumentation was pretty equivalent on both sides, and I couldn't determine a winner by those standards. So, I submitted votes to the other parts of the debate where Con was clearly more effective in spelling and the provision of resources.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Everything here seemed even, but I felt that Con gave stronger, more detailed arguments at the end of the debate by refuting several statements Pro made in detail. Pro no doubt tried to hold his own arguments and made good refutations himself in this secular debate, but they were defeated by Con. S & G was was to Con and sources were pretty balanced. No one violated any code of conduct.
Vote Placed by jvava 3 years ago
jvava
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was more solid and thought-out than Pro's. I agreed with Con before the debate, and now he has made my opinion stronger. Great debate on both sides, but Con's was more composed.
Vote Placed by muzebreak 3 years ago
muzebreak
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Stonewall begs the question on at least one occasion, and claims to have made arguments which to me seem absent. Jimmyrustler, while not amazingly convincing in his argumentation, is much more so than stonewall.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued persuasively that gay marriage is a just right, and to prohibit it constrains our rights unfairly. Con had better s/g, both were polite, and Pro had sources. Ultimately, insofar as Pro sells me on the notion of gay marriage being the logical progression of a just society, I vote Pro. Good debate.
Vote Placed by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
JimmyRusltlerStonewallTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate, although I felt the both Pro and Con were veering around the crux of the arguments. My opinion wasn't changed. Conduct was fine and well-mannered. However, I must give spelling and grammar to Con, due to several errors made by Pro in both areas, especially in round 2. Arguments were tied. While Pro did raise some interesting ideas, the rebutts by Con went mostly unchallenged. So, Pro failed at rebutting effectively, but Con's arguments were unfounded. Also, Con compared "paedophilia" to "homophilia" while implying that since it is a "-philia" it (with artistic license here) must be pure evil because it shares a suffix. Scarey. However, I feel this was a move by Con to load the point, because homophilia is just an alternative word for "gay"; there was no reason for Con to change it like that unless comparing it to paedophilia. Lastly, sources to Pro because it ended as 5-4 on sources. Good debate, guys!