The Instigator
KaleBevilacqua
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points
The Contender
Johnboy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Are there justified secular reasons against 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 6 votes the winner is...
KaleBevilacqua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,834 times Debate No: 38805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

KaleBevilacqua

Con

I do not believe there are justified, unbiased, secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

First round is acceptance. If you are against gay marriage for justified, unbiased, secular reasons, please state your acceptance in your reply, along with possibly a few points you'd like to address.

I look forward to hearing your response.
Johnboy

Pro

Yes there are. The biggest justified secular reason is that marriage laws evolved organically from the needs that arose out of sexual relationships. Marriage laws have always been about sexual relationships. However gay relationships are about homosexual relationships It's not the same thing, and gay relationships will be SEVERLY harmed if this society pretends that it is . Gay relationships need their own laws-- not to be shoehorned into the marriage code. Gays don't even want marriage, as several of the leading figures in the gay community that support the gay marriage argument have said they want to destroy marriage and never be monogamous, Dan Savage says this. Why give these people gay marriage when they don't even want it and are just using it as a device of political manipulation? What some of these gay activist don't realise is that they will be made to play by straight rules and they will hate it, why not give gays these constitutional rights under their own rules, as some less publicized leaders in the gay community are calling for?

Most of all adoption, which is already extremely corrupt because of for-profit adoption agencies, must be watched with even more scrutiny if gays are allowed to marry. Is that because if gays are allowed to adopt the world will fly apart?. No! What many people both gay and straight don't know, is that single gays have always been allowed to adopt in every state of the union. But if gay couples are put above the real parents, both female and male, like many adopting straight couples are, as opposed to stright singles, gays are likely to make enemies with people that had nothing against them previously, and for good reason, they will be stealing the single parent's child. Gays should be cautious about wanting to ally themselves with the American government, this government has never done anything except work to destroy them--why would it be any different now? Look at how this government just played all the right-wingers with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Gays are foolish to think that this government wouldn't do the same to them.
Debate Round No. 1
KaleBevilacqua

Con

First of all, for purposes of this debate, please don't refer to gay people as "gays." The sexual orientation doesn't define the person.

1) Even if marriage began through sex, that's not necessarily how it is now. Marriage is a legal union between lifelong partners for shared legal benefits. Sex need not be grouped in with marriage: 48 percent of children nowadays are born out of wedlock [1], not to mention the married couples who are childfree or even celibate. Plus, I fail to see how gay relationships will be harmed by being viewed equally. Could you elaborate on that statement?

2) Yes, there are a few gay folks opposed to the idea of marriage. However, I could just as easily point out critics of marriage who are not, in fact, gay. [2][3][4][5][6] That shouldn't mean all marriage should be abolished because some people oppose it. Fortunate for them, nobody in our country is legally forced into marriage, so folks who want to get married may do so, and those who don't, won't.
The gay population is not a monolithic group. Although some oppose it, an abundance more support it. There is no reason those in this situation who yearn to marry cannot.

3) I don't know what you mean my "straight rules" and "their own rules." Perhaps some clarification? Also, what makes you believe that they will hate it? Seems like a hasty assumption to me. Could you back this up with some substantial evidence?

4) Gay adoption is a separate debate in itself. You seem to be using the slippery slope fallacy--bringing attention to extreme hypotheticals to avoid engaging with the debate at hand: marriage.
I do not know what you mean by "put above the real parents" and "stealing the single parent's child." Again, please clarify what you mean by these statements and why you believe that.

5) That's the purpose of the gay rights' movement: The government shouldn't have to be opposed to them. As for "why would it be any different now?", that is why people are fighting to change. Just because it hasn't yet changed doesn't mean it won't, and certainly doesn't mean people shouldn't try. The purpose of this debate is not whether gay marriage will be a reality, but whether it should be a reality.
And this isn't gay people wanting to "ally" themselves with the government, in the way you seem to be implying. Gay people are merely people. Should the government not be on the same side of all of its people?

Remember: if things couldn't change to bring justice to groups of our populations, racial minorities would still be disadvantaged and segregated. As you can see by this example, things don't have to stay in their miserable state.

Your arguments against having gay marriage legalized seem to be that some gay people are opposed to it and that the government isn't helping them, when the reality is that many gay supporters are fighting to get it legalized and that the government should be helping them in order to be fair.

[1]: http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2]: http://citation.allacademic.com...
[3]: http://books.google.ro...
[4]:http://www.publiceye.org...
[5]:http://government.arts.cornell.edu...
[6]: Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219
Johnboy

Pro

Johnboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
KaleBevilacqua

Con

I don't think you meant to forfeit. Taking a glance at your profile, you haven't been online for three days.
Johnboy

Pro

Johnboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
KaleBevilacqua

Con

Oh well. Better try this debate again, ideally with an opponent who won't forfeit.
Johnboy

Pro

Johnboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
KaleBevilacqua

Con

Aw. That sucks. I was really looking forward to this debate.
Johnboy

Pro

Johnboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KaleBevilacqua 3 years ago
KaleBevilacqua
@Johnboy How do you know that they only voted for me because they support my stance? Completely unfounded statement.

Besides, your argument has various fallacies which I easily rebutted. I wasn't building my own case, but rather refuting yours, because you had the burden of proof in this debate.
Posted by Johnboy 3 years ago
Johnboy
This website is complete crap. The pro argument clearly made more sense, but the con side rambled on and on, misstated what the pro side said and seemed to take glee in being obnoxious. The technique is a basic gay propaganda technique borrowed from communist China called jamming. The book after the ball describes in detail how to use it as the communist did. The most recent example of this that many people would familiar with is when Mitt Romeny used the technique against Obama in the 1st 2012 presidental campaign. Romeny made long, windy arguments where he made statements that were COMPLETELY factually incorrect hopping that most people would never fact check what he said. It worked too, most people thought Obama lost the debate, after all how could he be so smart-assed and confident if he was lying? But the fact checkers caught it and as the debates wore on it was clear that this was a person that was not only lying, and misconstruing the facts, but someone who clearly was trying to steer the debate away from the facts. In the end people saw through it and he lost. The Pro side of the debate just did the exact same thing. The people that liked the con side did it because they support gay marriage not because the con side made a rational argument. In that respect the site is like change.org with it tons of petitions to stop banning gay marriage--all started by John Doe and signed by snagglepuss.
Posted by TheYummyCod 3 years ago
TheYummyCod
@Brant. It should be easy enough. All Pro needs to do is find one 'justified, unbiased, secular' reason to oppose gay marriage. Though the burden of proof lies with Pro, Con will have a hard time, because there are no real arguments that he can make for his own side, and will have to rely completely on rebuttals to Pro.

Argument structure for Pro:
Get a reason.
Justify it.
Ensure that the reason is not fueled out of bias or hate against gays.
Repeat.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
Some brave or stupid soul will accept this debate, and it won't be me!
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were incoherent, poorly developed, insensitive, unwarranted, and lacking any substantive quality. He desperately needed sources, explanations, and better formatting. On top of that, he forfeited. All points to Con.
Vote Placed by Volkov 3 years ago
Volkov
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty obvious why. I would have liked to have seen this debate too, hopefully you can find another challenger somewhere.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses the conduct for the forfeits. While he did provide several arguments in his R1, Con did address them in their R2. While there was enough to go back and forth several times to have an actual debate, since Pro never came back, the arguments go to Con. Pro also had no sources at all, while Con provided several. Not all were that great, but they certainly outweigh no sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Complete Forfeit
Vote Placed by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons for voting decision: Both sides did a good job at presenting their case, but the con presented a better case due to staying on the subject at hand and providing references. For instance Pro said that you do not have to be religious to disagree with same sex marriage which is persuasive, and Con never responded to that because he was talking about how marriage is a lifelong partnership with legal benefits which makes sense, but what does that have to do with whether you have to be religious to oppose same sex marriage? The con posted links to use as references. This just seems logical to me.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
KaleBevilacquaJohnboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: "Gays don't even want marriage" is a hasty and overbroad generalization, used by Pro to negate the resolution. Con spotted this quickly, as well as the slippery slope into adoption problems. I wish Con had more forcefully pressed the premise that change is necessary in anything that is not already transcendent or perfect. The FF was unfortunate, and is why the conduct point. Pro did not use sources.