The Instigator
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
67 Points
The Contender
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,509 times Debate No: 2532
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (130)
Votes (23)

 

Tatarize

Con

You asked in,
http://www.debate.org... comments...

"do people not see the extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society?"

-- I contend that there is nothing to see. I contend that there is no danger to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Further, there is much benefit to giving people equal rights under the law. The danger is in not giving people equal rights: it causes unrest.
shwayze

Pro

show me a gene in the human body that shows that people are born gay. It's funny because scientists and so many liberals have been trying so hard to prove that humans are born gay, yet they have no definitive answer. If there is a gene that is found that shows gays are born that way, then let's celebrate. I have nothing against gays. They are for the most part nice people. I have a serious problem with gay marriage though. If gay marriage is allowed, what is next? Humans and animals getting married? Triad marriages? Man-boy marriages? And if you think these claims are absurd, that is what everyone 50 years ago was saying about gay marriage and how ridiculous it was. AND LOOK! we now have gay marriages in some states....what's next?

By allowing gay marriage, you are saying that marriage is merely about sexual preference. If so, why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a horse or two wives?
Debate Round No. 1
Tatarize

Con

I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors.

Similar to being left handed or situs inversus, there doesn't seem to be a monogenetic trait which leads to homosexuality. Which is far from saying that homosexuality is not inborn. In fact, studies have shown that homosexuals attraction parts of their brain works like those of females, prior to the conscious thought. Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn.

It's common to find brains wired up to be attracted to men, typically these brains belong to women but there's nothing exacting about human development. Gender identity, gender attraction, and even genital formation have shown a good amount of ability to do pretty much whatever. You only need it to work some of the time to propagate the species. Also, there's some speculation that homosexuals help their nieces and nephews enough to make the trade off worthwhile. In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed. So homosexuality may not be evolutionarily helpful for the individual but rather helpful to the larger family and matriarch of the family. The theory seems tenuous, but does make a good amount of sense.

However, all of that aside, what does it matter why a person is gay? If somebody were gay for the fun of it, that would still not warrant restricting their right to marriage. Why they are gay doesn't matter one jot. You have the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another person. If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that.

Slippery slope arguments are fallacies unless you can really show that there is something to fear. Humans are animals, so humans marry animals all the time. However, for the most part there's a real argument against marrying someone/something that doesn't have the ability to consent. A marriage is a contract between two people of sound mind and body who enter into an arrangement which is recognized by the state and conveys certain rights to the other person. Boys and horses don't really have the ability to enter into contracts because they aren't able to consent legally.

As for polygamy, there's a real argument there. I don't see anything wrong with such a contract if everybody involved is fully aware of the situation. The main objection to polygamy is that it often is implemented as polygyny and involves teenage girls being divvied up by church elders. That obviously fails, but additional spouses isn't by default objectionable and would be up to debate.

The line is drawn at consenting adults. If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a contract and the state has no right to restrict who can enter into a contract and who cannot.

Yes, I believe those claims are absurd and they are exactly what people were saying about interracial marriage 50 years ago.

What's next? I'd assume a complete set of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and no special privileges for anybody.

Your horse has no ability to agree to a marriage. This is perhaps the dumbest argument against gay marriage. Most of the arguments just come down to religion. If the only arguments against something are religious arguments, then that is simply saying that there are no good arguments for something.
shwayze

Pro

you literally just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that garbage.

"I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors."

And circle gets the square.

"Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn."

hmmmmm maybe that's the way God created us. What a revolutionary thought.

"In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed."

Be honest, were you snorting heroin or tripping on acid when you wrote this?

"If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that."

Men can't marry boys (yet)...thats a restriction right there.

Please tell me you dont think polygamy would be ok in society.

"If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody."

Marriage is not a right.

What's next? The destruction of the family unit and society as we see it today.
Debate Round No. 2
Tatarize

Con

Did I miss something or did you fail to explain, again, why same sex marriage is a danger to society.

You could claim that IVF leads to clone armies but that's not an argument against IVF it's an argument against clone armies.

Okay, we keep constant vigilance against man-horse marriage. I'll go ahead and say you've made an argument (though I see no evidence that you even established the point) that man-horse marriage will cause the end of society. Why then should the state deny the rights of marriage to individuals who fully understand what they're doing and love each other?

You've never come remotely close to establishing any danger whatsoever here.

Marriage is, in fact, a right as noted in the Supreme Court decision of Skinner v. State of Oklahoma.

No equality doesn't lead to the downfall of civilization. The same was argued during Loving v. Virgina which struck down interracial marriage. It didn't lead to the downfall of anything.
shwayze

Pro

I feel like I'm talking to a second grader. Gay marriage will destroy the family unit, which is the cornerstone of American civilization. If you cant comprehend that, go back to kindergarten.
Debate Round No. 3
130 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HellKat 6 years ago
HellKat
"I feel like I'm talking to a second grader."

I think I've met second graders who were more intelligent and mature than you.

"Gay marriage will destroy the family unit, which is the cornerstone of American civilization."

Family units have changed very much over time. Why can't homosexuals be part of a "family unit"?

"If you cant comprehend that, go back to kindergarten."

Do you get taught that homosexual marriage destroys the family unit in kindergarten? I don't see what that has to do with gay marriage.

"show me a gene in the human body that shows that people are born gay."

Not everything has to do with genes. There is homosexuality in nature though.

"By allowing gay marriage, you are saying that marriage is merely about sexual preference."

Uh yeah, that's exactly the message that would send. Marriage is about love, not sexual preference. Would you call your atraction to women a "preference"?
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
what do you mean wrong then?

I said race is meaningless in determining character

your said "It never was meaningful, especially to determine character"

so we agree

race is meaningless in determining character

I think you are in danger of becoming a republican!
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Wrong. It never was meaningful, especially to determine character.
Posted by Solarman1969 6 years ago
Solarman1969
race is quickly becoming meaningless

and it is meaningless

in determining character
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
Evolutionary changes to skin color are triggered by the need to create more Vitamin D in the less tropical climates of Europe. However, about 30% of skin color is triggered by a single gene which works to transport melanin in skin. Due to the general belief in the "one drop rule" central to racism in America, I suppose if you had that gene you'd be considered black. Though, that's a pretty narrow argument and could be faulted on genetic, social or technical grounds.

Oh. I mean, thank you for your kind words.
Posted by ellyphant 6 years ago
ellyphant
Shwayze, you can't argue a point just by telling Tatarize that he sounds like "a second grader"--which, by the way, he does not. And as for the whole "gene" argument that entered into the picture, there is no gene to identify race, yet a child's race is determined from conception. The gene argument can't really support anything on either side of this debate, except that the debate itself is a bit absurd.

And I agree with Tatarize--where's the actual argument over the danger of same-sex marriage to society? Tatarize all the way.
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
I guess I wasn't actually expecting you to have anything even slightly in favor of the prospect of God. Still, an interesting discussion if more heat than light.

Have a good day.
Posted by Novan_Leon 6 years ago
Novan_Leon
Then I guess we're finished, nuff said. It was fun while it lasted.

Have a happy St. Patricks day! Cheers!
Posted by Tatarize 6 years ago
Tatarize
No evidence is by definition not enough evidence. The two healing examples are more acceptable as misunderstandings than actual reality. How many people weren't healed? How permanent was the healing? Were they actually ill prior to? How ill? What kind of verification is there?

There are a good number of similar events which don't seem to work out upon further inspection. It's always 90% of testicular cancer is amazingly cured or 5% of pancreatic cancer sufferers get their miracle from God. Yet, nobody is ever cured of an amputated leg. No matter how many hands are laid or prayers said, it seems that God never deems it fit to cure certain problems.

http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com...

So to answer your question, no. Unless you have reference to medical records and perhaps an underlying mechanism for the healing, they don't count as evidence of random healing much less of God. If this healing were attributed to the Easter Bunny would it prove the Easter Bunny exists?

---

I believe that most people understand basic moral rules. I believe this understanding is despite religion. I do not need to believe people know right from wrong to know that decrees from the imaginary are not a source of morality.

There is, admittedly, some philosophical moral principles within the Bible. They are no better or worse than similar concepts widespread at the time. Even though Christianity is a farce, those comments are not less true. This goes to show you that Christianity has no bearing on these moral truths. They stand independent as real moral principles.

Your worldview is without a sound basis, your morality is based externally on those who claim they speak for God. That proclamations to rape or murder are to be accepted as on par with those telling you not to. -- I don't buy it, and I daresay you don't either.

I see nothing of your claims which should convince a reasonable person of anything, much less the supernatural.
Posted by Novan_Leon 6 years ago
Novan_Leon
"No evidence" and "Not enough evidence" are two entirely different things. Your entire argument is based on the fact that these two circumstances aren't conclusive in and of themselves. I never said the evidence was conclusive, I merely said it was evidence. You made an unsupportable claim that people who were religious were delusional or mentally affected in some way. When I called you on it, you tried to turn it around as if I were attempting to use this as evidence.
Quite honestly, I don't feel like taking this point any further. This is beside the original point that we were discussing, ie. the basis for morality.

As I said before, your entire point-of-view is dependent upon your belief that the basis for morality is an internal moral "voice" or "constant", and/or a hybrid of type-3 and type-2 mentioned earlier. Your rejection of type-1 is dependent upon your reliance upon this belief, and hence, to do so is logically circular.

Those who believe in Christ derive their moral guidance from the principles of Christianity communicated to humanity via the Bible. Even if Christianity is all a farce, this fact does not change. Your argument that such a basis for morality is not legitimate because it's moral precepts may disagree with yours is not a valid argument. You continue to bring up worst-case-scenario circumstances such as God telling us to kill/murder/rape, but, despite being completely hypothetical, this is nothing more than an appeal to emotionalism, and says nothing about the logical feasibility of the concept.

Unless you can bring something logically substantial to the discussion, nuff said.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 4 years ago
Tatarize
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by thepianist 5 years ago
thepianist
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Alex 5 years ago
Alex
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by pirates1434 6 years ago
pirates1434
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 6 years ago
zakkuchan
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by claypigeon 6 years ago
claypigeon
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by artC 6 years ago
artC
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Chuckles 6 years ago
Chuckles
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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 
Vote Placed by Kals 6 years ago
Kals
TatarizeshwayzeTied
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