The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Dimmitri.C
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Dimmitri.C
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,489 times Debate No: 17546
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

Resolution

Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Burden of Proof

Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

Debate details

4 Rounds
8,000 Character limit
72 Hours to respond
1 Month voting period

NO VIDEO LINKS !!!

PROBLEMS ?

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.

Round 4

Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.

Definitions:

Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."

Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.

Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.

Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.

Opening Argument

Here is my first argument, lets call it the you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument.

P1) Freedom is our default
P2) You need a good reason to make something Illegal
C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

By saying freedom is our default, is that we start with an innocent till proven guilty assumption, or in this case, freedom or legality is given as an assumption until proven other wise. As John Sturat Mill has written... "the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a prioriassumption is in favour of freedom…’ [1]

The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

I suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. The alternative would be to claim that we don't need a good reason to make something or keep something illegal.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Common Arguments used to justify the banning of gay marriage

At this point I would like to go over some common arguments that are used to support the banning of gay marriage.......

"Gays can't have children"

The person who advocates this view probably doesn't claim that an infertile hetrosexual couple should be banned from being able to marry, thus showing that being able to have children is NOT a necessary criteria for allowing people to marry.

" Allowing gays to marry is giving special rights to gay"

A common argument used to support this special rights claim is that only gays want to marry gays thus its only benefits them. But under this kind of reasoning no person or group that is denied something can ever seek to get rid of this denial, lest they be accused of seeking special rights. Perhaps it was wrong to allow women to vote, after all, allowing women to vote only benefited women thus women were seeking "special rights"

"Hextrosexual marriage is some how necessary or good for the production of future citizens"

Allowing gays to marry doesn't stop hextrosexual marriage, nor does it in anyway stop or interfere with children being produced in a hetrosexual marriage.

"If we allow gays to marry it will result in pedophile & bestiality"

Allowing consenting hetrosexual adults to marry doesn't result in these things, so why would allowing gay consenting adults to to marry result in these things ? Without sufficient warrant, its just a slippery slope argument and thus fallacious.

"Gays or homosexuality is disgusting"

So is two hetrosexual fatties having sexual intercourse, but we don't ban marriage to them based on our personal disgust

" I don't like gays"

Then don't marry a gay person. Gay marriage doesn't force you into a gay marriage, it just gives gays an option to marry other gays.

If Pro does agree you need a good reason to make something illegal and/or keep it illegal, then Pro will have to provide a good reason in order to justify gay marriage being banned. Until then the resolution is not affirmed.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Dimmitri.C

Pro

I would like to acknowledge Illegalcombatant for proposing such a stimulating topic to deliberate. Lately Debate.org has held a large amount of discussions principally focused on the topic of same sex marriage, a subject which has proven to be thought-provoking and clarifying. I hope that what I have to offer to this debate isn’t boring or stale. Rather, I hope that what I have to offer to this debate is similarly thought-provoking and encouraging. For this topic is essential to both the individual and society. As the Pro I will be affirming the resolution.

1. Is Marriage a Freedom?

The primary contention of my argument will focus on the special value of heterocomplimentary type acts in conjunction with conjugal marriage—an argument which is, in principal, offensive in nature. However, the subsidiary contention of my argument will focus on responding to what Con has stated within his introduction. I will be advocating the subsequent argument, as articulated by Patrick Lee,[1]

(1b) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value).

(2b) The state ought not to deny the unique nature of the multi-leveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, or the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union.

(3b) Therefore, the state ought not to affirm that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage.

Heterosexual marriage plainly provides and serves society as the fundamental assembly for which fostering forthcoming citizens is made naturally and healthily possible. The natural purpose of marriage is oriented toward that of producing and nurturing upcoming progenies—undeniably, such a purpose is made attainable by way of heterocomplimentary behaviour. That being heterosexual type acts, i.e, coitus. Patrick Lee declares,[2]

“Marriage is that type of community in which the personal community, and the bodily, sexual relationship, are intrinsically oriented to the twofold good of personal communion between the spouses, and bearing and raising of children. It also is important to note that marriage is not a mere means in relation to bearing and raising children.”

As such the State pays precise attention to the collective institution of marriage, for marriage is communally oriented toward procreation. The purpose of marriage is thus pertinent toward preserving the wellbeing and success of a society. Hence it is to be expected and advocated that the State protects and enshrines conjugal marriage for its special value within and to society. Additionally, the State invests practical interest in a healthy marriage culture, for a healthy marriage culture is an intrinsic good not just to and for the individual, but to and for the whole of society as well. Robert P. George has said,[3]

"After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms. And the more people form marriages and respect marital norms, the more likely it is that children will be reared by their wedded biological parents."

Therefore, the State ought to bestow special recognition to conjugal marriage, for heterocomplimentary behaviour serves as the anteceding structural foundation, rejoinder and qualifier for the health and advancement of society. Contrariwise, homosexual behaviour serves as the defeater of such an institution, for such a practical moral reality cannot be reached by homosexual type acts within same sex relationships. As such same sex marriage is not structurally pertinent to society and thus should not be granted as a freedom. Inversely, heterosexual behaviour is. Therefore, conjugal marriage ought to be protected and enshrined, for conjugal marriage actualizes a moral reality and serves as the precondition to a prospering society.

Con has prepared a list of counterexamples which are partially relevant to the debate, per se. I will thus forth respond back to the objections which are relevant to the argument I have presented and treat as irrelevant the legal and adoptive notions presented. The objections which I have chosen not engage are subsidiary legal and adoptive notions which aren’t conducive to either side of the debate. Therefore I will be focusing on the objections which are principally relevant to this my argument.

2. The Fertility Objection.

Individual arbitrary medical impediments are contingent subsidiary complications which are incidentally incapable of determining neither the necessary nature of marriage conceptually as contradictory nor the practical eligibility of an individual who is sterile from marrying. The sterile couple is entirely capable of fostering a healthy relationship which is founded upon procreative type acts—such is the polemic of the Traditionalist. Hence, these objections are unpredicted. For marriage does not serve as a means for procreation. Rather, marriage is oriented toward procreation. Patrick Lee has stated,[4]

“Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so. The male and female spouses who unite in fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation (unlike the same-sex couple) really do become one flesh, or biologically one, in consummating their marriage, even if the non-behavioral conditions of procreation happen not to obtain; and their union is still the type of union that would be prolonged or fulfilled by bearing and raising children together.”

Moreover, the nature of a man is no less definitive if he is suffering from an eye impediment. For the eye's principle rational purpose and function is that of sight; nor does the apple with a worm in it affect our conceptual or definitive understanding of what an apple is. The infertility counterexample is incidental. Thus Con's counterexamples are absurd and unfounded. Con has engaged a straw man representation of the Traditionalist argument I advocate. Thus my opponents anticipated counterexample fails.

3. Does Allowing Gay Marriage Devalue Heterosexual Type Acts?

My opponent has humbly misunderstood the argument I advocate in wake of his anticipation and thus reasoned to a fallacious conclusion. Legalizing same sex marriage will affect our future generations understanding of a healthy marital norm. Such a conclusion is sociologically inevitable. However, I am not advocating such a position in this debate nor is this representation of my argument accurate. My argument represents the position that if we were to allow same sex marriage as legal we would therefore be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behavior as equal to that of heterosexual behaviour. The position I advocate declares that such an action is unjustifiable, for the two types of behaviour (Homosexual and heterosexual) are distinctly incomparable, for heterosexual behaviour actualizes a multileveled moral reality while homosexual behaviour does not. Con has again participated in committing the straw man fallacy.

Con's chief argument has been refuted, while the counterexamples presented have also been proven to be either irrelevant or unpredicated. My opponent has aniticipatively misrepresented my position and has thus misconstrued my position in such a way that he has participated in committing the straw man fallacy a number of times. Con's argument is hardly conducive of his position, for the argument he has presented can be redirected in a self-referential manner. I believe my argument to be most plausibly true.

I urge all voters to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for accepting this debate.

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument.

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Although Pro raises a question whether marriage is a freedom, I don't see any challenge to this premise.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

Again I don't see a challenge to this premise, and Pro seeks to provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal in their argument.

Conclusion) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Countering Pros argument

Defining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoning

You can always define something in order to exclude a person or people. For example you could define not being a slave as only something a WHITE person can have, thus its impossible for blacks to not be slaves. Like wise you can define marriage in a way that excludes gays from marrying other gays for example marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Take for example where Pro cites this comment...""After all, the more effectively the law teaches the truth about marriage, the more likely people are to enter into marriage and abide by its norms."

This comment pre supposes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman cause its the "truth" about marriage. You need more than a pre supposition that marriage should only be between a man and a woman to deny gay marriage.

Pro says..." Legalizing same sex marriage will affect our future generations understanding of a healthy marital norm. "

This presupposes and implies that same sex marriage is not a healthy marital norm.

Pros Premise

"P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value)."

This premise has a few claims thrown in there so lets break them up........

P1b) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman.

In order to justify this claim Pro refers to the bearing and rearing of children. I find it kind of disturbing and a throw back to the dark ages that Pro remarks that a woman's relationship with man is "fulfilled" on the condition of bearing and raising children as Pro says..."the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children"

Pro makes the claim here that allowing same sex unions denies the unique nature of a union between a man and a woman. But this is clearly false, a man doesn't stop being a man, a woman doesn't stop being a woman and a man and woman's "unique" relationship doesn't change between them if you allow gay marriage.

P1c) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage it denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union.

Once again, the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts, or in this case hetrosexual acts do not change whether you allow gay marriage or don't allow it, its a complete non sequitur.

The Procreation argument

Pro keeps bringing up how those in a gay marriage can't have children with each other. But notice what Pros argument says when allowing the infertile hetrosexual couple to marry ... "Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so."

This admission is highly significant, as the ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry. Pro does seem to agree that the ability to have children is not relevant as to who can and can't get married.

So you would think all this talk about gays not being able to have children would be dropped at this point, and would be allowed to marry as much as the infertile couple, but no, Pro gives a reason as to why the infertile couple can get married but the gay couple can't as Pro says..."The sterile couple is entirely capable of fostering a healthy relationship which is founded upon procreative type acts—such is the polemic of the Traditionalist."

Notice that once again having children is not necessary to have a "healthy relationship" but what Pro argues is necessary is, or at least the potentiality of "pro creative type acts". What are pro creative type acts for those who may not know ? basically penis/vagina sexual intercourse.

Pro creative type acts

How does Pro get around this dilemma of allowing one couple who can't have children to marry (the hetrosexual infertile couple) and banning another couple who can't have children (the gay couple) ? cause of this premise that says marriage should only be for people who can commit penis/vagina sexual intercourse.

This definition of marriage is just a disguised way of saying that marriages should only be between a man and a woman.

1) Marriage should only be between a man and woman (or some one with a penis and the other person with a vagina)
2) Gay marriage doesn't have one person with a penis and the other person with a vagina
3) Therefore we should not allow gay marriage

There is also the issue of why Pro makes the distinction between the infertile couple and gay couple cause there EFFECTS when it comes to producing children are totally the same, that is neither can produce children. There is no effective/practical/outcome difference here concerning baby making.

Pro wants us to accept the infertile couple getting married while also rejecting the gay couple getting married, not because of any practical outcome but because of an abstraction, because of a concept, but why accept this abstraction as the definitive line in the sand of who can and can't get married ? Consider what Freeman said when presented with this very same argument about "pro creative type acts", Freeman says......

"I submit that the procreation argument is nonsense upon stilts. I've come to kick out the stilts. Not only is this argument completely unsubstantiated, I think that we have good reasons to reject it.

1. First, the notion that marriage is only between individuals capable of procreating is entirely ad hoc. My opponent presumably supports the right of sterile couples to get married, though they are incapable of producing children. His argument, then, is best summed up in the following way: Only unions whose members, under normal circumstances, are capable of procreation qualify as marriage.

Why would anyone want to define marriage in such a contrived, narrow and ad hoc fashion? I'll venture a guess: to prevent homosexuals from marrying. Such a definition stems from a private interest, perhaps a religious interest. It is not a state interest to define marriage in such a manner." [1]

I did want to address some other things but I try not to pile on stuff in just one round and I am running out of characters.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.debate.org...

Debate between Freeman and Contradiction on DDO, 2011 "Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States"
Dimmitri.C

Pro

I whole heartily appreciate the reaction of my opponent, and I sincerely hope that the audience enjoys my reply in return. Illegalcombatant is a fair adversary and I appreciate his readiness to debate the concern.

1. In Response to Circular Reasoning

I do not believe I have participated in committing to circular reasoning. Specifically because the definition upon which I predicate marriage is conjugal in nature. Undeniably I would be question begging if the definition of marriage I have used is not conjugal in essence—irrefutably, this simply is not the case. The presupposition I am being accused of is thus simply nonexistent. Furthermore, it must be noted that the definition of marriage which I have used best describes the ontological and moral relationship held between females and males jointly and amid society. Certainly I have offered a syllogism and subsequent argumentation in defense of this claim. Thus Con’s assertion that I am merely defining concepts in whichever way I please is bad philosophy. For, Con is accusing me of projecting my own bias even after I have defended my conclusion.

Contrary to Con’s belief, such a claim of redefining is self-referential. For definitions and concepts, i.e. marriage, are ontologically distinct abstract objects which not only exist in relation to society but also encompass intrinsic value. Thus to accuse me of defining marriage arbitrarily is not only hypocritical, but also self-contradictory. For Con has argued erroneously for the redefining of a concept—which I assume he believes ought to be objectively reflected within society as same-sex marriage—subsequent to hypocritically accusing me of defining concepts arbitrarily, even after I have supported the claim that my definition of marriage best describes the ontological and moral reality of marriage intrinsic to society. It is an undeniable fact: Con’s accusation that I am presupposing the definition of marriage arbitrarily and defining marriage personally is principally false and self-contradictory.

2. In Defense of Premise 1a – 3b

Con has simply noted in response to the first premise of my argument that he feels as if my argument against same-sex marriage is somehow a throwback to the Dark Ages. I am not sure what to say back in response to his opinion. For no argument can be made in response to mere opinion. I guess I can thank him for sharing his beliefs on the matter of my argument. Consequently no argumentative response is warranted in return. However I do fear that Con has misunderstood the position which I advocate. Patrick Lee observes,[1]

“Marriage is not just a means toward precreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so.” [Emphasis mine.]

Moreover, Con in response to the second premise and conclusion of my argument has again, for the second time, willingly participated in committing to a straw man representation of my argument. For I have never suggested that a heterosexual’s relationship will no longer embody intrinsic value if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal. Rather, I have advocated the position that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would then be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behaviour as ethically equal to that of heterosexual behaviour. Moreover, my argument encompasses the position that “if the state affirms that same-sex marriages are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union.”[2] In addition to what I have already I said I go on further to declare that the position I advocate within my argument illumines such a distinction as unjustifiable, for the two types of behavior (Homosexual and heterosexual) are morally dissimilar to one another and thus incomparable. Undeniably, heterosexual type acts partaken within marriage actualize a multileveled moral reality while homosexual behaviour within marriage does not. Con has continued to barely even scratch the surface of understanding my argument.

3. In Response to the “Procreation Argument”

Con has merely questioned the validity of my counter objection to the infertility objection he presented earlier on within the debate. Moreover, Con attempts to participate in committing to a reductio ad-absurdum representation of my argument. This fact is made evident once you notice his conclusion that heterosexual type acts are merely focused on penis to vagina kind acts. Naturalistically such is the case. However to disrepute the moral significance embodied within such behaviour is to purposely misrepresent, misunderstand and disregard heterosexual type acts and the nature of the Traditionalists argument as anything more than mere causative behaviour. Nonetheless my objection stands as it were. For marriage does not serve as means for procreation. Rather marriage is oriented toward procreation. Con is definitely capable of offering his own opinion, yet incapable of mustering an argument capable of scratching the surface of my position.

4. In Response to Procreative Type Acts

I am not escaping a dilemma in any sense of the word when discussing the differences between an infertile couple and same-sex couple. For marriage does not serve as a means for procreation. Illegalcombatant’s charge would stand if that were the case—however, it is not. Nor is the definition I use a clever disguise. For I subscribe to a definition of marriage best understood by virtue of the moral and rational basis of heterosexual types acts, oriented toward procreation, within society and to the individual. Con’s claim that I merely abide by an abstraction fails to recognize the moral and ontological relevance this “abstraction” holds to society. I am beginning to become critically bored of accusing Illegalcombatant of partaking in creating straw man arguments in response to my position. For Illegalcombatant has continued to misunderstand my argument and thus continue to argue against a position I do not hold.

In addition, IllegalCombatant’s summation of my argument, principally “Only unions whose members, under normal circumstances, are capable of procreation qualify as marriage.” is an absolutely disgusting misrepresentation of my argument and the Traditionalist position. I have already defended the position that an infertile couple is justifiably capable of referring to their marriage as qualified even if the effect happens to not obtain. For marriage does not obtain under any normative basis besides that of procreative type acts. Thus, to suggest that my position assumes infertile couples are abnormal, for the effect of procreation happens to not obtain, is to absolutely misrepresent my argument and position. A marriage is normal insofar as the marriage abides by the ethic of marital norms. That being: The norm of heterosexual type acts, embodied ethically by way of the intrinsic bond held by marriage to the individual and within society. Moreover the total summation of such a capacity is comprehensibly captured by way of the moral reality which is instituted once two individuals of the opposite sex unite to become one in essence.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to neither properly disassemble my argument nor properly negate the contents of the syllogism I have presented. Thus my argument still stands as absolutely tenable within this debate. I would like the audience to note that my opponent has failed to further establish his position as tenable. In addition, it is an undeniable fact that my opponent has failed to accurately understand my argument, as well. I have enjoyed writing this response to Illegalcombatant. I hope the following rounds are as enlightening as the last.

Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument

Pro doesn't seem to dispute these premises, but Pro does seem to encourage me to offer further argument in support of them. Is it really necessary for me to do so if you don't dispute the premise ? Never the less......

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

The logical negation to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophical and/or legally you couldn't even go to the toilet unless you provided some sort of justification for it. Everything would be banned until proved other wise.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

The logical negation of this premise would be that we don't need a good reason to make something or keep something illegal.

C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

Why am I making this point about the logical negations to my premises ? because as Philosopher William Craig explains..."I’m puzzled that so many laymen seem to think that merely stating another possibility is sufficient to defeat a premise. This is mistaken, for the premises of an argument need be neither necessary nor certain in order for that argument to be a good one. The detractor of the argument needs to show either that the premiss in question is false or that its negation is just as plausibly true as the premise itself" [1]

Pro doesn't challenge these premises nor provide any reason why the logical negation of these premises are more plausibly true.

The Procreation argument & creative type acts

Previously I pointed out the two highly significant admission from Pro those being......

1) The ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry. Pro does seem to agree that the ability to have children is not relevant as to who can and can't get married.

2) Pro is arguing that marriage should only be allowed to couples that can have penis/vagina sexual intercourse (or as pro likes to call it "Pro creative type acts")

Pro says..."For I have never suggested that a heterosexual’s relationship will no longer embody intrinsic value if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal. Rather, I have advocated the position that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would then be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behaviour as ethically equal to that of heterosexual behaviour"

I think we have a third highly significant admission from Pro that being....

3) That allowing gay marriage will NOT result in the loss of intrinsic value of a hetrosexual relationship (read hetrosexual marriage)

Homosexuality and morality

After these admissions and clarifications from Pro, I did wonder what reason was left to ban gay marriage. Well Pro helps once again clarify their argument and says..."for the two types of behavior (Homosexual and heterosexual) are morally dissimilar to one another and thus incomparable."

Saying they are morally dissimilar is kinda vague cause it could mean either....

1) Homosexuality is immoral
2) Homosexuality is amoral
3) Homosexuality is moral but just not quite as moral as heterosexuality

It seems to me that Pro is arguing that homosexuality is immoral (in a non direct manner), hence cause Gay marriage entails immoral homosexuality, therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Wouldn't it of been easier if Pro just said this in the first place ?

I conclude that this is what Pro means, cause if Pro was to argue that they are not saying that homosexuality is immoral, just that its not on the same MORAL LEVEL as heterosexuality, this greatly takes away from the impact of making a moral argument against gay marriage.

Now there is a huge problem here with this premise that homosexuality is immoral, and that is, Pro would have to show that homosexuality is immoral. The trouble is that isn't enough, cause even under Pros argument for their definition of marriage doesn't exclude some one or couple from marriage just because immoral acts will be done within that marriage.

Consider the example of the big tobacco executive who denies that smoking causes cancer, while also doing what they can to sell as much of these cancer sticks, even trying to get new customers (read children) cause there long term customers seem to be quite rude in dying on average earlier than the non smoking people. Does Pro demand that this person should not allowed to get married because of their "immorality" ? of course not.

How about the hetrosexual couple that is abusive or will be abusive to their children ? Does Pros concept of marriage mean they can't get married ? are they denied marriage on immoral grounds ? of course not, Pro just likes to focus in on the immorality of the gays. The unestablished, unsubstantiated immorality of the gays.

Pros premise

""P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value).""

It has been established that the ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry & Pro admits that allowing gay marriage will NOT result in the loss of intrinsic value of a hetrosexual relationship. What reason is left to support the premise ?

As far as Pros saying... "I am not sure what to say back in response to his opinion. For no argument can be made in response to mere opinion. I guess I can thank him for sharing his beliefs on the matter of my argument." I merely return Pros own words to Pro in relation to their claim that a womans relationship with a man is fulfilled on the condition of bearing and rearing children. Incidentally, I keep using this as a pick up line but its not working for me.

Multi-level Union and Spirituality

I find it dubious that Pro implies the spirituality of marriage, yet Pros foundation of who can and can't get married is entirely down to a physical distinction, that being one person of a couple must have a penis and the other one a vagina.

Pro never tells us what spirituality they are talking about, nor does Pro really spell out what this "multi-level" union is that they keep referring too.

The argument for Gay Marriage

Consider again where Pro argues..."Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so.""

1) Gay marriage can't produce children
2) Marriage is good in its self even if its unable to produce children (Pros argument)
3) Therefore gay marriage can be good
4) Therefore we should not make gay marriage illegal

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Dimmitri.C

Pro

I appreciate Con’s proclivity toward discussing this issue. As such I will continue to respond and defend my principal argument presented at the beginning of the debate. I must say that I am extremely disappointed with this debate thus far, though. Con has continued to misunderstand and misconstrue my argument. I am afraid that this debate is far from conducive.

Have I Presented Reason?

Con seems to be implying that I am suggesting freedom, underlying my principal objection focusing on same-sex marriage, is not my default position. Con declares, “Everything would be banned until proved other wise.”
This charge is partially correct in principle, for human beings ought to be able to exercise their civil, political and social rights freely. However, I will submit, human beings, accompanied by properly functioning cognitive faculties, must exercise their civil, political and social rights in reason, understanding that in doing so they must comprehend the responsibilities obtaining to the consequences of their actions. Thus equal liberty should be granted and practiced in reason. Irrefutably if we were to suppose otherwise, that being freedom ought to be unrestricted until proven otherwise, the consequent would be pragmatically, ethically, and politically devastating. For example, we would not be justified in restricting immoral behaviour, such as, infanticide, murder, and pedophilia, until inferentially proven otherwise. Such a conclusion is undeniably counter-intuitive, for such types of behaviour are a priori justified as immoral. I have maintained the position, with respect to this debate, that we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified. However, I do not maintain the position that we ought to grant freedom until proven otherwise. As such I have presented support in favour of the conclusion I have drawn. Specifically, the State ought deny same-sex marriage and ought to enshrine and protect the conjugal definition of marriage, for the conjugal definition of marriage best suits the ontological relationship obtaining to the assimilation and integration of both moral and practical aspects of marriage to both the individual and society.

Marriage is made rational by virtue of the moral reality captured by the two individuals who become one in summation, two individuals who then later inadvertently lend support to a prospering society. Subsequent to presenting my foremost argument Con has plainly, in response to my initial argument, failed to retort and defend his position. Rather, Con has done well in expressing his opinion while misconstruing my arguments. With that being said, Con’s quotation of Dr. William Lane Craig is absolutely unserviceable. I have supplied reason in support for my position and against Illegalcombatant’s. Inversely, my opponent has failed to barely live up to his hypocritical accusations in response to me.

In Response to Homosexuality & Morality

Illegalcombatant’s response is completely irrelevant to the point I have made. Improper behaviour conducted within a marital environment is incidental to the necessary ontological nature of marriage. What qualifies a marriage as just is not whether or not the environment of the marriage is incidentally abnormal or normal. Rather, what qualifies a marriage as just is whether or not it the marriage is normally normative in essence. Thus the question should not be “What about the behaviour of some?” Instead, the question should be “What qualifies a marriage as just?” Therefore, Illegalcombatant’s objections are subsidiary irrelevant to whether or not the marriage of a heterosexual couple is normatively qualified. For marriage can only be made rational by way of heterosexual type acts. Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn’t to be granted a marriage license.

It is undeniably true that some, to a possible very many, heterosexual marriages will be abnormal, granted the present high divorce rate. However the distinction is that same-sex couples, inside and outside of marriage, are continuously dysfunctional, for same-sex couples are not normative in type. Con has failed to understand the distinction I have drawn.

In Response to Pro’s Premise

Con has continued to fail to understand the argument I have presented. I have never suggested the intrinsic nature of marriage will be extrinsically diminished granted same-sex marriage is legalized by the State. Rather, I have suggested that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would thus belittle and socially obscure the value of heterosexual unions as equal to that of homosexual unions. Irrefutably the two types of coupling (Homosexual and heterosexual) are hardly comparable. Thus the distinction must be drawn, for the fact of the matter is, that same-sex coupling is not ontologically relevant and conducive, neither to society nor the individual, both ethically and pragmatically, while heterosexual coupling, under the provision of marriage, is both ontologically relevant and conducive to both the society and the individual—undeniably, heterosexual unions capture a moral reality, practical within society, while under the supervision of marriage. Two two natures, that being both ethical and pragmatic, are complimentarily integrated within the purpose of marriage. Con has continued to misrepresent and fail to understand my argument.

In Response to the Argument for Gay Marriage

The syllogism of Con’s argument ultimately begs the question insofar as it assumes homosexual coupling is comparable to heterosexual coupling, normative, ethical and thus appropriately capable of being considered a marriage—undeniably, my opponents argument reinstates the assumed explanatory premise within the conclusion. Such reasoning is just bad philosophy. Moreover, I have spent the past few rounds defending the conclusion of my argument, a conclusion which negates my opponent’s conclusion as false. Irrespective to the fact that within my prior posts I have blatantly negated the conclusion Illegalcombatant has reached, my opponent does not seem to notice or understand the consequences of my, or his own reasoning. Nonetheless, it seems fair to assume that Illegalcombatant has either blatantly and purposely ignored every single round prior to the last or simply does not sincerely understand the arguments presented against him.

In conclusion, my opponent has failed to make a decisive response to the syllogism I initially presented. Contrariwise, I have turned Con’s initial argument against himself in such a way that it has proven conducive for my case. Moreover, I have shown Illegalcombatant’s counter objections to be either false misrepresentations of my position, i.e., straw man arguments, or absolutely irrelevant. Ultimately, Con has failed spectacularly to establish a strong argument and negate the premisses of my argument while further defending his own.

I urge the voters to vote Pro!


Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

All good things must come to an end............last round.

This isn't a farm, so why so many strawmen ?

Pro repeatably makes the claim that I deliberately try to mis characterise their argument, this is not the case. Any mis characterisation is from ignorance not intent. (Okey except for the dark ages snipe). But in my defense I think Pro could make their argument alot easier to understand for example Pro says..."Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn't to be granted a marriage license."

Normative = "In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong." [1]

Essence = "In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity" [2]

Don't you think this is an unnecessary difficult way of saying homosexuality is immoral therefore we should ban gay marriage, oh and gays can't have penis/vagina sex, and if you can't have penis/vagina sex you can't have a marriage ?

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument


Premise 1) Freedom is our default


Pro says..."Con seems to be implying that I am suggesting freedom, underlying my principal objection focusing on same-sex marriage, is not my default position."

Nope, my argument was just showing the problem of rejecting my premise and accepting its logical negation that freedom is NOT our default, it seemed to me you agreed with this premise or at least didn't argue against it.

Pro says... "For example, we would not be justified in restricting immoral behaviour, such as, infanticide, murder, and pedophilia, until inferentially proven otherwise." & "I have maintained the position, with respect to this debate, that we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified.""

Yes Pro, freedom is our default, it has been shown that we have good reason to ban rape and thus we ban rape and continue to ban rape. This doesn't refute the first premise. Again if you provide a good reason to restrict freedom this doesn't refute the premise that freedom is our default. Of course whether you have provided a good reason to restrict a freedom is the question.

Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

Pro seems to agree that we need a good reason to make something illegal, and seeks to provide a good reason to ban gay marriage.

C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegal

The Procreation argument & creative type acts


If the couple doesn't have the parts of one penis plus one vagina your not allowed to get married, are we clear here ?

Homosexuality and morality


Pro merely dismisses my argument here as irrelevant. Well sorry I think it is relevant and I would advise readers not to dismiss what was said as irrelevant just because Pro says so. remember Pro is the one making the big song and dance about how homosexuality is immoral, Pro is the one who argues that their concept of marriage can't tolerate gays getting married.

Pro does agree that their concept of marriage doesn't disqualify a couple from marrying on "immoral" grounds as shown in my previous examples. Apparently this ideal of marriage can tolerate the marriage of the abusive couple that is abusive to their kids, it can tolerate the rapist and murder getting married, but as soon as two men or two women want to marry each other, that's when this marriage ethic says no, that's when this normative of marriage says God forbid, that's when this ethical construct says no way, this is the one thing we can't tolerate, this is the one thing which is truly so despicable, so immoral that we can't possible allow it. You must, I repeat you MUST have one person with a penis and one person with a vagina, that's the deal breaker.

I don't buy it, and in my submission I don't think you the reader should either.

Pros premise


""P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value).""

Nothing about heterosexuality changes one bit if you allow gay marriage (that includes its "intrinsic" value), Pro acknowledges this.

We are going to make something illegal just because Pro asserts a "value" is going to end up denied. Funny most things that are made illegal include some sort of harm or potential harm to people you know like rape, driving on the foot path, putting arsenic in some one food, detonating a nuclear weapon in a city, you know that kind of stuff. Pro has not shown a harm of this sort.

I don't think we should accept this whole denial of a value argument, take for instance our often mentioned infertile couple. Now Pro is big on the baby making from partly which hetrosexual acts get their "value" from, but of course Pro doesn't think allowing an infertile couple to get married some how denies the value of hetrosexual acts. Never the less Pro would still have people believe that allowing gay marriage who can't justify their marriage in the possibility of producing babies just like the infertile married couple will result in the denial of hetrosexual value.

If Pro merely asserts that some value is denied as a result of allowing gay marriage, then I can merely assert that no value is denied if you allow gay marriage.

The argument for Gay Marriage


Pro pointed out that gay marriage is already assumed in the argument allow me to change premise 1 & premise 3 to take away this assumption.

1) If gay marriage is allowed, a gay marriage can't produce children

2) Marriage is good in its self even if its unable to produce children (Pros argument)

3) Therefore if a gay marriage is allowed it can be good

4) Therefore we should not make gay marriage illegal

Premise 1 no longer assumes gay marriage as an already given, and we know that Pro likes to remind us that gay marriage can't produce children.

Marriage is good in its self even it its unable to produce children is the very reason given to us by Pro in order to justify the infertile couple getting married, so Pro grants premise 2).

Does premise 3) or the argument as a whole require that homosexual coupling be MORALLY equivalent to hetrosexual coupling ? Not at all, I could grant that heterosexuality coupling is the greatest moral coupling and that homosexuality isn't quite as morally good and Premise 3) and the argument would still stand. If Pro objects that homosexuality is immoral and thus can't be good thus refuting premise 3) then Pro would have to show that.

Also you can't reject the argument on the basis that marriage should only be between a man and a woman until it has been proven that marriage should only be between a man and woman as this would be question begging Pros position. Yes I realize Pro would retort they have already done that, what can I say, other than I disagree.

Even if this argument breaks down, I am not too concerned as you still need a good reason to make something illegal, so a refutation of this argument doesn't automatically mean that gay marriage should be illegal.

Closing Remarks


Well Pro did express there disappointment at the debate already in the comments section, but as a consolation prize I think I have a better handle on this type of argument against gay marriage, so its not a complete loss now is it ?

You need a good reason to make something illegal, and I submit that Pro didn't give us a good reason.

Vote Con

I thank Pro for providing a thought provoking debate.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Dimmitri.C

Pro

I would like to thank IllegalCombatant for offering such a lively topic for discusison and his participation within this debate.

1. A Short Summary of Events

Let’s recall my initial declaration: That I will be concerning my response with one principal conclusion, of which the arguments premisses still remain collectively integrated and valid, in favour of the Tradionalist position. Namely, Patrick Lee’s argument for the special value of heterosexual type acts in conjunction with marriage and the relevance of such an institution both to the individual and society. I have defended the two primary contentions I projected, subsequent to negating Illegalcombatant’s conclusion and succeeding objections, throughout this debate by merely explaining my position precisely. Irrefutably my opponent failed to grasp and engage the underlying meaning of the argument I proposed within this date. As such the only role within this debate that was in need of fulfillment was that of clarification and classification. Con seems to disagree with this fact in his conclusion by stating, “Pro repeatably makes the claim that I deliberately try to mis characterise their argument, this is not the case." However this statement is obviously false granted the past three rounds, for Illegalcombatant undeniably managed to even anticipatively misconstrue a position which I hold, of which I have thoroughly defended subsequent to my introduction and first response—certainly, Illegal combatant continued to misconstrue my position throughout the entire debate. The evidence of Illegalcombatant’s actions speak louder than his conclusive remarks.

I am unsure of Con’s reasoning in his conclusion, though. Con states that freedom is our default yet goes on to explain that we have good reason to ban rape for it has been proven to be destructive. I have maintained the position that we need not have to prove inferentially such actions, that being rape, infanticide, or pedophilia, be proven as destructive—indeed, I have stated that this charge is partially correct in principle. Rather, I have suggested that immoral behaviour is a priori justified as immoral. Con failed to grasp the tenacity of my objection and thus failed to accurately represent and respond to this objection. Ensuing this objection I will continue to maintain this position with respect to this debate, which we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified. However, I do not maintain the position that we ought to grant freedom until proven otherwise. I have supplied upright and virtuous reasons in defense of my main contention. Namely, the conjugal definition or marriage, intrinsic to society, is to be protected and enshrined by the State.

2. In Response to Homosexuality and Morality


I am sincerely disappointed to read what Pro has written here, for I have already demonstrated such objections to be entirely irrelevant and unsubstantiated within this debate. Recall my earlier statements, namely that Illegalcombatant should be interested in the question of “What qualifies a marriage as just?” and not “What about the behaviour of some?” In addition, I went on to further declare that such objections are subsidiary irrelevant to whether or not the marriage of a heterosexual couple is normatively qualified. For marriage can only be made rational by way of heterosexual type acts. Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn’t to be granted a marriage license.

Indeed it is undeniably true that some, to a possible very many, heterosexual marriages will be abnormal, granted the present high divorce rate. However the distinction is that same-sex couples, inside and outside of marriage, are continuously dysfunctional, for same-sex couples are not normative in type. Con has failed to understand the distinction I have drawn. The focus of this debate is what qualifies a marriage as normative and morally just, intrinsic to society; not whether or not two individuals ought to be married or whether their marriage is conducive to either society or their children.

3. In Counter-Response to Pro’s Premise

Undeniably this is yet another disgusting misrepresentation of my argument. I have come to the conclusion that Illegalcombatant’s understanding of my argument is truly without hope. For instance, Con states that I have not concerned myself with demonstrating that homosexuality is akin to other destructive forms of behaviour. Con seems to fail in recognizing that I have spent the last three rounds classifying same-sex marriage as destructive, for homosexual type acts are immoral both to the individual and society. I hardly think any reasonable person would willingly deny the fact that I have demonstrated, within the aforementioned rounds, this very fact within this debate. Irrespective to whether or not you disagree or agree with my position, of which the conclusion remains untouched, I have demonstrated homosexual type acts to be immoral. To suggest otherwise is to purposely misrepresent my position.

Moreover, Con continuously tries to undermine my argument by stating that we shouldn’t accept my argument simply because some type of “value” will be denied and that nothing intrinsically changes about heterosexuality. The distinction I drew, a distinction which Con has yet again failed to recognize, is that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage, then, the State would thus be extrinsically obscuring, trivializing and demeaning the special value conjugal marriage holds in relation to both society and the individual. Irrefutably Con has again misunderstood my argument, even after I confirmed that granting same-sex marriage as legal would do nothing to intrinsically diminish the conjugal conception of marriage, in relation to both the individual and society. The conjugal definition of marriage will continue to remain valuable independent of the States arbitrary whim, of which its definitive value is intrinsic to. Illegalcombatant here again failed to accurately represent and respond to my main contention.

Furthmore, Con fails to again recognize the fundamental normative differences between a homosexual couple who can’t marry in comparison with that of a sterile couple who can. The distinct differences are in genderand not whether the effect of procreatiom happens to obtain. Con has yet again failed to dispute the fact that marriage is best understood by virtue of heterosexual type acts. However Con has succeeded in continuously misrepresenting my position. Marriage does not obtain under any normative basis besides that of procreative type acts. To suggest otherwise at this point in time is to purposely misrepresent my position.

4. In Response to the Argument for Gay Marriage and my Conclusion

Con has failed to respond to my question begging charge in regard to the syllogism he projected at the end of his response in the third round. Namely, that Con is assuming and reinstating the premise that homosexual behaviour is morally normative and the instrumental equivalent to that of heterosexual behaviour within his conclusion. Con then further goes on to explain that I am question begging. Honestly, I have to confess that this debate is an undeniable mess. For I have already explained that I am not question begging based on the fact that the definition of marriage I am arguing in favour of is conjugal in essencecertainly, I made such a fact obvious in the beginning of my response during the second round. Furthermore, I have supplied good reason to justify the declaration that the State ought to protect and enshrine the conjugal definition of marriage. I have continuously supplied good reason to suggest that marriage ought to be a freedom granted only to heterosexual couples. Undeniably Con has failed to supply one shred of evidence to suggest the contrary.

I urge all voters to vote Pro!





Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 15 records.
Posted by BruteApologia 3 years ago
BruteApologia
Whoa, another one? You're like the Contradiction of the SSM side, at least in terms of focus. Looking forward to reading this debate, however!
Posted by Dimmitri.C 3 years ago
Dimmitri.C
I look forward to a warm, sincere and interesting debate.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 3 years ago
Illegalcombatant
So give me a definition and explanation of what it means to have " formal government-recognized civil union" to make sure we are on the same page.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 3 years ago
Illegalcombatant
"(only formal government-recognized civil union or religious union"

I might be open to the definition based on formal government recognized civil union. But if your reject my definition as vague, referring to marriage as a religious union doesn't help.
Posted by Molzahn 3 years ago
Molzahn
"Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony."

You left your definition of marriage so vague and open-ended that even blood-brothers can fall under your definition of "marriage." Create a succinct and accurate definition of marriage (only formal government-recognized civil union or religious union) and I might consider accepting your debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by BruteApologia 2 years ago
BruteApologia
IllegalcombatantDimmitri.CTied
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: Con falsely accused Pro of defining the conjugal marriage into victory, providing ad hoc “types”, and failing to address the moral problem. Pro justified the special intrinsic value of traditional marriage and explained the government’s interest in it. The fact that SSM could exist and procreation still take place does not justify legalizing SSM. Con only attacked misrepresentations of Pro’s position while failing to justify the legalization of SSM.
Vote Placed by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantDimmitri.CTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro complains that Con misconstrued his arguments but I seemed to get the same impression of Pros arguments as I read them, which leads to a much stronger argument for Con. Pro sounded like someone trying to win a vocabulary contest rather then someone trying to communicate a case. Perhaps his points were misunderstood but if so, it is his responsibility to be clear. SG is left tied as both sides had many spelling mistakes. Conduct to Pro for Cons remarks throughout in representing his opponent.
Vote Placed by ExNihilo 3 years ago
ExNihilo
IllegalcombatantDimmitri.CTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con begged the question throughout the debate. Pro clearly appealed to a definition of marriage, from which he based his arguments. Pro justified the definition.