The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Losing
103 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Winning
158 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+23
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 39 votes the winner is...
InquireTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,455 times Debate No: 6656
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (114)
Votes (39)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

This debate was issued to InquireTruth... twice. He let it expire both times. Now I open it up to the public to defend his position because he apparently will not do so.

***************************************************

The proposition on offer is that Gay Marriage should be legal in the United States.

For the purposes of debate, "Gay Marriage" will be held to mean marriage between two individuals of the same sex. This definition arises from two segments of relevant law common to most states. From Illinois:

750 ILCS 5/201: Formalities. A marriage between a man and a woman licensed, solemnized and registered as provided in this Act is valid in this State.
750 ILCS 5/211(a)(5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex.

Section 5/211(a) details prohibited classes of marriage. These laws are found at least in general form in many states.

Marriage shall be held to be in relevant part:

(1) The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
(2) The state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)
(3) The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

The three definitions show the traditional meaning, an updated definition concerning the state in which married people live, and the nature of the institution. Other definitions recognize marriage as between simply two individuals without legal sanction. Legally, a sanction is "The part of a law that is designed to secure enforcement by imposing a penalty for violation of the law or offering a reward for its observance." Thus, one can see that the institution of gay marriage has been socially recognized, but there is a lack of "reward" in social benefits like tax breaks, as well as a "punishment" in the form of no legal solemnization of the institution.

This lack of sanction violates rights of individuals considering entry into a marriage.

Inquire truth has put forth the following in another debate:
****************************************
Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons:

1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages.

2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality.
To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities.

3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights.

4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty?
****************************************

To address the issues:

1. Once upon a time, the majority of people were against segregation. This obviously shoots down the notion that laws cannot be passed against the will of the people. Putting the rights of the people to the whim of ad populum is one of the things the founding fathers were most concerned about - tyranny of the majority.

2. There is indeed evidence for homosexuality being caused by genetic factors. A recent "Psychology Today" has an article on the very concepts that Synderella mentioned in your other debate. Propensity towards homosexuality increases with each male child. Homosexuality is not sexual perversion. Also, there is no danger to the argument in considering pedophilia, zoophilia, etc... to be innate because these sorts of behaviors are regulated by other, far more compelling concerns than the ones the regulate homosexuality.

3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights if they do not have the right to choose who they can marry. If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction. Clearly, homosexuals lack the right to choose who to marry.

4. My opponent asserts that marriage will loose its meaning if homosexuals are allowed to marry. It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed. The "dangers" of polygamy/polyandry (multiple spouses) and pederasty (sexual relations between two males, esp. a minor) are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent.

************************************

To head off a couple counterarguments...

IT asserts that there are "trivial benefits" that "do not trump the consequences" of legalizing gay marriage. However, he never states what these consequences ARE. More, stabler families? Solemnization of relationships for a segment of the populace? It sounds like IT is afraid that allowing gays to marry will suddenly have people "catching gay."

>> "We should not verbally abuse and discriminate someone because they are homosexual, but we should not do this to a pedophile either. We cannot say however, that their sexual tendencies give them rights."

But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient.

>> "100% have the right to marry in the exact same way. We both can marry 1 person of the opposite sex."

This is the same way as choosing your partner how?

>> "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school. Public school education should reflect the view that is congenial to the masses and consistent with popular opinion."

The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus.

**********************************************

The position of denying homosexuals the right to marry is not legally tenable. I assert that:

1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right.
2) Homosexuals are suspect class.

Either of these considerations, if accepted places the burden of proof on CON to fulfill all three prongs of the strict scrutiny standard:

First, it must concern a compelling government interest.
Second, the law must be narrowly tailored.
Third, the law must be the least restrictive means to the end.

Laws forbidding individuals from marrying a member of the same sex fail all three of these prongs.

AFFIRMED.
InquireTruth

Con

Thank you, Tarzan, for the challenge. I hope we can have a wholesome debate. Since you are more logically minded than my previous opponent – coterminous to myself – hopefully you will have no trouble following all things to their logical conclusions.

I reluctantly accept this debate, not because I am leery of the topic or my opponent (although Tarzan is a formidable opponent), but because it will be tough for me to spend an adequate amount of time writing my responses.

What follows are my rebuttals to the first four numerical counterarguments:

1. Will of the people

This has no bearing on the forthcoming argument, but could my opponent please furnish some literature that properly informs us that segregation was practiced in accordance with the majority opinion, AND was abolished in accordance with the minority opinion.

I would first like the readers to recognize that my opponent is obviously against the utilitarian method of morality. The emotional argument presented in regards to segregation illustrates this. But let us consider the logical implications of Tarzan's reasoning. Consider that all people in the world believe that occasional child sacrifice to Molech is right. Indeed, there is not a single person who disagrees. Would the action of child sacrifice be right or wrong? If my opponent affirms that it would be wrong, then he is appealing to an unspecified and objective standard of morality that is apart form human reasoning, intellect, and sovereignty. This morality, as it seems, transcends humanity.

This is precisely what Tarzan is doing. He is assuming that morality is defined apart form human will. Therefore, what objective standard of morality is he appealing to? Why is this standard obligatory? If all people in the world can agree that gay-marriage is wrong, but, because of some transcendental edict it really ought to be right, then my opponent would have a point. But my opponent has given no reason as to why we should presume that morality is anything more than an idea. My opponent has not done anything to lend credence to this unidentified and transcendental standard for morality. He has given no reason why the utilitarian approach to morality is wanting.

If morality is not a fixed standard, then certainly there is no error in saying that segregation WAS right and now it IS wrong. If morality IS fixed, then, as is apparent, we could be wrong about what is right or wrong at any given moment. Thirty years from now – our current feelings notwithstanding – pedophilia may be nationally condoned. Would this mean that pedophilia would not only be right, but would have ALWAYS been right?

The point stands – until my opponent can furnish his presupposed standard – the allowance of things should be determined by the will of the people.

2. It is genetic

The source that I supplied Synd describes that there is currently no evidence that sufficiently supports the notion of a genetic precursor (it includes, among many others, the study in question). Evidence of correlation should not be construed as evidence for genetic causation. Moreover, the mentioned study offers no related correlation for lesbianism.

There is currently insufficient data to determine the nature or cause of homosexuality. We simply do not know. But it is certainly dangerous to presume that genetics determine either normality or rightness – which is precisely my point with pedophilia. The current war cry of the NAMBLA (The North American Man-Boy Love association), who rally in many gay pride parades – is remarkably similar: "we were born this way (1)."

3. Homosexuals inherently have less rights

This is simply false. Whatever rights are not given to homosexuals are not given to heterosexuals. No one is receiving special treatment. Moreover, states are in the regular practice of regulating what we can choose. They equally distribute regulation in terms of age (pedophilia), number (polygamy), and familial relationships (incest). Since we already give the right to the state to regulate our choices (a right that Tarzan believes is imminently dangerous), perhaps we should remove the artificial right to marry all together.

4. The meaning of marriage

"It seems to me that the meaning of marriage is far more about the love and joy that a couple share in spending the rest of their life together than about making sure a penis and a vagina share the same bed."

If this is the case, then why in the world would same-sex marriages need to be sanctioned. The meaning of marriage can be achieved without the need of government sanction. If we eliminate the whole idea of marriage, it's meaning would still remain.

I wonder though, does my opponent see the inherent contradiction in his assertions:

"If the state has the power to regulate who people can marry, then the state would have the power to refuse marriage licenses between two stupid people or any other arbitrary, even innate, distinction."

And

"The 'dangers' of polygamy/polyandry...are regulated by other concerns for tax laws and the familial unit, as well as laws concerning the age of consent."

Laws regulate the former, but for some reason he still believes it to be an immanent danger. Laws regulate the latter, but of course, he sees these laws as insuperable, inalienable and cast iron mores. Certainly if danger exists in one of them, it exists in both. What logical reasons - if the logic used to permit same-sex marriage is granted - does one have for barring polygamy and/or incest?

- - - -

Response to latter counterarguments:

A. What are the consequences

The consequences, as I pointed out in my previous debate, was that it would undermine the will of the people, it would necessitate a revamping of our sex-education systems, and it would give new impetus to the rally for polygamy, pedophilia, and incest - as is already evidenced (2).

B. "But a sexual tendency towards heterosexuality should be given the right to choose who to marry and to have social benefits like tax breaks and solemnization conferred upon them? This position is simply not salient."

This assumes that it is the mere tendency that confers rights. It is the fact that it is a biologically, anatomically, and evolutionarily attested match. Therefore, all people are alloted the same right to marry one person of the opposite sex.

C. "This is the same way as choosing your partner how?"

A pedophile cannot choose a child. A polygamous can choose but one (at a time). A traditionalist pure-bred cannot choose to marry his sister. But all people can choose one partner who is of the opposite sex. It seems pretty straightforward.

D. "The notion that homosexuality is a sexual perversion is a Christian value. It's very clearly outlined in Leviticus."

I am not sure why this is considered a counterargument. It is completely irrelevant. But, for the sake of answering, no it is not "clearly" outlined in Leviticus. They had no understanding of the homosexuality we refer to nowadays.

- - - -

"1) The right to marry the partner of one's choosing is a fundamental right.
2) Homosexuals are suspect class."

What makes marriage a fundamental right? Furthermore, the question is not whether marriage is a fundamental right, but whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right (this is an entirely different question). I could easily ask the same thing of polygamy and incest. Moreover, it is my opponent's burden to prove that homosexuality is a suspect class. This necessitates fulfilling all of the following categories:

1. History of Purposfull discrimination
2. Political Powerlessness
3. Immutable Trait
4. Grossly Unfair

IT

Sources:
1. http://www.narth.com... and http://www.inteldaily.com...
2. http://www.cwfa.org... and http://www.boston.com...
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Since my esteemed opponent seems overwhelmed by the burden this places on him, I waited till near the end of my time to post my argument...

Responses:

1. On the Will of the People.

My opponent begins with a somewhat (deliberate?) disingenuous reading of the analogy to segregation. Public opinion was clearly in favor of segregation in the 1950's. Public opinion was NOT in favor of desegregation. Yet the country was desegregated anyway...

A fundamental problem that exists with a utilitarian model of morality is that it leads to cases like this where the majority of people support something that is indeed immoral. Using this model, IT would have to admit that if the majority of people considered wanton murder to be a moral act, it WOULD be. The transcendent nature of morality is not up for debate here - nobody seriously believes in the utilitarian view of morality. People don't even conceptualize morality in that fashion. For example, in Shaun Nichols' "Sentimental Rules" there was a study asking Amish children if God ordered them to do an immoral act (I believe it was poking someone's eye out) it would STILL be wrong. Clearly, there are many people that believe that morality is a transcendent concept.

At the end of the day, it is clear that the will of the people creates situations which are arbitrarily fundamentally unfair. The appeal to some sort of public morality is NOT a satisfactory appeal under strict scrutiny.

2. On Genetic Disposition.

Actually, the article from Psychology Today posited that the sexuality of women was in general more fluid, thus accounting for lesbians and the greater proportion of bisexual females. There is no hard, EXACT evidence for genetic predisposition, but there is also no evidence to the contrary. In the absence of such evidence, consideration should be given to the notion that if it IS genetic, there is a terrible injustice going on. Again, for cases of pedophilia and incest, there are health concerns allowing regulation of these. As for polygamy... why not? You find it "icky"? I'm sorry - that's not compelling.

3. On The Imbalance of Rights.

My opponent pretends that laws that are facially nondiscriminatory, yet discriminatory as applied are not discriminatory. This is quite clearly nonsense. If a law were passed prohibiting the consumption of wine in church on Sundays, it would be facially nondiscriminatory, but in practice burden all Catholics and thus be discriminatory.

4. On the Meaning of Marriage.

Clearly, the sanctioning of marriage increases the solemnity and importance to the couple, as well as conferring social benefits like tax breaks upon the couple. The meaning of the concept itself can be achieved without government interaction, but the corollaries of the concept cannot be achieved without the government's approval - because the government confers these benefits. My opponent's reading of a "contradiction" in my line of argument is nothing more than him misunderstanding that the state DOESN'T have the power to arbitrarily legislate in the fashion I describe... To answer his "contradiction" ....

>> "if the logic used to permit same-sex marriage is granted - does one have for barring polygamy and/or incest?"

Same sex and polygamy may have similar reasoning, but incest, pedophilia, zoophilia, toasterphilia, etc... are regulatable based on health concerns... This is a completely separate debate. We are concerned with same sex marriage. The "slippery slope" argument is simply uncompelling in light of the vast differences in situation. Same sex marriage is about TWO adult individuals not fifteen, not children, not animals, and not toasters.

A. Consequences.

The will of the people is undermined every time the Supreme Court overturns a piece of legislation. Big deal. Again, the slippery slope argument is both a separate issue and fairly uncompelling unless a good analogy can be drawn.

B. Tendencies -> Rights.

The argument from biological/evolutionary/anatomical matches fails in light of the fact that there are dozens of animals that exhibit homosexual behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org... . Furthermore, the argument that heterosexuality is genetic begs the counterargument that if sexual preference/orientation is genetic, homosexuality must also be genetic.

C. Marriage vs. Choice.

A pedophile cannot chose a child because the child is a minor. People cannot marry those of the whole or half blood because it increases the proclivity towards genetic disorders.

D. Christian Values.

The relevance is that in your other debate you said to send students that didn't agree with mainstream beliefs to other schools: "If Christians want to teach their kids Christian ethics and values, they send them to a private school."

You are imposing Christian values on the entire populace while maintaining that they are not and that there should be separate from the majority of the population.

***************************************

On Marriage as a Fundamental Right.

>> "What makes marriage a fundamental right?"

This is normative legal debate. From Loving v. Virginia: "Freedom to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right." Very cut and dry.

>> "The question is not whether marriage is a fundamental right, but whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right."

From Goodridge v. Massachusetts: "Without the right to marry – or more properly, the right to choose to marry – one
is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship."

What does marriage mean if you do not have your choice of partner? I addressed this issue before, and my opponent's only response has been the slippery slope argument. He seems to entirely miss the notion that one's choice of WHO is fundamentally different from a choice of HOW MANY. It would be easy to change a law so that it simply said that marriage was between two individuals. This would not present ANY sort of danger towards polygamy/polyandry.

On Suspect Class.

My opponent has an unusual definition of suspect class. Grossly unfair is NOT part of the legal classification. It is:

1) Has an immutable characteristic.
2) Is politically impotent.
3) Has a history of discrimination.
4) Is a "discrete and insular" minority.

Obviously homosexuals are politically impotent, have a history of discrimination, and are a discrete (distinct, separate) and insular (isolated on some basis) minority. The only one of these in question is immutable characteristic. If homosexuality is genetic, it is an immutable characteristic. If it is a demonstrably unconscious situation, this burden is fulfilled as well. To shoot down the notion of immutability, CON must show that it is not genetic and is a conscious choice.

Consider that if one holds homosexuality to be a conscious choice, it would also be demonstrable that heterosexuality is a conscious choice - it is silly to hold there to be a gene for sexual preference that only selects heterosexuality - this would be like a gene for eye color that only selected blue.

*****************************

Please not that either the presence of a fundamental right OR suspect classification triggers strict scrutiny and places the burden on CON. Once again:

"Freedom to marry has been recognized as a fundamental right." - Loving v. Virginia (US SC)

Thus, the burden of proof is on CON to show that laws regulating one's choice of marriage are

1) Concerning a compelling government interest.
2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest.
3) The least restrictive means to the end.

AFFIRMED.
InquireTruth

Con

Introduction:

I would like to sincerely thank Tarzan for his relentless kindness. I much appreciate his willingness to take matters slowly.

*************

1. Will of the people

Certainly there is nothing disingenuous about wanting proper evidence to show that Tarzan's comparison is truly an analogous one. I also hope that my opponent does not expect us to accept his analogy on the weak pretense that he truly knew 1950's public opinion. Though, like I said in my last response, this has no bearing on my argument, I would at the very least like my opponent to furnish proper evidence to support his comparison.

My opponent goes on to state that a fundamental problem with the utilitarian model is that majority opinion could come to support something that is immoral (e.g. wanton murder). But this is a classic case of begging the question (the proper definition of the term). My opponent's premise actually depends on the very matter in question! My opponent presupposes a transcendental morality to prove the utilitarian model wrong. My opponent has even stated before that things are wrong qua wrong. But this is neither obvious nor evidenced by our seemingly evolving morality.

I hope that my opponent does not expect us to accept that morality is transcendental because many people believe it to be so.

My opponent does not understand that proving his transcendental morality is absolutely fundamental to his case! If he cannot prove the utilitarian model to be wanting then he cannot prove that banning homosexual marriage is wrong. If he cannot prove it to be wrong then he cannot prove that any such injustice exists! If there is absolutely nothing unfair about legislating against what the majority of people feel to be immoral, my opponent's case cannot stand. My opponent MUST prove this transcendental morality beyond the weak pretense that it is wrong qua wrong.

We find that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who fight against the unspoken agreement and try to redefine moral terms. Different cultures have different moral codes. Which culture is right, and by what objective standard do we judge them by? My opponent has furnished no such standard.

The point stands – until my opponent can furnish his presupposed standard – the allowance of things should be determined by the will of the people.

2. It is genetic

Like I said, the article I gave negated the studies in question and sufficiently determined that there is insufficient data to prove that homosexuality is genetic. There is however, evidence to the contrary. For instance, there exists a substantial amount of ex-homosexuals. This would clearly be a hard feat to accomplish when it is genetically hardwired into your system. But – let me repeat myself – we simply do not have adequate information to support either side. My opponent makes the claim that if homosexuality is genetic, then a terrible injustice is occurring. But it was my argument that the mere fact that something is genetic cannot determine its rightness. Pedophilia was the example. If merely being genetic was enough to substantiate the rightness or normality of something, than pedophilia and zoophilia would necessarily follow suit.

First, incest is not tied directly to birth abnormalities (1). Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Carl Olstrom states that, "There is no evidence to support the assumption that children resulting from incestuous relationships run a greater risk of being malformed than other children."

But even if this were a compelling argument, there are possible incestuous relationships in which procreation is not possible (like a homosexual one). Moreover, heterosexuals who procreate run the risk of abnormalities (especially if they genetically carry it); I hope my opponent wishes to stop this unruly and dangerous philandering as well.

An argument for same-sex marriage simply cannot be made on genetic grounds.

3. On the imbalance of rights

My opponent's definition is self-refuting. My opponent's definition renders all legislation discriminatory when applied. There is no such thing then, as a nondiscriminatory law. If all things are not permissible, then somebody is not getting what they want. There are laws that burden only pedophiles; laws that burden only zoophiles; laws that burden only the polygamous; laws that burden only the in-breeders; laws that burden only men; laws that burden only women. Laws are formed based on what is right and proper and what is right and proper is determined by the people. Such legislation is then distributed equally.

My opponent's argument fails ad absurdum.

4. On the meaning of marriage

My opponent has not answered whether or not he believes the problem can be resolved by simply eliminating the idea of marriage all together. Therefore legal benefits would not be conferred to either party. This would of course lose him the debate, but solve the supposed problem.

Also, incest can very well be a relationship between two consenting adults. The difference in situation is null. Health concerns are not enough, nor are they all encompassing of incestuous relationships. The point with pedophilia was that if rights are conferred based on genetics, one may rightly have to claim pedophilia to be a legitimate right.

*************

A. Consequences

I reaffirm my previous consequences as they were not adequately (or at all) refuted.

B. Tendencies - > Rights

My opponent never answered: does a mere tendency confer rights? Moreover, animals do a lot of things. A compelling argument cannot be made that since animals do it, it is right for us to do it. If that were the case we would see some mantis style eating of our mates after intercourse – fortunately my wife does not adhere to mantis morality. Eating our own feces would be a normal practice too. It is not enough to say that since animals do it also that the practice is either normal or right.

C. Marriage vs Choice

My opponent concedes polygamy. Incest does not necessarily increase the proclivity to genetic disorders and most certainly not all incestuous relationships have the capablility of procreating.

D. Christian Values

Christian values and normative secular values converge.

1A. marriage as a fundamental right

Citing a court decision does not prove that marriage is a fundamental right (let alone that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right). If quoting court decisions was enough to prove a point, then my opponent must understand that under the constitution of California same-sex marriages are strictly prohibited.

2A. Gooddrige v. Massachusetts

Again, there are plenty of individuals who cannot choose the partner of their chose. If the quoted section were taken to its logical conclusion, we would have a complete fulfillment of my "slippery slope" argument. Choices are regulated.

*************
"It would be easy to change a law so that it simply said that marriage was between two individuals."

Yes. But would it be right to do so? What logical reasons do you have for barring it – current laws notwithstanding?

Homosexuals are not politically impotent and homosexuality has not been adequately proven to be genetic.

IT

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.gateway.org...
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

1. Will of the People

Morality is conceptualized as objective by the VAST majority of people. They will hold that moral "laws" or "rules," if you will, are completely independent of authority. Consider the following question-response pair:

1) Is wanton murder moral or immoral? IMMORAL.
2) If God said wanton murder was permissible, would it be moral or immoral? IMMORAL.

Only those completely disillusioned with the nature of morality would hold that God could make wanton murder into a moral action (especially since he told us it was a mortal sin...). The sort of moral relativism exercised in the will of the people leads to the notion that homosexuality could be IMMORAL in Indiana, yet somehow MORAL in Ohio. This is obviously nonsense. Consider that the ramification of this is that in a place such as Union City, homosexuals on West Main St. can be legally married, yet homosexuals on East Main St. cannot.

Really? That is complete nonsense. There is no MORAL change in either the homosexuals themselves or the moral standards of the people in between East Union City and West Union City.

Philosophically, the notion of moral relativism runs into a problem when trying to account for why some things are wrong regardless of factors like culture, social standards, etc... for example - wanton murder is wrong everywhere. Moral relativists must hold that there was some standard that EVERYONE appealed to in order for these universally accepted notions to be "relative." Whatever this standard is would be an acceptable standard for evaluating morality in objective terms as well.

So IT has some considerations here to address:

1) Moral relativism leads to the Union City Homosexual paradox.
2) Moral relativism cannot account for universally accepted moral standards.
3) People do not conceptualize morality is authority independent, suggesting there is an objective sort of "authority."
4) The morals of the people are immaterial under Strict Scrutiny.

2. It is Genetic.

We seem to be in agreement that solid genetic evidence either way is lacking.

The slippery slope argument towards pedophilia and zoophilia is completely immaterial. This is a normative legal debate. Children and animals cannot give legal consent. It is not a case of genetics substantiating the rightness or wrongness of something - it is about the preconceived notion that whatever is unnatural is wrong. When Ben Franklin began working with electricity, people admonished him for negating God's will - he asked if they had roofs on their houses.

Incestuous relationships between individuals that carry a defect, even dormantly, are guaranteed of perpetuating the defect. Granted, if there is no defect, inbreeding will not produce defects. The moral approbation of incestuous relationships stems from one place - Leviticus 20.

3. On Imbalance of Rights.

My opponent clearly does not understand the notion of facial and applied discrimination. A law regulating the consumption of wine in Church on Sunday would be facially nondiscriminatory, but in practice excessively burden Catholics.

It is exceedingly clear that the laws restricting same-sex marriage burden only homosexuals (or those attempting to cheat on taxes...). If excessive burden solely on the basis of a difference in sexual preference is not an imbalance of rights, I suggest my opponent look up a definition of "imbalance."

4. On the Meaning of Marriage.

Elimination of the notion of marriage is akin to curing the disease by killing the patient - I'm surprised IT even wanted me to entertain the silly notion. Surely he won't divorce his wife if homosexuals are allowed to marry...

There is no contradiction between the power to regulate things that bear a rational relation to a sufficiently important government interest and the lack of power to regulate things based in willy-nilly differences in kind.

In fact, there is no logical bar to polygamy other than current laws regarding the extent of social benefits (i.e. how do you file a joint return with 15 people?). And no bar to incest other than Leviticus.

A. Consequences.

My opponent asserts that allowing homosexuals to marry undermines the will of the people - this is completely refuted by the fact that every time the Supreme Court declares legislation unconstitutional, it does the exact same thing.

He asserts that it requires modification of sex education - apparently he would rather children learn that some people prefer to put their penis in "strange" places on the street instead of in a classroom. There is nothing wrong with changing sex education.

He also asserts that this gives new purpose to other rallies - Ok... and? Political dissidents are not allowed to parade around the street??? Really??

B. Tendencies -> Rights.

IT asserts I never answered whether or not a tendency confers rights despite the fact that I stated in the first round that the position that sexual tendencies confer rights is "simply not salient." He calls the argument of animal homosexuality not compelling, regardless of the fact that humans ARE animals. I'm not suggesting that since animals do it we should also do it (negating his mantis example). I suggest that if there was no evolutionary precedent for homosexual behavior, it would not appear in animals. Unless, of course, IT believes that animals are capable of homosexual desires...

C. Marriage vs. Choice.

We seem to have strayed from the issue. The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry. Otherwise, the right is nonsense. Consider a right to hold religious beliefs, but not to choose which beliefs to hold.

D. Christian Values.

>> "Christian values and normative secular values converge."

My opponent has apparently not read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Absorbing Christian values into law runs afoul of this tenant. Furthermore, Homosexuality (and even pedohomosexuality) was perfectly acceptable in ancient Greece. Thus, one can see that this is not historically a normative secular value.

1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right.

>> "Citing a court decision does not prove that marriage is a fundamental right "

Once again - this is a LEGAL DEBATE. Supreme Court case precedent supersedes your assertions AND state constitutions.

2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts

Again, IT seems to miss the difference between the choice of WHO and the choice of HOW MANY or HOW OLD. There is no fulfillment of the slippery slope argument.

*******************************

>> "Homosexuals are not politically impotent"

This is simply false. Blacks are a suspect class, and thus politically impotent. There are far fewer homosexuals than blacks.

>> "Yes. But would it be right to do so [changing marriage to "two individuals"]? What logical reasons do you have for barring it – current laws notwithstanding?

Barring what? This begs the question of what reasons YOU have for barring the change? Is marriage somehow NOT between two individuals even though current definitions recognize a marital relationship as being between individuals, regardless of legal consideration (see R1) ??

**********************************

- IT has failed to declassify marriage as a legal fundamental right.
- IT has failed to entertain the possibility of genetic homosexuality despite evidence of evolutionary drives towards it.

Thus, the burden is STILL on him to fulfill strict scrutiny for laws regulating one's choice of marriage:

1) Concerning a compelling government interest.
2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest.
3) The least restrictive means to the end.

IT has provided ABSOLUTELY NO legal argument, despite the fact that the burden has been on him to do so from Round 1.

AFFIRMED.
InquireTruth

Con

1. Will of the people

My opponent has not given any literature to make his prior comparison of segregation and homosexuality analogous. I presume he wishes to retract his claim.

It is particularly amusing to see that Tarzan cannot give an adequate substantiation for his supposed transcendental morality. If everyone in the world can agree that wanton murder is right, but for some reason it remains wrong, then there exists a transcendent and objective standard for morality – it is my opponent's burden to identify and prove this objective standard. Because if we have a transcendent morality, someone is wrong - and it is probably the person who has no basis. What is YOUR basis Tarzan?

I am not talking about God in this debate; my opponent's points in reference to God are irrelevant.

Tarzan makes a rather novice mistake in assuming that legality = morality. I am not defining morality in terms of legality; I am defining morality in terms of the utilitarian metric. The majority of people in the united states see homosexuality as an immoral action and it is, therefore, an immoral action – the provinces in which it is legal notwithstanding. No such ridicules paradox exists.

Tarzan is still begging the question. He cannot prove the utilitarian model wrong by presupposing the very thing he wishes to prove. The considerations are completely ill founded.

1) A paradox can only exist if you conflate terms – which my opponent has done.
2) Moral relativism CAN account for things that are universally accepted. There are absolutely no evolutionary or cultural benefits for wanton murder (Tarzan should come up with a few more and we'll see how they differ among cultures past and present). The utilitarian ethic does not suppose that people will come up with demonstrably different moralities. It still stands that the concept of morality differs between cultures; even within a given culture there are sub-cultures who fight against the unspoken agreement and try to redefine moral terms. Different cultures have different moral codes. Which culture is right, and by what objective standard do we judge them by? My opponent has furnished no such standard.
3) Prove it.
4) Strict Scrutiny is irrelevant if you cannot prove that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic, that they are politically impotent, or that gay marriage is a fundamental right.

**********

2. It is genetic

- My opponent admits that genetics do not determine the rightness of something.
- My opponent concedes that logically incest would follow suit.
No further discussion on this point is necessary.

**********

3. On Imbalance of rights

I very much understand the said notion. My opponent does not understand that virtually ALL laws are discriminatory when applied. Laws barring children from marrying excessively burden pedophiles. Laws barring multiple spouses excessively burden Mormon fundamentalist. Laws barring sexual intercourse with animals excessively burden the zoophile. Taxes on gas only burden those who consume gas. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco only burden those who use those products. A law barring the use of cell phones when driving only burdens those with cell phones. Laws barring inbreeding only effect the incestuous. Affirmative action burdens only those who are not minorities. The list could go on and on. I suggest my opponent consider the logical inanity of his argument.

**********

4. On the meaning of marriage

Elimination of marriage would stop the problem all together. My opponent already admitted that the meaning of marriage is achievable without conferred rights. I would not have to divorce my wife, we would just cease being legally recognized – it would not change my relationship with my wife in the slightest. If this is an adequate solution then my opponent cannot win.

A. Consequences

My opponent is shifting vested power to the right of the federal government and not the state. If gay marriage is to be legal in all states, it needs to be ratified in all states. Proposition 8 makes it fundamentally clear that California is against the notion of gay-marriage (it was made a constitutional amendment precisely because judges cannot touch it). Furthermore, the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people does not mean the action was right. My contention is that only things that are right and respect the will of the people should be legalized. My opponent must contend that things that are wrong and do not respect the will of the people should also be right – but the confirmation of this does, by logical necessity, open the doors to other less debatable vices.

B. Tendencies -> rights
I do not believe animals are capable of homosexual desire; I do believe they are driven by desire. And instant gratification seems characteristic of many animals – including our own grandiose species. My dog humps chairs, plants, legs, stuffed animals, and empty pizza boxes – but the moment he humps another male dog we presume it is evolutionary? Just because they do it, does not mean it is either evolutionary or beneficial.

C. Marriage vs. Choice
"The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry."

Mostly. But a father is legally barred from marrying is 18 years old and consenting daughter. A brother cannot marry a sister. Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be.

D. Christian Values

Wanton murder is a Christian value. Do you suppose that congress should not pass any laws regulating this? My point was simply that sometimes Christianity and secularism agree on what is moral and immoral. Furthermore, marriage is a right of the state so that amendment is not applicable.

I am glad my opponent brought up ancient Greece and their lax sexual mores. My opponent has revealed some ignorance in terms of history. I am very familiar with the particular period in Ancient Greece's history – and to my opponent's surprise, he will find that homosexuality was actually emphatically denounced and discouraged – despite those who practiced it in spite. Homosexuality has not been gaining acceptance until our current era.

**********

1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right.

Show me where it says gay-marriage is a fundamental right.

2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts

But a father is legally barred from marrying is 18 and consenting daughter. A brother cannot marry a sister. Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be. Incest necessarily follows suit. But it seems you have already conceded this.

**********

- Tarzan has failed to classify gay-marriage as a fundamental right
- Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic (and indeed admits that there is not adequate information to do so).
- Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuals are politically impotent. He has only asserted without evidence.
- Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized.
- Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the state.
- Tarzan has failed to show how a state supreme court could legally alter California constitution.

**********

Conclusion:

If Tarzan cannot prove his transcendental morality then he cannot prove that it is wrong to bar homosexuals from marrying. Indeed, he cannot prove that people do not form morality using the utilitarian model (which seems to be the case when we study different cultures). If the utilitarian model stands then homosexuality would be wrong in the United States – this means that my opponent would have to contend that things that are both wrong and overwhelmingly rejected by the people should be legal, a position that seems completely untenable.

It
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

1. Will of the People.

>> "My opponent has not given any literature to make his prior comparison of segregation and homosexuality analogous."

I assume this will do: http://www.allacademic.com...

As far as objective morality... evolution provides an innate capability to make moral judgments. This does not indication anything about the CONTENT of moral judgment. However, evolution has also given a criteria by which the utility of an action can be judged - survival of the organism. This led to the rise of "helping behaviors" like we see in chimps when they groom each other, keep track of who grooms who, and make basic political structures. In humans, these behaviors and prohibitions on other behaviors can be traced back to their utility for the species, yielding an objective consideration of an action (R. Joyce, "The Evolution of Morality").

1) A real life paradox - In Cogamond Massachusetts/Connecticut, homosexual marriage is LEGAL in the 199 block of Point Grove Road, but ILLEGAL 10 feet away in the 799 block of the SAME ROAD.
3) S. Nichols, "Sentimental Rules" - references studies proving this point.

2. It is genetic.

>> "My opponent admits that genetics do not determine the rightness of something."

Leading us to conclude there is no basis for calling homosexuality "wrong" and heterosexuality "right." Interesting implication for the morals of the community.

3. On Imbalance of rights.

Yes, all laws are discriminatory when applied, but that discrimination must be based on some sort of legal footing. In this case it is not. I'll get into this later.

4. On the meaning of marriage.

>> "My opponent already admitted that the meaning of marriage is achievable without conferred rights."

I actually said: "The meaning of the concept itself can be achieved without government interaction, but the corollaries of the concept cannot be achieved without the government's approval." Zablocki v Redhail holds these to be "multi-faceted personal interest[s] of "fundamental importance.""

A. Consequences

>> "If gay marriage is to be legal in all states, it needs to be ratified in all states."

False - "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." (A4, S1 - US Constitution).

>> "Proposition 8 makes it fundamentally clear that California is against the notion of gay-marriage"

"A strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of [effecting] the change." (PA Coal Co v. Mahon).

>> "My opponent must contend that things that are wrong and do not respect the will of the people should also be right"

Slavery is wrong and did not respect the will of the people in 1800...

B. Tendencies -> rights

>> "Just because they do it, does not mean it is either evolutionary or beneficial."

This says absolutely nothing about whether or not the possibility exists that it IS evolutionary or beneficial. Have you not heard of Roy and Silo (http://en.wikipedia.org...), two male penguins raising a child as their own? Sounds like they are exercising their evolutionary drives in a homosexual way...

C. Marriage vs. Choice

>> "[The right to choose one's partner is couched in the right to marry.] Mostly."

We're not concerned with incestuous regulations or those concerning minors... we're talking about the right to chose which other adult you can marry.

D. Christian Values

>> "Wanton murder is a Christian value."

I've been telling Christians that for years - glad to hear one admit it.

>> "marriage is a right of the state so that amendment is not applicable."

It obviously is - if it were not, the state could bar all Catholics from marrying.

>> "homosexuality was actually emphatically denounced and discouraged [in Ancient Greece]"

Except that in the Symposium (Plato) Pausanias states that when a boy and a man have sex, if the purpose is so that the boy "is hoping to become wise and virtuous" the act is not "offensive to human decency." Sounds like PedoHomosexuality in relationships to me.

1A. Marriage as a Fundamental Right.

>> "Show me where it says gay-marriage is a fundamental right."

The classification of marriage as gay presupposes the right to marry exists. As IT has already stated, homosexuals can marry those of the opposite gender - the classification "gay" only arises when they attempt to marry someone of the same sex. Thus, the nature of marriage as a fundamental right remains.

2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts

>> "Your choice of partner is already regulated – including the amount of partners chosen and the age in which they must be."

Yes, yes, we heard all this... those restrictions are based on completely different considerations than homosexuality. And it is your burden to show that they are not... I'll show that in a minute...

************************************

>> "Tarzan has failed to classify gay-marriage as a fundamental right"

I have classified marriage as such - the sub-classification of "gay" must stand up to Strict Scrutiny. Con's Burden.

>> "Tarzan has failed to show that homosexuals are politically impotent."

False - impotent means "lacking power or ability" - homosexuals cannot effect political change on their own.

>> "Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized."

That is a normative claim... the legal precedent exists to do it. It is LEGAL - normative values don't matter anyway, according to IT...

>> "Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the state."

Any action by the state running afoul of a federal law - in this case, the 14th and 5th Amendments - is under the purview of the federal government.

>> "Tarzan has failed to show how a state supreme court could legally alter California constitution."

The Supremacy Clause gives the branches of the federal government power over all state legislation.

**********************************

Marriage has been shown to legally be a fundamental right - this triggers Strict Scrutiny.

The burden is on CON to show that laws regulating marriage and the classification of "gay" as a subset of marriage are:

1) Concerning a compelling government interest; AND
2) Narrowly tailored to effectuate only that interest; AND
3) The least restrictive means to the end.

He cannot.

There is no compelling government interest in prohibiting homosexuals to marry - it creates more family units, solemnizes existing relationships, and there is no indication that same sex couples would render lesser care to a child.

My opponent cannot show that current laws are tailored ONLY towards that interest, AND the least restrictive means to the state's interest, even if it is compelling.

Once again - despite his burden to do so, he has provided absolutely no legal argumentation.

AFFIRMED.
InquireTruth

Con

Introduction:

Thank you for a great debate Tarzan. I hope the readers enjoy it as much as I have.

********

1. Will of the People

My opponent cited an irrelevant source in hopes of making his past comparison analogous. His source says nothing about the segregation of the 1950's and the public opinion of that era (it was a measly abstract too). I would suggest that the readers disregard that which was asserted without proof.

My opponent changes his argument of transcendental morality and seeks refuge in the idea of evolved morality and innateness. Self-preservation is an obviously innate characteristic – building morality around the idea of survival seems congenial to an evolutionary standard. But evolution cannot account for homosexuality because it has no practical benefit for survival. Moreover, evolved morality cannot account for acceptance of said behavior because of the very reason that it has no practical benefit (and even where it could have practical benefit it is not observed or evidenced). China would be seeing an increase in homosexuality due to the overwhelming majority of men (due to female infanticide) and the problems of overpopulation – but, what do you know, this is not the case.

All evidence seems to point to the idea that people define morality. If this is not the case, my opponent would have had to prove an objective and binding metric of morality that exists outside of the nature of humankind. He has done no such thing and can therefore make no claim in regards to the wrongness or rightness of homosexuality. The unrefuted syllogism is as follows:

P1 People are the ones who define morality if morality is not objective
P2 Objective morality was not proven by my opponent
C Therefore, morality is assumed to be defined by the people

The majority of US citizens (and people worldwide even) agree that homosexuality is wrong. Therefore, my opponent stands in affirmation of legalizing that which is both against the will of the people and is indeed wrong.

********

2. It is genetic

As said before, heterosexual relationships are attested anatomically, evolutionarily, biologically, and, of course, genetically. Homosexual relationships are not. Rights should not be conferred solely on the basis of genetics.

********

3. On imbalance of rights

"Yes, all laws are discriminatory when applied, but that discrimination must be based on some sort of legal footing. In this case it is not. I'll get into this later."

It is, it is called the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage in federal law as a union of one man and one woman. It was passed by congress September 21, 1996. It does, however, leave the right UP TO THE STATES (like I have already stated) to individually legalize gay and lesbian marriages.

********

4. Meaning of marriage

My opponent has not refuted the claim that the problem could be virtually eliminated by not giving the state or federal government any rights to recognize marriage. Marriage then stands only by its meaning and not by the conferred rights thereof.

********

A. Consequences

"False - 'Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.' (A4, S1 - US Constitution)."

False:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. � 7 (1997)

And

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996), codified at 28 U.S.C. � 1738C (1997).

Under the supremacy clause of the US constitution, it is perfectly legitimate for states to regulate same-sex marriage and not recognize the same-sex marriage of other states. Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act stand to negate the resolution.

B. Tendencies -> rights

This was covered in argument #1.

C. Marriage vs. Choice

Choices are already regulated and my opponent has not refuted this attested claim.

D. Christian Values

"I've been telling Christians that for years - glad to hear one admit it."

Haha. This is a funny addition given my misspeaking, but, of course, irrelevant.

********

1A. Marriage as a fundamental right

The Defense of marriage act categorically states that marriage is between one man and one woman. The right to individually legalize gay marriage (without the requirement to recognize other states legislation on the matter) is given to the states. This right is protected under the 10th amendment of the United States constitution.

********

2A. Goodridge v. Massachusetts

Incest and homosexuality are deemed wrong for the same considerations. They are considered morally wrong by the majority of the US and the world's population. It is considered unnatural. Choices are regulated.

********

- Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman under federal law. The supremacy clause overrides any such claim to the contrary. My opponent has not shown that gay-marriage is a fundamental right – because marriage, by federal definition, is between one man and one woman.

- Tarzan has not shown homosexuality to be an immutable characteristic.

- Tarzan has failed to show that marriage is a federal power that does not need to respect the sovereignty of the
state. Even though the power is given to the state under the 10th amendment of the constitution and the power to regulate gay-marriage under the Defense of Marriage act.

- Tarzan has failed to show that laws that are against the will of people and are morally wrong should be legalized.

Conclusion:

Tarzan has failed on all accounts, both moral and legal, to show that gay-marriage should in fact be legalized in all states of the United States of America. Since my opponent has not fulfilled the requirements necessary to affirm the resolution, I urge all readers to vote Con. Thank you for reading and much thanks to my esteemed opponent Tarzan.

InquireTruth

Sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net...
Debate Round No. 4
114 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by deaconkev 3 years ago
deaconkev
The issue on morality is not defined by man. Man obviously has many different opinions on morals. Morals is defined by God. Yeah, yeah, yeah, there is no God!! If that is what you believe, you are probably for homosexuality anyway, or you have no opinion what so ever.

God has defined what constitutes a healthy and moral relationship. Two guys and be friends and love each other, but they must never engage in any sexual contact. A brother and a sister has a relationship, as does a father and daughter, but they must never engage in a sexual relationship. A male and a female, that is not related and form a friendship but they must not act upon sexual emotions unless they are joined together by God.

God also set this code in a sinless way with animals. In my life, being born and raised in the country (wilderness), I have seen animals of the same sex engage in sexual activity, but it was always a one sided eagerness. You have to admit, that God crated even animals, which is far less intelligent than humans, join in a relationship with the opposite sex. If nature follows this, then humans that go against this, goes against what is natural.

Love has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes a right for homosexuals to marry. I have many male friends that I have love for, but I do not lust over them. I have many female friends that I love, but I do not lust over them. I can love and lust my pet dog, but that does not morally give me the right to marry it. I may love and lust over my grand daughter, but that does not give me the right to marry her. God is the only one that gives the right for any two people to marry, and He has not given any homosexual that right.
Posted by wheelhouse3 7 years ago
wheelhouse3
I've thought about this issue long and hard, and what I've come up with is this:
Homosexuals requesting the opportunity to be married is self-degrading.
In order to explain this reasoning I've come up with an analogy: There are hundreds of different genres of music, but each genre is still considered music. I compare this to how there are many different types or "genres" of relationships: there are spouses, domestic partners, civil union partners, common law spouses, boyfriend-girlfriend, boyfriend-boyfriend, girlfriend-girlfriend, etc. Despite how many different genres of relationships there are, they are all still relationships that should mean a great deal to both partners. I believe that we all choose which "genre" we want to "sing." I know that personally I did not come out of the womb checking out the boy being born next tto me. There was a point in my life where I chose to find a boy attractive and I know that for everyone there comes a certain point win their lives when they choose whom they will give their love to. I think it's ridiculous to think that we were born to love someone. We choose whom we love. Therefore, I believe that homosexuals who proclaim that they are being denied their rights by not being allowed to sing a different song than the one they chose to sing are being irrational. I suggest we pick a song to sing and sing it loud and proud... never try to be what someone else is. Be glad that you're different.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Haha, you will definitely find that I have accidentally used the wrong word in a few unfortunate places.

"The idea is that the expression of moral import doesn't really matter whether it's against the action or the individual - at the time one is committing an abominable act, one is abominable oneself."

Now, would it be reasonable for me to simply disagree? Does this statement stand on evidence or would my rejection of it have as much basis as any affirmation of it? I would thoroughly despise myself if this were true, for "all have sinned and fall short..."
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Disapprobation - I took some benadryl. I'm tired - lol...

The idea is that the expression of moral import doesn't really matter whether it's against the action or the individual - at the time one is committing an abominable act, one is abominable oneself.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"Furthermore, God doesn't exactly weep for homosexuals - he says they should be stoned."

Warmed with Jesus' words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first..." Punishment is God's, not mine. I was spanked when I was a kid, and I think I'm better for it. But what I find even more applicable, is that when my mom used to spank me she would cry and say how much she loved me. Now that I think of it, I think it hurt her more than it did me.

"on moral non-cognitivism very interesting"

I'm not sure that such a study could be convincingly applied to the divine mind of God ;).

"is worthy of moral approbation"

You use the right word there? The person committing an abominable act should be formerly commended? I would not go so far as to say that, but I still think they should be loved.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
IT, you would find some of the stuff on moral non-cognitivism very interesting in concerns to this point...

Stating that something is abominable carries with it the necessary connection that those who perpetrate said action is worthy of moral approbation. Furthermore, God doesn't exactly weep for homosexuals - he says they should be stoned.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
@ Angrypants66

You do realize that I did not use religion in this debate right? I let you read it before you jump to any more conclusions.

@JCMT
"but he certainly finds them abominable..."

Now why is that certain? How do you gather that finding the action abominable is equal to finding the person who committed it abominable. In Jeremiah we see a God who weeps for his people, who cares and loves them. David, who committed murder and adultery was still, by God, called chosen and beloved, a "man after God's own heart." I think the act of homosexuality is wrong, but I neither hate nor despise its practitioners. There are those that I call friends that practice that which I see as wrong - they still warrant my love and respect.

Thinking an action is wrong is not equal to despising those who commit it - or woe is me, how much I would despise myself!
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "JCMT confirmed this by quoting Leviticus, which shows that act as an abomination, not the people committing it."

I showed that it carries the same moral import as idolatry... would you say that God hates idolatry? Holding that god views the act of idolatry as a mere abomination, but holds nothing against those who commit the action sounds pretty silly... Maybe God doesn't HATE homosexuals, but he certainly finds them abominable...
Posted by Angrypants66 8 years ago
Angrypants66
Ok, true God may not 'hate' homosexuals, but this is just a play on words. He disapproves of it and that's the point to be made. And I'll drop the drunken soirees thing, despite I can argue that, if you'll please answer me how the argument of God can play a whole in this debate considering one religious group cannot influence the decisions of laws. Because it can't, and until you can provide an argument that says homosexuality is wrong that doesn't relate to one specific faith, then technically homosexuals have the right to married. Wow, problem solved. You know whats really funny though? Did you know that people used the same argument of Christianity so women couldn't vote? Or keep blacks as slaves? Funny how people have to run to religion for an argument for something they don't like but have no logical reason to not like it.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
You have only confirmed an inability to read what I wrote. I never said that the Bible approves of homosexuality. I said that the Bible never says that God "hates" homosexuals. JCMT confirmed this by quoting Leviticus, which shows that act as an abomination, not the people committing it. I think the Bible is clear that behavioral homosexuality is wrong.

It is basic fallacy to consider my silence on an issue as affirmation of it. Just because I have not argued that drunken soirees are wrong, does not mean that I think they are right.
39 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 marin24 8 years ago
marin24
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 pgoulaimpact 8 years ago
pgoulaimpact
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 lordfrig 8 years ago
lordfrig
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Vote Placed by NOK_Domination 8 years ago
NOK_Domination
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 Angrypants66 8 years ago
Angrypants66
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 bgruber93 8 years ago
bgruber93
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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 Hassassin 8 years ago
Hassassin
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 8 years ago
resolutionsmasher
JustCallMeTarzanInquireTruthTied
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