The Instigator
progressivedem22
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
hadezz87
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Gay Marriage is Objectively Immoral and, Therefore, Should be Illegal

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 2 votes the winner is...
progressivedem22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,009 times Debate No: 46329
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

progressivedem22

Con

Definition of "objective" from Merriam-Webster:

1. based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

2. philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world

3. grammar : relating to nouns, noun phrases, or pronouns that are the objects of verbs or prepositions

Definition of "immoral" from Oxford Dictionaries:

1. not conforming to accepted standards of morality:

Rules:
1. Pro may begin his argument in round 1, but in order to ensure fairness, must type "no round as agreed upon" in Round 3. Failure to do this will result in forfeiting the debate.
2. Please cite your sources.
3. The key to this debate is two-fold. Pro must prove both that gay marriage is immoral, and that, by virtue of this, it should be illegal.
hadezz87

Pro

I was just browsing this website, and was not aware of my actions when accepting to debate pro. Therefor, I concede.
Debate Round No. 1
progressivedem22

Con

Thanks for your concession. Would you mind posting a few more times so that we can quickly move this to the voting period, rather than leave it sitting here?
hadezz87

Pro

Indeed. The topic is interesting though. Nevertheless I do believe the con has an advantage here though.
Debate Round No. 2
progressivedem22

Con

I wouldn't say that Con has an advantage, necessarily, unless it is true that gay marriage is not objectively immoral. Obviously I don't think it's immoral, but I'm sure there are plenty of people on this site who would disagree with me. They would probably think that they have the upper hand.
hadezz87

Pro

I believe the advantage lies in the fact that just because since morality can't be defined indefinitely for all, you can't say one thing is immoral as a country. Secondly, I believe even if everyone agrees that something is immoral, is it necessary to be illegal? So the legality part of the topic falls here. Thirdly, making something illegal won't stop it from happening, so in a world where gay marriage is illegal, that doesn't mean you are going to stop them from engaging in coitus which i'm assuming is the reason anyone might think it is immoral. So making it illegal wouldn't actually prevent something immoral from taking place.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hadezz87 3 years ago
hadezz87
You sir are answering a question with "God did it" and answering our questions of god and his ability to magically manipulate what we know to be scientific law with "God did it" is illogical because the people questioning him obviously don't believe that he exists. So you have proved nothing by answering this fallacy with the magic of a omnipotent being that doesn't exist.
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
ultimately it's your right to believe in w/e you choose. I apologize for imposing at all if I did so. farewell my friends.
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
[don't misunderstand the "You could say" as my opinion lol]but evolved(what a christian using evolution? lolol i'll explain in a lil) into two separate genders for possibly a more refined and beneficial system for species development. The body is, from what I understand, generally improving and adapting upon itself over centuries to properly evolve so, evolution would show on a developmental level "If we were both genders at some point" that homosexuality doesn't quite work and is obsolete. Phew sry I got off on a tangent.
-"(A)Also, to that point, what would you say about people who engage in casual sex(A), (B)or who use birth control even after having been married?(B)"
->(A) that ultimately they are simply actually over indulging in pleasure? Most people have casual sex because to them it feels good(dat orgasm and dem endorphins). Which, naturally, you want to do what feels good lol and if you don't believe in God(probably because he warns against what you like which hurts your fun) then who cares blah blah yolo lol Thinking about it some are probably actually literally addicted to sex now, because of the over supply of endorphins :o the brain gets so used to the amount of endorphins produced through sex that it begins to need them regularly. And, actually, "casual" sex is born.
->(B) Nothing wrong with using birth control after marriage lol married couples are supposed to support and enjoy each other in many ways. Being that God gave us freedom of choice, He's not gonna do anythin lol just don't be surprised if you still get pregnant XD
-"Those actions, in principle, can not produce a child. Limiting the argument to homosexuality I honestly find to be missing the mark."
-> Ahhhh I see I see, but they can produce a child "accidently" can they not? even if the chance is 0.00000001, it is still a chance. This is justified by such things happening in reality. So it does not limit the argument at all since, in actuality your statement isn't valid.
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
-First, you're making the assumption that "God" is real, which of course we can't prove.
-> or disprove :)
-"What is basis for your claim that sex is only productive, and thus moral, insofar as it produces a child -- or could, in principle, produce a child -- other than God? "
-> well, thinking logically, if homosexuality was the natural thing since the first man and woman, or i guess it would be 2 men and 2 women, if the two men took themselves away and only mated with each other til death(if they're truly homosexual, they would never touch women sexually til death) would you or I exist today? The breeding of a man and woman or I'll say male and female creates life, but homosexuality does not since the organs will not allow it. "Objectively" speaking, humanity would have died out very quickly if this was moral(ethical, or proper conduct) lol
-"It is hardly a foregone conclusion that heterosexuality is ingrained in us, or is simply the correct or logical way to proceed. If that were the case, there wouldn't be animal species who practice homosexual sex."
->It's how we exist, so of course it's ingrained, a man's body is instinctually aroused by a certain type of woman is it not?(and vise versa) Have we found a human that disproves this statement yet? :o or do our 99.99999999% accurate methods "suggest". :P
->It isn't homosexuality between animals, it's to assert dominance :o pretty sure the ideology that it was "homosexuality" only came along recently? Around you know, the time of this big homosexuality awareness movement?( honestly complete assumption) Think about it logically, if any species of animal practiced homosexuality actively, then it would harm it's own population production, unless that species possessed both organs for development and ultimately had no real gender or was, what A-sexual, I think is the term, therefore actually not rendering it homosexual at all. You could say, the first humans if you will were actually both genders, though
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
Idealogy is illogical, and leaves us liable for error. (SO MANY TYPOS, my bad lol)
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
I haven't forgotten you Progressdem22, jut a sec!

So Hadezz, here's something really really special. An epiphany of sorts. is it not logically necessary to have a intellectual-A look over a intellectual-B's work to varify promote whether intellectual-A's work is correct. An example, Ph.Ds! how do they become Ph.ds? According to wiki(lol ya uh oh):

"A candidate must submit a project or thesis or dissertation often consisting of a body of original academic research, which is in principle worthy of publication in a peer-reviewed context.[12] In many countries a candidate must defend this work before a panel of expert examiners appointed by the university; in other countries, the dissertation is examined by a panel of expert examiners who stipulate whether the dissertation is in principle passable and the issues that need to be addressed before the dissertation can be passed."

-Do you see it I wonder? I'll simplify: Man, must defend his views against Man(Appointed by Man), and Man's work must be thoroughly examined by Man, and if it makes sense to Man and is usable to aid Man(according to Man) Man becomes Ph.d. (I may have oversimplified lol)

->Anyways, thinking logically does a candidate for a PH.d only have the mental capacity of a Ph.d after his dissertation passes? If you say yes >_>...yaaa..no. But my point! Why is it that we only deem human work backed up and justified by human sources valid? Or I should say who ensured the first Ph.d wasn't full of ignorance? Also how did the one who ensured the Ph.d wasn't ignorant know he/she wasn't truly ignorant? At some point someone became a Ph.d just because ultimately, way way waaayyy in the past. (not Ph.d specifically ofc) Therefore you can logically deduce that someone with a Ph.d was, more than likely, actually literally ignorant. BUT influenced and contaminate true logic an reason. In reality this happens a lot lol (still more comin) We use ourselves to validate our sciences, which according to our own -
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
First up Hadezz :) (nice stab by the way lol)
-scientifically impossible- you say though if I understand this right science was created through wisdom we humans have acquired through the ages and still have yet to truly perfect entirely? The basis of this being that, scientific theories(methods etc..) are constantly being "improved" upon and redefined would support that they, even now, are not truly 100% correct would it not? If X-scientific method is 100% accurate(by our standards) it should not able to ever be improved right? Oh also contemplate, is it possible for us as humans to ever be 100%? How do we know? By using methods we "believe" are 100% accurate, to support them, but in actuality, are also methods that we, over the years, continue to improve upon therefore are also not 100% accurate. So to summarize, we use 99% accurate methods to justify 99% theories, to support 99% ideals. That's not very logical to do as a species.
-Haha ya His awesomeness, was a lil more complicated than that ;) just a lil

"yes the great flood, so, absolutely, impossible. It's mathematically impossible in every way, The amount of food just to feed the two lions on this ship for six months, would alone, sink the ship. So here we can deem it mythological. But yet, metaphor or not, if god is presenting this in his "Holy Book" and this is, no doubt, not truthful. Then isn't he breaking his own ten commandments? Gah, things like this make me atheist."
-I think you, like most, look at God as some being with magical powers instead of the most technologically advanced and intellectually unrivaled being in the universe lol You really logically think that a being capable of constructing a universe, with full working mechanics and all, wouldn't be able to manipulate these small details for His desires? hahaha come on man. Can't you see how dumb that is? Like not even trying to be rude at all.
-it was a little above 15 cubits though(270in.) :o not 2000 inches. (there's more :P)
Posted by Red-Hex 3 years ago
Red-Hex
ohhhhh this' gonna be fun :P k gimme just a sec
Posted by hadezz87 3 years ago
hadezz87
Haha! You should look up "Atheist comedy" on youtube and watch the video about the flood, I think the channel is darkmatter22, but i'm not positive. He has many hilarious videos over many christian ideas, he essentially reduces them to rubble. Great stuff.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
For goodness' sake, you even managed to disprove my devil's advocate, haha.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
progressivedem22hadezz87Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con did nothing wrong, awarding Conduct as a symbolic gesture for Pro's gracious concession/forfeit. Forfeiting a debate is, of course, not a good thing. But if you're GOING to do it, to at least let the debate end quickly is polite, and I believe it should be encouraged--hence the point. Arguments, of course, for the concession. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
progressivedem22hadezz87Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro concedes all relevant points to con