The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Pozzo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

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 4 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,121 times Debate No: 17420
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (4)

 

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 arguments are to be made 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"

Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized 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 priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ [1]

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...
Pozzo

Pro

Rebuttal

"
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 [sic] 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 priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ [1]"

This is flawed. Simply stating that freedom is a given holds no particular strength or significance, nor does the appeal to authority. JSM's statement is unqualified and simply shifts the burden of proof.


"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."

This is invalidated when I make an argument, assuming I can argue that it's "good".


"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"

This is essentially a restatement of the second premise and it is also invalidated when I make a "good" argument.


Opening Arguments

Religion
Most major religions are against gay marriage. Claiming otherwise, as I've experienced many Christians to do, is hypocrisy. Legal gay marriage will anger God if any of these religions is on the mark. Is it worth it?

The Purpose of the State
1. The state should strive to fulfill the best interests of the society it governs/represents.
2. The state's power resides, significantly if not mainly, in its role as a regulatory body.
3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't.
Now, we must determine what is beneficial to society, and what isn't.

Is Gay Marriage Beneficial?
No. It does not produce children, so society as a whole will gain nothing. Con's pre-emptive strike against this argument will be covered by a later point.

State Endorsed Marriage
The state should, as stated in a previous point, encourage what it sees to be beneficial to society. It has also been stated that gay marriage is not beneficial, which will be explained further in the next point. Thus, the state should only endorse (authorise) marriages that it considers will produce viable citizens (good children). It need not prosecute/persecute/ban homosexuals and their marriages. By not authorising them, they are considered illegal under the definitions provided pre-debate by Con, affirming the resolution without the violation of his first premise.

Eugenics
Congenital defects could be almost wiped out through state regulation of marriage. To take a leaf from Con's book regarding authority, Plato advocated a eugenic system in The Republic, and Plato's generally acknowledged as dead clever. Not only could congenital defects be almost wiped out, but the human race could be made stronger, faster, smarter... Better.
Humanity could be easily improved with regards to health. Obesity has been linked to genes, and is a major issue in the West. Thalasemia, cystic fibrosis and many other diseases could be prevented through genetic screening. Attributes like height could also be improved, with 85% heritability shown by some studies.
Most importantly, intelligence is linked to genetics. Studies have estimated the heritability of IQ (our best simple measure of intelligence) to be up to 90%, with 85% the best estimate [1]. It's a safe assumption that intelligent parents would have at least the capacity to raise intelligent children, again leading to a more intelligent population. Thus, children could be born more intelligent and healthier.
This policy would be most effective if the right to have children were to be restricted to state-endorsed marriages, which should also be done as it is in the best interests of society as a whole.
Thus, gay marriage should not be authorised by the state, as it will not produce any children at all.


Defence
I expect Con to argue that restricting the "right" to have children is a horrendous violation of freedom. I ask of Con, which is more important: the right of a person to have children with whomever they please or the right of a baby to be born without an easily avoidable disability, to be born with the best possible chance in life, to be born healthy, intelligent and unshackled by the restraints of his/her parent's inferior genetics? Which is more important: the freedom to have children or the right of children to be born free?

I look forward to Con's response.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument.

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

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro makes the charge that I have committed the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. ..."Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative" [1]

The only thing I was appealing to was the argument summarized by John Mill, not the person himself. I was merely trying to give attribution/citation of what someone else had said. As Wikipedia says... "A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty: to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, and to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way." [2]

Pro says..."Simply stating that freedom is a given holds no particular strength or significance,"

Oh but it does, the alternative 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.

Pro has not provided any argument that we should reject the assumption of freedom and accept the assumption of non freedom.

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

Pro says..."This is invalidated when I make an argument, assuming I can argue that it's "good"."

Actually you seeking to provide a good reason to ban gay marriage is you validating this premise. Pro later on seeks to provide a good reason for banning gay marriage.

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"

Pro likes to use the word invalid alot, never the less, Pro doesn't seem to dis agree here.

CA = Counter Argument

CA: Religion

Pro says "Legal gay marriage will anger God if any of these religions is on the mark. Is it worth it?"

Is it worth not being a muslim cause Islam might be on the mark ?
Is it worth being a non catholic cause Catholicism might be on the mark ?
Is it worth having wealth cause Jesus saying its easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needles than enter the kingdom of God isn't him just using hyperbole. ?

Maybe God will see the banning of gay marriage as a self justifying, political wedge tactic. Is it really worth banning gay marriage if it might make God angry ?

There was something called "The Enlightenment", you might want to look into that.

Eugenics

Pro makes the argument for Eugenics but the argument either is a non sequitur or back fires. Its a non sequitur because even if you accept government interference in who can have children this doesn't mean you have to ban gay marriage. It back fires cause Pros argument here is all about who can have children in order to improve the gene pool but this can also be used to justify gay marriage.

You see gay marriage can't produce any children and thus are not a threat to Pros goal of eugenics. Its the breeders that you need to regulate in order to achieve the goals of eugenics not the non breeders.

CA: The State and Gay marriage

Pro says..."No. It does not produce children, so society as a whole will gain nothing."

1) Why should marriage be restricted to those who can only have children ? Under this rule, an infertile couple can't get married or grandma.

2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial.

3) Even if something is not beneficial doesn't mean that state has the right to ban it, there are plenty of things that are not overall beneficial to society but are allowed like, over eating, smoking and allowing people like Pro on debate sites.

Pro says... "It (the state) need not prosecute/persecute/ban homosexuals and their marriages. By not authorising them, they are considered illegal under the definitions provided pre-debate by Con,"

Marriage was never defined at the start by me as only between a man and a woman. Therefore the lack of authorizing gay marriage doesn't make gay marriage illegal anymore than a heterosexual marriage would be illegal because of lack of authorization.

I would also add, that the law (at least in the western civilization) actually "authorize" freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, basically freedom to do what ever you want as long as their isn't a law against it. As such the law would "authorize" gay marriage until their is an explicit law banning gay marriage.

Pros question

Pro asks... "Which is more important: the freedom to have children or the right of children to be born free?"

Maybe Pro has a point here, maybe Pro is right, but it doesn't matter because Pro has to prove that gay marriage should be illegal and until Pro can show that accepting eugenics means we must ban gay marriage then eugenics and pros question is not relevant.

I would remind Pro that they have to prove that gay marriage should be illegal.

I look forward to Pros response.

Sources

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

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pozzo

Pro

Rebuttal

"The only thing I was appealing to was the argument summarized by John Mill, not the person himself. I was merely trying to give attribution/citation of what someone else had said."

The argument was merely restated in the citation, with the added stipulation that JSM rejected his BoP, as has Con.

"Oh but it does, the alternative to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophical ... Everything would be banned until proved other wise.
Pro has not provided any argument that we should reject the assumption of freedom and accept the assumption of non freedom."

Con has misunderstood. To make a statement that essentially amounts to "freedom is intrinsic and inherent to humanity" gives Con BoP for that statement and quoting JSM trying to shift BoP does not change that. The statement is debate-worthy in itself. Mere practicality does not make freedom intrinsic. Con must provide evidence or argument that freedom is our default, rather than "it's easier" or "prove me wrong".

"Actually you seeking to provide a good reason to ban gay marriage is you validating this premise. Pro later on seeks to provide a good reason for banning gay marriage."

Con has misunderstood again, perhaps this time due to my lack of clarity, for which I apologise. If I make a good argument, this condition is fulfilled and thus bears no influence on the debate. I was already compelled to attempt to prove the resolution, so stating that I must prove it well, as a premise, is pointless as I will automatically fulfill it in the course of the debate by making a decent argument. I may as well have made my opening argument, "Con needs to make a good case for the legality of homosexual marriage". My point is that this is essentially included in the resolution and Con has made, for want of a better expression, a pointless point. This applies equally to Con's conclusion.

"Is it worth not being a muslim cause Islam might be on the mark ?"

With regards to actually choosing a religion, this is, I agree an invalid principle. There is something to be noted here. All religions generally denounce hypocrisy, so it is not worth being a Muslim because Islam may be on the mark, etc. However, homosexual marriage could be illegal without any hypocrisy, so it makes sense. The safe bet of Pascal's Wager.
Not only this, but Christianity and Islam are both, if one cares to read the scripture without cherry-picking to support one's own agenda/philosophy, virulently homophobic. It's an "abomination". The religious laws of about 4 billion people would be satisfied on this count if homosexual marriage was illegal.

"Maybe God will see the banning of gay marriage as a self justifying, political wedge tactic. Is it really worth banning gay marriage if it might make God angry ?"

This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that God would interpret the following of his word as political point-scoring. However, I haven't actually proposed banning gay marriage, so this is something of a strawman.

"Pro makes the argument for Eugenics but the argument either is a non sequitur or back fires"

I direct Con to the last two paragraphs of my point on eugenics, as he seems to have completely ignored them. I argued that the state should use marriage as a tool to regulate breeding. Compulsory sterilisation would be more efficient, and probably more practical (so I assume Con would, based on the reasoning of his first premise, advocate this instead) but adapting a social instituion like marriage allows for a "soft" eugenic policy. Gay marriage would not improve the gene pool at all. Explain this.

"You see gay marriage can't produce any children and thus are not a threat to Pros goal of eugenics."

Con's argument misses the point entirely. If the state only endorses marriages it considers will produce desirable children, it cannot endorse the marriage of non-breeders. Otherwise, it is doing those not deemed suitable to reproduce an injustice, without good reason.

"1) Why should marriage be restricted to those who can only have children ? Under this rule, an infertile couple can't get married or grandma."

Yes, that's the point. Marriage should be used as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals and discourage reproduction between individuals that would not produce desirable, healthy children.

"2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial."

This is insane. If gays cannot have non-promiscuous, committed, stable relationships without being married, I very much doubt that marriage would change that. If a straight couple repeatedly cheated on each other, broke up and got back together and otherwise did not have a stable relationship, would you recommend that they get married, Con?
Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial for society anyway?

"3) Even if something is not beneficial doesn't mean that state has the right to ban it, there are plenty of things that are not overall beneficial to society but are allowed like, over eating, smoking and allowing people like Pro on debate sites."

If Con wishes to refute my argument on these grounds, he should refute my point "The Purpose of the State". As he has not done so, the point stands.
In an ideal world, the state would ban over-eating, The state should ban smoking and I propose that the primary reason it doesn't is that it would lose so much money. A virtuous government would do so.
Ouch. You could argue that that constitutes an ad hominem. May I remind Con that not only do such arguments represent poor conduct, but they also violate the DDO ToS? So, dear opponent, please explain and defend that statement.

"Marriage was never defined at the start by me as only between a man and a woman. Therefore the lack of authorizing gay marriage doesn't make gay marriage illegal..."

This is completely irrelevant. If Con refers to his own definitions, provided pre-debate:
"Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law"
Thus, not authorising gay marriage makes it illegal by Con's definition. The point stands.

"I would also add, that the law (at least in the western civilization) actually "authorize" freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, basically freedom to do what ever you want as long as their isn't a law against it. As such the law would "authorize" gay marriage until their is an explicit law banning gay marriage."

Matters not covered by law are not tacitly authorised, they are unrecognised. This means they would not be given the rights given to state-endorsed marriages, the right to reproduce in this case, which is somewhat useless to them anyway. Gays would still be free to marry under any religion they please, exchange rings, live together, have sex, etc. The state would simply not recognise, or "authorise", such marriages. To make it absolutely clear, imagine I start my own religion. I marry myself. The (actual, not hypothetical) state will not recognise (authorise) this in any way. I will not be treated as married for any purpose. I will not, however, face punishment. It's unauthorised, and by Con's definition, illegal, as would gay marriage be. Please note, this is purely hypothetical and not an actual application of my argument.

"Maybe Pro has a point here, maybe Pro is right, but it doesn't matter because Pro has to prove ... accepting eugenics means we must ban gay marriage then eugenics and pros question is not relevant."

Marriage is an accepted social institution. Adapting it to eugenic policy is more practical and less controversial than programmes compulsory sterilisation etc., and this is what I have argued. Through using marriage as a tool to encourage and authorise reproduction between desirable individuals, the eugenic policy is implemented in the most practical way.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Feathers have been ruffled

Before I get into the substance of the argument, Pro seems to have taken offense to a remark of mine. Now in my defense I didn't realise that some one who wants to ban gay marriage just in case God doesn't like it while advocating an authoritarian government determining who can and can't have children to further the goals of eugenics would be the sensitive type. As such I withdraw the remark.

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

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro keeps implying that I am some how "shifting the burden". I have made my point why freedom should be our default. Lets consider the alternative/logical negation of this premise which would be freedom is NOT our default.

I maintain that my premise is more plausible than its negation as Philosopher William Craig explains..."In order to show that an argument is no good, it is not enough for the sceptic to show that it’s possible that a premise is false. Possibilities come cheap. 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 premisses 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 has not provided any reason why the negation of my premise is more plausible.

As I said before..."Oh but it does, the alternative to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophically 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."

And let us not forget if freedom was not our default, Pro would have to justify being allowed to even speak on gay marriage before they could argue against it and that would all deprive us of Pros wisdom in the matter and we wouldn't want that now would we ?

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

Pro seems to agree.

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"

Pro seems to agree.

CA = Counter Argument

CA: Religion

Pro tries to use a pascals wager on gay marriage, after all maybe God won't approve of Gay marriage. But Pro would reject such reasoning from a muslim/Jew/Pastafarian that says you had better do XYZ cause God might not approve of it. Like wise Pro's reasoning here that gay marriage should be banned cause God might not like it should also be rejected.

Pro says "The religious laws of about 4 billion people would be satisfied on this count if homosexual marriage was illegal."

..."In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." [2]

The Purpose of the State

Pro directs me to the purpose of the state. There is one point I overlooked where Pro says.."3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't."

Notice here and what I failed to notice, is that Pro doesn't argue that the state should prevent/minimise that which is "harmful" but rather prevent/minimise that which is not beneficial. There is no good reason to adhere to this for the following reasons....

1) Freedom is our default (already dealt with)
2) You need a good reason to ban something (Pro agree's with this)
3) The harm principle

..."The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[3]

Pro argues that the state should go beyond the harm principle to use its power to stop things just because they are not beneficial. Under Pros argument even if something is not hurting anybody or anything the state should seek to prevent minimize it if its not deemed "beneficial". This is a waste and mis use of state power and we have no reason to accept this.

Once again under Pros purpose of state argument if the state deemed that it is not beneficial for Pro to come and debate then the state should seek to prevent/minimize Pro from doing so........God forbid !!!

Banning something just because its not "beneficial" is not a good reason to ban something.

Eugenics and Gay Marriage

Pro tries to link eugenics with banning gay marriage but its a non sequitur. With the government not justified in banning something just because its not beneficial, even if you accept the goal of eugenics it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to ban gay marriage.

Definitions of Illegal

Pro makes the point about "authorization". This was an oversight on my part, but if this is the best Pro has for banning gay marriage an oversight on a definition, is this really a "good" reason to ban marriage ?

In any case if Pro wants to adhere to their interpretation of illegal means lack of authorization, then Pro would still have to prove the that gay marriage should not be authorized.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pozzo

Pro

My Feathers Are Unruffled
I was simply highlighting Con's poor conduct and form. No personal offence taken, my good man. Please note that not all arguments made necessarily represent my own views. I'm an atheist. [1]

Con's Constant Attacks on a Strawman of his Own Creation
I have at no point argued that gay marriage should be banned. I have only argued that the state should not recognise gay marriages, and thus that they will be illegal by Con's own definition. Con should read my arguments and answer them, instead of attacking a position I do not represent, a strawman [2]. I have explicitly stated;
"Gays would still be free to marry under any religion they please, exchange rings, live together, have sex, etc."
Con has insisted on repeatedly attacking a ban on gay marriages. I am not arguing for a ban.


Rebuttal

"Pro has not provided any reason why the negation of my premise is more plausible."

Practicality =/= plausibility. This is incredibly fallacious. If one must insist on metaphysical truths, surely it is not wise to insist that those that best suit one's needs are the most plausible? If Pro insists, I would propose that the most plausible explanation is that freedom is a societal construct and thus that it bears no especial significance or validity, other than that which we assign it, akin to morality and the like, and should thus be compromised when convenient or in the service of some greater goal. To refute this, Con must accept the burden of proof that I argue has been his from the start, due to the assertion being his, without any defence other than its perceived practicality. Note that I am not arguing for the negation of his premise, merely that it stands on the grounds of a false belief. "Freedom" merely describes a state of being. Con's use of freedom assumes that freedom represents some moral right. I argue that moral rights do not exist, as there is no basis for such a belief other than assumptions. A default state of being holds no significance. The default state of a piece of land is undeveloped and wild. We should not maintain this simply because it is the default. If freedom is merely a description of a state of being, there is no reason that it should be maintained in the face of any argument of any substance. Eugenics represents this argument of substance and thus justifies freedom's compromise.

"
Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal
Pro seems to agree.
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"
Pro seems to agree."

Although I do not necessarily agree, I have put forward a "good reason" for the illegality of gay marriage.

"Pro tries to use a pascals wager on gay marriage, after all maybe God won't approve of Gay marriage. But Pro would reject such reasoning from a muslim/Jew/Pastafarian that says you had better do XYZ cause God might not approve of it. Like wise Pro's reasoning here that gay marriage should be banned cause God might not like it should also be rejected."

Not so. I have never argued that gay marriage should be banned. Strawman. I have simply added, as a supporting argument, that it would be a wise wager on the part of any government.

"..."In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." [2]"

I ask my opponent if he would be willing to denounce democracy, often considered to be strongly linked with freedom. If not, this point stands. In fact, it stands regardless as it is not an argumentum ad populum. I did not state that these people are right. I merely asserted that if the majority of the human race (>4 billion / 7 billion [3]) believe it so, I would consider that "a good reason" under Con's original premises.

"1) Freedom is our default (already dealt with)
2) You need a good reason to ban something (Pro agree's with this)
3) The harm principle"

The harm principle is essentially another articulation of the first two premises. Con does not seem to understand that citations do not strengthen an argument if they add nothing, nor is this their purpose, as he should know from his own source [4]. This adds very little, and thus does not strengthen the argument to any great degree.

"Under Pros argument even if something is not hurting anybody or anything the state should seek to prevent minimize it if its not deemed "beneficial". This is a waste and mis use of state power and we have no reason to accept this."

Hardly. It is a waste of man hours to engage in activities that hold no benefit for humanity or society.

"Once again under Pros purpose of state argument if the state deemed that it is not beneficial for Pro to come and debate then the state should seek to prevent/minimize Pro from doing so........God forbid !!!"

It is exceptionally unlikely that the state would not consider it beneficial that its citizens have time to engage in recreational and intellectually stimulating activities. . Excessive punctuation will not strengthen Con's argument.


"Banning something just because its not "beneficial" is not a good reason to ban something."

Time is perhaps our most valuable commodity.

"Pro tries to link eugenics with banning gay marriage but its a non sequitur. With the government not justified in banning something just because its not beneficial, even if you accept the goal of eugenics it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to ban gay marriage."

This is not only a strawman, but a simple repetition of Con's earlier argument. I have not argued that gay marriage should be banned. I have only argued that it should not be endorsed by the state. I have argued that marriage should be used by the state as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals. I've also only argued that gay marriages are not beneficial to society so the state should not seek to encourage them, and it should not endorse/authorise them.


"Pro makes the point about "authorization". This was an oversight on my part, but if this is the best Pro has for banning gay marriage an oversight on a definition, is this really a "good" reason to ban marriage ?
In any case if Pro wants to adhere to their interpretation of illegal means lack of authorization, then Pro would still have to prove the that gay marriage should not be authorized."

Whether or not it was an oversight is absolutely irrelevant. Con must argue within the definitions he set out for the debate. Con is now attempting to argue that I should argue using a different definition of illegal from the one he specified, pre-debate. Again, I have not argued that gay marriage should be banned.
I have proven that gay marriage should not be authorised. Con has yet to properly answer the argument.

Arguments dropped by Con
1. Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial to society?
2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships, and would he suggest marriage as the solution to the relationship problems of straight couples?
3. The difference between not endorsing gay marriages and banning them.
4. Why Con believes that gay marriage would improve the gene pool.
5. Why not endorsing gay marriages may anger (the Abrahamic) God.
6. Why careful state endorsement of only beneficial marriages is not a good way to implement a eugenic policy.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

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

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

The negation of this premise is that freedom is not our default. Previously I pointed out the dilemma of accepting this negation as you couldn't go to the toilet or that Pro himself wouldn't be granted the freedom to argue against gay marriage as a prior. Pro had no answer to this dilemma of accepting the negation of this premise.

Pro likes to complain about this premise, but what reason did he give that its negation is at least just as plausible ?

Pro says... "If Pro insists, I would propose that the most plausible explanation is that freedom is a societal construct...."

This doesn't address the plausibility of the premise of freedom is our default vs freedom is not our default. Even if freedom is a societal construct it doesn't refute that freedom as our default is more plausible than having non freedom as our default.

Pro says... "Note that I am not arguing for the negation of his premise, merely that it stands on the grounds of a false belief"

If you arguing that the premise is false then you are implying that its negation is true. Pro didn't show that the negation of the first premise is true.

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

Pro at least as far as this debate is concerned agrees.

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

Definition of Illegality

Pro says..." I've also only argued that gay marriages are not beneficial to society so the state should not seek to encourage them, and it should not endorse/authorise them."

As Pro has decided to use illegal means lack of authorization I refer back to premise two which says P2) You need a good reason to make something illegal, or as Pros interpretation P2) You need a good reason not to authorize something.

Pro doesn't seem to challenge this premise.

CA: Religion

Pro wants the government to accept a flawed logic which Pro them self does not accept, that being its flawed to make something illegal just in case God might get angry if you don't.

Pro says..."I ask my opponent if he would be willing to denounce democracy, often considered to be strongly linked with freedom. If not, this point stands"

There is no logical contradiction in affirming democracy while also affirming that just because a majority say something doesn't make it true. This is a false dilemma by Pro.

The Purpose of the State

Previously I said..."Once again under Pros purpose of state argument if the state deemed that it is not beneficial for Pro to come and debate then the state should seek to prevent/minimize Pro from doing so........God forbid !!!"

Pro doesn't address the problem here, Pro merely dodges it by saying..."It is exceptionally unlikely that the state would not consider it beneficial that its citizens have time to engage in recreational and intellectually stimulating activities. . Excessive punctuation will not strengthen Con's argument."

Maybe Pro should focus more on the problem of their premise here rather than my punctuation. We still have the problem here of what happens to Pro and his great debating skills when the state doesn't think its "beneficial" for Pro to debate.

Under the premise of freedom being our default + the premise of you need a good reason + the harm principle Pro doesn't run into this problem.

My argument is as such that the premise that the state should NOT prevent something if its not beneficial is more plausible over pros premise that the state should prevent something because its not beneficial.

Eugenics

Pro says..." I have argued that marriage should be used by the state as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals."

But as I pointed out before this is not a good reason to make gay marriage illegal/not authorize it, as it is not necessary to make gay marriage illegal in order to further the goals of eugenics.

The benefits of gay marriage

Pro asks..."2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships, and would he suggest marriage as the solution to the relationship problems of straight couples?"

I think Pro misunderstood my remark here, I was speaking in the broad sense when I said that..."2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial."

I was referring to this argument in the same way that it is used generally in order to support hetrosexual marriage. It doesn't necessarily means every gay/hetro couple should get married.

Why is this important ? cause as Pro argued..."3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't"

If we accept the first half of this premise (since I argued against the 2nd half) if gay marriage can possibly result in more stable gay relationships then the state should encourage it.


Closing Remarks

I need to wrap this up quickly so let me thank Pro for the debate and suggest that Pro did not present a compelling case why gay marriage should be illegal.




Pozzo

Pro

Rebuttal

"The negation of this premise is that freedom is not our default. Previously I pointed out the dilemma of accepting this negation as you couldn't go to the toilet or that Pro himself wouldn't be granted the freedom to argue against gay marriage as a prior. Pro had no answer to this dilemma of accepting the negation of this premise."

I'm tired of repeating myself. I do not have any moral right (freedom) to argue against gay marriage. Freedom as a moral right does not exist. Con has not given any evidence or substantial argument for freedom's existence as a moral right. If freedom is then merely a description, it is our default. However, it is absolutely worthless. Defaults should not be maintained because they are defaults.

"As Pro has decided to use illegal means lack of authorization I refer back to premise two which says P2) You need a good reason to make something illegal, or as Pros interpretation P2) You need a good reason not to authorize something."

That premise is arguable, but this is irrelevant as I have have given a good reason.

"Pro wants the government to accept a flawed logic which Pro them self does not accept, that being its flawed to make something illegal just in case God might get angry if you don't."

Yes.

"There is no logical contradiction in affirming democracy while also affirming that just because a majority say something doesn't make it true. This is a false dilemma by Pro."

But there is a logical contradiction in insisting that a law should be passed despite the majority of the human race being nominally/theoretically against it.

"Pro doesn't address the problem here"

Yes, I do. This is a beneficial activity. The state would thus have no reason to prevent it.

"We still have the problem here of what happens to Pro and his great debating skills when the state doesn't think its "beneficial" for Pro to debate."

It is beneficial. If the state thought otherwise, it would be its duty to prevent me doing so.

"My argument is as such that the premise that the state should NOT prevent something if its not beneficial is more plausible over pros premise that the state should prevent something because its not beneficial."

Con has not argued that time should not be wasted. Con thus accepts that time should be managed by the state.

"But as I pointed out before this is not a good reason to make gay marriage illegal/not authorize it, as it is not necessary to make gay marriage illegal in order to further the goals of eugenics."

Con has repeatedly ignored my arguments. Marriage should be used as a tool by the state to encourage responsible breeding.

"I think Pro misunderstood my remark here, I was speaking in the broad sense when I said that..."2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial."

Con has not explained why he believes that gay marriage may result in these things.

"If we accept the first half of this premise (since I argued against the 2nd half) if gay marriage can possibly result in more stable gay relationships then the state should encourage it."

Despite the list of dropped arguments I left for Con, he has still not answered them. Why are stable gay relationships in any way beneficial to society?

Arguments Dropped by Con
1. Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial to society?
2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships?
3. The difference between not endorsing gay marriages and banning them.
4. Why Con believes that gay marriage would improve the gene pool.
5. Why not endorsing gay marriages may anger (the Abrahamic) God.
6. Why careful state endorsement of only beneficial marriages is not a good way to implement a eugenic policy.
7. Time is our most valuable commodity and non-beneficial activities are a waste of it.
8. Why freedom should be supposed to be a moral right.

Closing Remarks
Con has not answered my argument with any coherency. He spent most of the debate attacking something I did not argue for, and ignored outright most of what I did argue for.
Con accepted eugenics. He did not argue at any point that marriage was not an appropriate tool for the encouragement of desirable breeding. Therefore, he has not answered my argument, at all.
I thank Con for the debate and for his general promptness of reply. Vote Pro.




Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
SenorSwanky, thanks for the copypaste spam you have been spreading around
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by SenorSwanky 5 years ago
SenorSwanky
The U.S. Government should not be involved with the deciding on what constitutes a marriage or write any legislation regarding marriage.

1) Marriage to some is a religious sacrament, there should a separation of state and religion.
2) The government has bigger issues to deal with , i.e. War, Budget, Defense. There is a cost associated with focusing on this topic.
3) The government should see everyone as equal under the law whether straight, gay, monogamist, polygamist, married or unmarried. Equal laws should apply to all. Since that is not the case, then no laws should govern marriage.
4) I am tired of this gay marriage debate. Take it out of the government's hands and out of the press. Let someone other than the government decide your relationship status. Press time can be devoted to more important topics.
5) The issue is divisive. If there is no government sanctioned definition of marriage, people can decide on their own whatever definition suits them.
6) The government should not know the relationship status of people.

The government should mind its other very important business and stay out of social engineering. People look toward the government as if its their parent. People should have the freedom to start making their own decisions.
Posted by Pozzo 5 years ago
Pozzo
Con only said that it was an oversight in the third round, so he would have been unable to refute any argument I put forward using the other definition, so there wasn't any point changing. It would have seemed underhand. I reckon he should have been more careful in the first place but whatever floats your boat.
Posted by MuKen 5 years ago
MuKen
His definition also says he wishes to mirror the term 'unlawful', and places the term 'prohibited' before 'authorized'. Rather than seize on a single incorrect word choice that clearly stands out as different from all of his other word choices for the sake of arguing something aside from what the poster argued the entire time, it would be more intellectually honest to simply clarify the definition in the first place.

He by his own admission accidentally chose the word 'authorized' instead of 'allowed'. However he also chose multiple other words which clearly specify the correct definition contrary to this one word. As you apparently were aware of this, it's rather bad form to waste the entire debate arguing something tangential to what he is arguing and then label his arguments 'strawman'.

Your claim that you are simply going by his definition would hold more weight if his definition fully and consistently supported the debate you held rather than the one he did.
Posted by Pozzo 5 years ago
Pozzo
I suggest that MuKen refers to the definitions specified by Con for the debate.
Posted by MuKen 5 years ago
MuKen
In that line, I have posted another similar debate where I think Pro's arguments regarding eugenics and the need for government's classifications of what is legal to do what is best for society may be more relevant.
Posted by MuKen 5 years ago
MuKen
Personally I think conduct on both sides was somewhat lacking in this debate. However, Pro did not argue the side he signed up to argue. The debate is titled "Gay Marriage should be Illegal", and he agreed to argue Pro. But he says himself that he does not propose a ban on gay marriage, and considers any such contention a strawman argument. He says instead he is simply arguing that gay marriage should exist, but not be considered 'legal'. I suggest he look up the word 'illegal' (forbidden by law or statute).
Posted by Pozzo 5 years ago
Pozzo
I'm confused that I apparently didn't address the "inconsistency" in my position regarding infertile couples. I specifically said that the state shouldn't endorse the marriages of non-breeders, or any marriage that would not produce desirable offspring (which obviously includes both the homosexual and the infertile). This was the crux of my argument.
Posted by RaeTulo 5 years ago
RaeTulo
Okay, the argument on the first page of the comments is really annoying.
Dude - "Pro starts the debate, always, because that's how it is and blah blah blah"
Shutup.
You're not the king of DDO.
And if that was how it always had to be,
there wouldn't be an OPTION to set it up differently.

As long as there is an affirmative and a negative, that is an acceptable debate.
Shut yo mouth.

But, I did like the debate.
And I thought the con was strategic.
And the pro did very well defending their position as well.

(: Nicely done.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
It not part of the rules that you have to accept my argument, you are free to argue against it. And like I said, if it really matters to you, you can create a debate with the same resolution and same rules and I will accept it.

So no more excuses thanks either put up or shut up :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
IllegalcombatantPozzoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to trump Con. Pro should focus more heavily on the logic of the opponent's case, and addressing that more directly.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
IllegalcombatantPozzoTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro utterly ignores most of Con's arguments, and starts wittering on about eugenics which has no bearing on the debate. In the absence of a sensiblle rebuttal to Cons R1 Con wins by default.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantPozzoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate would have benefited from less back and fourth on small points and more focus on the resolution. Pro however suffered from it far more. Pro completely missed Cons freedom argument and did not support his own responsible breeding argument. He merely states that the state should support responsible breeding while giving no explanation as to the inconsistency of this concept by allowing infertile couples to marry.
Vote Placed by RaeTulo 5 years ago
RaeTulo
IllegalcombatantPozzoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt like premise 1 and 2 (which go hand in hand), were both supported well by the Negative, and those were key to upholding his own arguments, which he did.