The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Juv
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Gay Marriage should be Illegal (4)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,633 times Debate No: 17808
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

Resolution

Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Burden of Proof

Pro will affirm the resolution
Con will oppose the resolution

Debate details

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

NO VIDEO LINKS !!!

PROBLEMS ?

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

Round 4

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

Definitions:

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

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

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

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

Opening Argument

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

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

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

What I mean by saying that freedom is our default is that there is and should be a presumption in favour of liberty when considering what should and should not be illegal. The presumption in favour of liberty is the cornerstone of Western societies.

"This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle(Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. " [1]

The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default.

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

I suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition" [1]

The alternative would be that you DON'T need a good reason to make 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"

"Marriage should only be between a man and a woman"

This definition/concept of marriage excludes gay marriage by definition. A racist could define marriage as only between a man and a woman of the same race and thus exclude interacial marriage by definition.

Your going to need more than just a definition of marriage in order to justify the denial of marriage between people, whether that be between a gay couple or interacial couple.

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

Allowing gay marriage 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 pedophilia & 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. If we are going to deny marriage to people on the basis of what disgusts us, then hardly anyone will be able to get married, whether homosexual or hetrosexual.

"I don't like gays"

Then don't marry a gay person. Gay marriage doesn't force you into a gay marriage, nor does it require you to like gays or like homosexuality. 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...
Juv

Pro

I thank IllegalCombatant for his debate and look forward to testing my grounds on this extremely controversial – and current – topic.

Definitions
I agree with all definitions posted above.
Freedom is our default
Freedom is most definitely not the default of human society. Law governs everything we do, and in different countries, different laws exist. Freedom exists only when you abide to laws, and the choosing of laws is done by a smaller body of people then an entire country. For Gay Marriage, the freedom is there to be gay, there is no law against it, just a law against their marriage, which is a holy and sanctioned thing that has been traditionally between genders. Freedom to be together and live together is there for gays, but if they wish to take the social, legal, spiritual and religious sectors out of the marriage procedure, then straight couples will not receive the same intimacy that is desired when they set out for matrimony.

Premises
Premise 1) What is marriage?
There are a multitude of different definitions for marriage. The one I have agreed with “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” is the truth about marriage. What this fails to mention is the fact that marriage is a thing done by the church, an institute which is firmly against gay marriage. That gays should be together is true, but for them to corrupt that which is of the holiest nature, the joining of a man and a woman by the church, is to corrupt the meaning of marriage, and in effect, relinquishes the meaning that gays wish to find from marriage.

Premise 2) Normality
The act of getting married generally shares a lot of things. Family, birth, early life, later life, and surnames. If we allow gay marriage, some of the most core parts to marriage will be lost. The joining of surnames will turn into a struggle, for whose ever surname was chosen to remain would be the same for Mr and Mr X (or Mrs and Mrs X). Birth is going to be a struggle, especially when you have no sperm and too many eggs, or no eggs and too much sperm. Adoption may be an option, but then it leads to problems of early life. Breastfeeding is undoubtedly the best thing for young children, providing them with the nutrition for proper health, but breastfeeding will be nigh on impossible (and where not impossible, extremely awkward) for both genders of same sex couples. Later life, too, will be a struggle for these children. They will always be missing either the masculinity of a dad or the femininity of a mum, both of which are needed in a life. Their school life will be thwarted with bullies targeting the “kid with the gay mums/dads”, or the knowingly “adopted kid”. Better that marriage stays between genders, for the good of children.

Conclusion
Marriage should stay between genders and not be twisted by a few people who wish that they can manipulate an age old tradition.

I await my opponents reply eagerly. I also wish to say that this topic and this debate were not meant to offend any viewers, and if I have done so with any content, I am truly sorry.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument and also welcome them to the DDO as this seems to be their first debate.

Premise 1) Freedom is our default

Pro makes the point about how there are many laws on many things. I don't dispute this, but that isn't what my premise here is going on about. The premise merely makes the point about how we have the presumption of freedom before we decide to make something illegal. Didn't I make this point clear enough ?

The premise doesn't necessarily mean that everything should be allowed no matter what, as such Pros objection here it seems to me is based on a misunderstanding.

The alternative would be that Freedom is NOT our default.

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

Pro doesn't dispute the premise and seeks to provide a good reason that gay marriage should be banned.

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

How does gay marriage effect hetrosexual marriage ?

Pro says..."but if they wish to take the social, legal, spiritual and religious sectors out of the marriage procedure, then straight couples will not receive the same intimacy that is desired when they set out for matrimony. "

Allowing gay marriage will result in less intimacy for the hetrosexuals ? Well maybe only if the hetrosexuals invite the gays into the bedroom, but other than that I don't think a reasonable person will accept this claim. So unless Pro wants to provide justification for this claim lets move on....

Marriage and the Church

Pro says..."just a law against their marriage, which is a holy and sanctioned thing that has been traditionally between genders." & "What this fails to mention is the fact that marriage is a thing done by the church, an institute which is firmly against gay marriage. That gays should be together is true, but for them to corrupt that which is of the holiest nature,"

Is marriage holy ? what exactly does saying marriage is holy and sanctioned mean exactly ? Isn't saying marriage is holy just a disguised way to try and use religion/God in order to justify Pros position ?. Anyone can invoke God to try and ban something.

Marriage doesn't have to be done by a "church", so whether the "church" is for or against gay marriage is kind of irrelevant. If a church is against interracial marriage does that mean we should not allow interracial marriage too ? I don't think so. Three words.... Separation, Church, State.

Pros premise Premise 2) Normality

Under this heading, Pro throws in a mix bagged of comments but its hard to determine exactly on what grounds Pro justifies banning gay marriage. Pro mentions everything from Surnames to breast feeding. Is breast feeding necessary in order to allow two people to get married ?

Won't somebody think of the children !!!

Pro says..."Their school life will be thwarted with bullies targeting the “kid with the gay mums/dads”, or the knowingly “adopted kid”. Better that marriage stays between genders, for the good of children. "

I recall this kind of argument being used by people against interracial marriage when they argued that the children will have a difficult life cause they are neither part of the white community or black community. Under this kind of argument we could ban fat people getting married cause they will probably have fats kids and bullies will target fatty junior.

Pro says..."They will always be missing either the masculinity of a dad or the femininity of a mum, both of which are needed in a life."

This is factually false, as shown by single parents. Maybe what Pro really means is that its better to have both a mum and dad, but what is important from the interest of the child view is the environment in which they are raised. A loving caring non abusive gay environment trumps an abusive non loving non caring hetrsoxexual environment.

I think this is all academic anyway, because even if you accept pros assertions regarding child rearing, this doesn't prove that gay marriage should be banned, only that gays should not be allowed to raise children, and thats a seperate issue. We could agree to all of Pros arguments here and allow gay marriage while banning gays from rearing children.

Argument from Tradition

Pro says..."Marriage should stay between genders and not be twisted by a few people who wish that they can manipulate an age old tradition."

First it should be pointed out how Pro uses loaded language here how gays are trying to "manipulate" marriage, putting gays in a villainous role.

There was a time when slavery was an age old tradition, appealing to tradition is not only not a good argument its a logical fallacy as wikipedia explains..."Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:

1)The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i.e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct.

In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.

2)The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present.

In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue." [1]


I look foward to Pros reply.

Sources

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


Juv

Pro

I'm not going to lie, I am absolutely for gay marriage. I resign this debate - is that allowed on this website? You have trumped me, and arguments for gay marriage are too judgemental, and too easy for someone of your calibre to rebut. I wish to thank Pro for the chance to debate, but I had put myself in to the position of being against gay marriage when i firmly believe gays have all rights. Sorry, and thanks
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

Yes you are allowed to resign a debate, infact I would say its better to resign than put in a weak effort. It never hurts to question your own views and form counter arguments against them.

With that said thanks for the debate.

I would advise that people give Pro at least the conduct point with the argument points going to Con and the rest going to who ever you see fit.
Juv

Pro

Juv forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

As I said before, seeing that Pro graciously conceded defeat, I will ask that Pro get the conduct point and that Con get the argument points.

Other points are at voters discretion.
Juv

Pro

Thank you for the debate. No offence was intended in the making of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
Bigot def: " a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" You seem quite intolerant of christians and are seeming obstinately devoted to your own opinion.

As to the problem of gay and christian, although there are many sins that may be committed against God I don't see where there is any one that bars a believer from heaven in and of itself. The New Testament also makes clear that there is no distinction in severity of sins to God. Therefore, the gay person is no less likely to be admitted to Heaven than the tax cheat. The teachings of Christ are rooted in love, tolerance and forgiveness. God offers forgiveness and anyone who accepts would be eligible for Heaven.
Posted by Gypsy-magick 6 years ago
Gypsy-magick
Randolf being cheeky or not how am I a biggot? I am not christian so I don't follow that yet I have a friend who is gay and christian he once asked me since he is gay will he go to hell? I don't believe in hell so it's easy for me to say no but to him following his belief I assume he will I loosely have read bits and pieces of the bible but not enough to memorize by heart I am one of those free spirited persons.
According to the bible itis considered wrong for this to happen and the majority of people do think it's evil and all that.
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
@Gypsy, attacking bigotry with your own bigotted attacks. Classy ;)
Posted by Gypsy-magick 6 years ago
Gypsy-magick
I am for gay marriage( I'm a single mom by the way) all you uptight christians out there if you follow the teachings it does state the only reasons for a man and woman to be married is for procreation and back then you needed a husband or you were the town whore, nowadays so many still use the bible as a guide to living but I fail to see the logic of two people of the same sex not being allowed to marry first try taking your religion out of Government all together the world may be better off! if two men/women love each other hold down jobs just like the Jones -can provide emotional financial and a sense of identity to a adopted child well then that child I'd bet would grow up to become a functioning responsible stable adult.
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
That's ok. I was just being cheeky; no explanation needed :)
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
I don't think you mangled it. I am just putting this up cause it can sometimes take a few days to get an opponent and I don't want to have to wait until our debate is finished to put the challenge out there.
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
Sorry for mangling the last one ;)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
IllegalcombatantJuvTied
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: forfeit.
Vote Placed by Mestari 6 years ago
Mestari
IllegalcombatantJuvTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to the Pro par Con's request. Other points to Con due to the forfeit.