The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points

Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 7 votes the winner is...
Illegalcombatant
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,046 times Debate No: 16901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (7)

 

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.

EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.

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:

Words used in the resolution are what one would find and understand in normal everyday language, in other words no semantic tricks.

Opening Comments.....

Although the issue of gay marriage has died down a bit, I never had a debate on this topic so I am going to have one now.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

We could make lots of things illegal, like for instance the wearing of red hats. But we don't do so, because we operate on the axiom that all things being equal freedom should reign. I doubt that Pro will object to this.

Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something Illegal

If Pro agrees with Contention 1, but still wants to make the case that gay marriage should be Illegal, then pro will have to provide good reason for this limitation on freedom. Now rather than try and second guess what Pros reason will be, I will leave it to them to make their case.

Conclusion: With freedom our default position, and absent any good reason that gay marriage should be illegal, the resolution is not affirmed.

I look forward to Pros opening argument.
KeytarHero

Pro

I would like to thank the instigator, Illegalcombatant, for issuing this challenge. I have debated gay marriage before but I don't debate it very often. I look forward to a stimulating debate.

-Opening argument-

Gay marriage is a topic that many people get fired up about, and it's not usually an issue where someone falls right in the middle. Either you're for it or against it. Our government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage is between one man and one woman. If my opponent disagrees with this definition of marriage, then he bears the burden of proof to show why this should be changed. Gay marriage is not recognized on a federal level, and no state in our nation is required to honor or recognize gay marriage.

Let me first be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals as people. I believe they should be treated fairly and given the same respect as we do. They have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other person.

I contend that giving homosexuals the right to marry is not about equal rights: it is about giving them special privileges. No one in the United States can just marry anyone they want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I am not allowed to marry her because there are laws against incest. There are laws against bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia. We cannot just marry anyone we want. I am not allowed to marry a member of the same sex. Homosexuals are allowed to marry, just not people of the same sex. They have the same right to marry that I and other heterosexuals do.

Homosexuality also goes against nature. A man cannot procreate with another man, and a woman cannot procreate with another woman. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for our species to continue, we must conceive children to replace the elderly who are dying off. Homosexual unions do not allow this to happen.

I will now respond to my opponent's contentions:

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

"We could make lots of things illegal, like for instance the wearing of red hats. But we don't do so, because we operate on the axiom that all things being equal freedom should reign. I doubt that Pro will object to this."

I agree, only to a certain extant. We have never enjoyed absolute freedom in this country. For instance, a lot of things are illegal. We cannot murder, we cannot steal, we cannot cheat on our taxes, etc. Even though we have freedom of speech, we cannot yell fire in a crowded place without cause, and we cannot make threats against our president. We also cannot marry whomever we want, whether a relative, minor, animal, or member of the same gender.

Wearing a red hat is not comparable to gay marriage. There is nothing moral or immoral about wearing a hat or wearing the color red. However, homosexuality is a moral issue. We don't see anyone trying to make the wearing of red hats illegal. Also, there may be times when wearing a red hat is not allowed. For instance, some schools don't allow certain colors to be worn because they are the colors worn by a local gang.

We Americans have an adage, "it's a free country." While we may be free here, we do not enjoy absolute freedom.

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

This isn't necessarily true. We have good reason to make smoking illegal, yet it still remains legal. Alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not. We have good reason to make alcohol illegal (we tried it once and obviously failed). However, I don't see any reason to keep marijuana illegal as long as alcohol is legal.

Aside from that, I have also shown reasons that I believe are good to keep gay marriage illegal. Also, if you're going to support gay marriage, there is no reason why you shouldn't also support polygamy, pedophilia, incest, or bestiality. All of the reasons I've seen so far to support gay marriage can also be used to support those forms of sexual perversion.

Conclusion: Gay marriage goes against nature. It is about giving homosexuals special privileges, not about giving them "equal rights," because they already have equal rights with heterosexual. The resolution is affirmed.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their response.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

Pro does seem to agree with this, I never argued that absolute freedom should be allowed, which is shown in my second contention.

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

Pro says "This isn't necessarily true. We have good reason to make smoking illegal, yet it still remains legal. Alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not. We have good reason to make alcohol illegal (we tried it once and obviously failed). However, I don't see any reason to keep marijuana illegal as long as alcohol is legal."

Nothing Pro says here refutes contention 2. Pro is referring to examples where arguably things that we have a good reason to ban are not banned. Even if this is the case, contention 2 doesn't say if we have a good reason to ban something then its automatic, it says that you need a good reason to make something illegal.

Just because its the law doesn't make it right

Pro says "Our government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage is between one man and one woman. If my opponent disagrees with this definition of marriage, then he bears the burden of proof to show why this should be changed."

I hope Pro isn't using some kind of, its the law therefore its right by default argument. The banning of inter racial marriage or slavery could be argued for in times past as well, with the argument well its the law.

As far as Pros' burden of proof remarks, even if I did have some sort of burden here, the burden here has been met with my two unrefuted contentions which are......

Contention 1) Freedom is our default
Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal

Although it should be kind of obvious, but due to these contentions, if a law exists that does not have a good reason to make something illegal, then the illegality should be removed. Consider this a new contention (but its not really new it did follow logically)

Contention 3) 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

Same sex marriage = Special rights ?

Pro says "I contend that giving homosexuals the right to marry is not about equal rights: it is about giving them special privileges. "

To show how ridiculous Cons justification for this gay marriage = special rights claim, I will use their argument in order to argue against inter racial marriage.

(Assume we live in a time where inter racial marriage was banned). I contend that giving mixed races the right to marry each other is not about equal rights: it is about giving them special privileges. No one in the United States can just marry anyone they want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I am not allowed to marry her because there are laws against incest. There are laws against bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia. We cannot just marry anyone we want. I am not allowed to marry a member of a different race. People are allowed to marry, just not people of a different race. They have the same right to marry that I and other white and black people do.

There is no way you would accept this kind of reasoning to ban inter-racial marriage (I hope), thus don't accept this kind of reasoning to ban gay marriage.

Pro also says "It is about giving homosexuals special privileges, not about giving them "equal rights," because they already have equal rights with heterosexual"

If gay marriage was allowed, heterosexuals would be just as legally entitled to marry the same sex (Whether they would want too is another question) There is no special right that applies to only gays by allowing gay marriage. Heterosexuals can marry, and so can gays.

Its an interesting set of logic that concludes, allowing hetrosexuals to marry each other while banning gays to marry each other is equality, but allowing hetrosexuals to marry each other while also allowing gays to marry each other is giving special rights to gays and is unfair to hetrosexuals. (On a side note I just got a flash back to 1984.....and hell I never even read the damm book !!!)

Marriage should only be allowed to couples that can make babies ?

Pro says "Homosexuality also goes against nature. A man cannot procreate with another man, and a woman cannot procreate with another woman. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for our species to continue, we must conceive children to replace the elderly who are dying off. Homosexual unions do not allow this to happen.

I don't even know where to begin with this......

1) Men and woman don't need to be married to have kids, seeing Pro is so concerned with the continuation of the human species.

2) Gays can still get pregnant, just not with each other.

3) If you limit marriage to only couples that can produces children, then you would have to ban marriage of those who can't have children for example the infertile and the old aged. Sorry grandma, if you can't have kids, well your just like the gays, no marriage for you.

Suffice to say, these are selective excuses to ban marriage.

Gay marriage and the slippery slope

Pro says "Also, if you're going to support gay marriage, there is no reason why you shouldn't also support polygamy, pedophilia, incest, or bestiality. All of the reasons I've seen so far to support gay marriage can also be used to support those forms of sexual perversion."

Allow me to give Pro some reasons that would ban these other things but would not rule out gays getting married for example.....

1) Children can't get married (This would ban children being married but wouldn't exclude gays)
2) Consent must be freely given (This would ban pedophiles raping or forcing the marriage of children, but wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)
3) Inter species should be banned from marriage or sex (This would prevent bestiality, but wouldn't includes gays as they are of the same species)
4) Incest and incest marriage should be banned (This wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)

I look forward to Pros reply.

KeytarHero

Pro

Thank you again to Con for his rebuttal to my argument. I will now make my own.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

I didn't exactly agree with this. I don't think freedom is our default, per se. While we do enjoy the freedom of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," that is not an absolute freedom. While we have freedom of speech, it is not an absolute freedom. And while we have freedom to marry (which the Constitution does not guarantee, by the way), we do not have the freedom to marry anyone we want. So my contention is that having a freedom does not mean having that freedom absolutely. There are limits.

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

I misunderstood the contention from earlier. However, if something is already illegal (such as same-sex marriage or marijuana), then you need a good reason to legalize it. This country has defined marriage as between one man and one woman. If that is to change, the opposing side bears the burden of proof for why it should be legalized, there is no burden of proof for why it should remain illegal.

"Just because it's the law doesn't make it right."

Agreed. However, even though it's the law doesn't make it wrong. You still have to show why it's wrong.

I was not making that argument. However, what I was saying was that if this should be changed, you have to prove it. You can't say "it's automatically wrong because it disagrees with my sensibilities or values." There are only a few states that currently allow same-sex marriages. If same-sex marriages were approved of and supported by our federal government, the Defense of Marriage Act would not have passed. If we are to suddenly change the paradigm of our nation and allow same-sex marriages in all states, it must be proven why we should allow this.

Interracial marriage is not the same as homosexual marriage. The difference is race versus sexuality. There is nothing moral or amoral about belonging to a particular race. Even though the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, only the Germans in question should be held responsible. This does not mean that all Germans are evil.

However, sexuality has to do with morality. Otherwise all types of sexuality would be embraced and not just particular ones. You can't say someone can only be "so much Mexican" before they become immoral. However, you can say that certain types of sexuality are immoral when other types are acceptable. Even if someone feels they were "born that way," or that their feelings are natural, they still are not allowed.

Your contentions have been refuted. While we may enjoy freedoms, our freedoms are not absolute. If freedom is our default, absolute freedom is not. There are limitations to our freedoms, and marriage is no different. Also, if something is illegal, you need good reason to make it legal, not to keep it illegal. You bear the burden of proof in that.

Contention 3) 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

I see a couple of issues I can take with this statement. First, if freedom is our default (contention one) then the illegal act in question must not have strong support for why it should be enjoyed. Second, if we must have good reason for making something illegal (contention two), then that must mean since it's illegal there was good reason for making it so.

I have already shown why interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are not comparable. See my argument to contention two.

"If gay marriage was allowed, heterosexuals would be just as legally entitled to marry the same sex "

This is irrelevant. The fact remains that the only people who would want to marry a member of the same sex are homosexuals. They are seeking special privileges under the guise of "equal rights." Heterosexuals would have no desire to marry a person of the same sex, so really the only people who benefit from it would be homosexuals.

You are also misrepresenting my logic. Nice strawman. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. Homosexuals can still marry a member of the opposite gender if they're so interested in the legal benefits that come with it. They have equal rights. What they are pushing for is legislation for which only they would benefit, ergo they are seeking special privileges. If someone falls in love with their cousin, they are not allowed to marry. If someone falls in love with a member of the same sex, there is no reason why they should be allowed to marry.

Regarding the argument about procreation:

1) Homosexuals don't need to be married to express their love for each other. I fail to see where this logic is relevant to the debate.

2) This is also irrelevant, as this argument doesn't show a reason why homosexuality is a benefit to society, it just tries to get around it by a loophole. Gay men cannot get pregnant, and gay women cannot get pregnant from their partner. They can only reproduce by unnatural means (e.g. artificial insemination). Homosexual relationships go against nature. You have not shown otherwise.

3) I never said marriage should be restricted to only couples who can reproduce. Grandma can still get married because it's legal to do so. Heterosexual marriages are legal and allowed. So Grandma Mabel can still get married to her beau. She may be past her childrearing years, but she was once a fertile young vixen who was able to reproduce. And again, if a couple is infertile, there are still means they can use in order to get pregnant (such as fertility drugs) so that an infertile couple can reproduce with each other. The question here is not what is best for society, but what is legal. Since heterosexual marriages are legal, they cannot be denied to anyone (provided they're of legal age).

Suffice it to say, these are not selective excuses to ban marriage.

Slippery Slope?

I should point out that I never made the slippery slope argument. I never said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing incest, polygamy, etc. What I said was if you're going to legalize gay marriage, there's no reason not to legalize these other things. If you're all about fairness for gays, why wouldn't you be about fairness to those who practice incest, polygamy, etc? Why do you only think gay marriage should be legalized out of fairness, but we shouldn't be fair to others?

Now understand, I'm not condoning any of these practices, just examining why they should be kept illegal if gay marriage is made legal.

1) Children get married in other cultures all the time. In fact, in Nevada an underage girl can get married to the father if she gets pregnant. So obviously children can get married.
2) Children can consent. Teenagers have sex all the time. Are you going to say that every case of teenage pregnancy was a case of rape if the father is underage as well? Is 18 really a magical age where children suddenly understand what sex is all about, or does it just take a good sex ed class to help them understand what they're getting into? As far as I know, states differ on the age of sexual consent (I'm open to being wrong here, and would be interested to know if I am).
3) Why should interspecies be banned from marriage or sex? You haven't given a reason why we should ban it.
4) Why should incest and incest marriage be banned? Again, you didn't give a reason why they should be.

As you can see, Con only gave a reason for two of the examples to be banned, but not for the other two. And the reasons he gave aren't very strong. If gay marriage should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why these other forms of sexuality should not be allowed. Otherwise, they should all be allowed.

I look forward to Con's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

Pro seems to agree, but then seems to back track. 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.

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

Pro says "However, if something is already illegal (such as same-sex marriage or marijuana), then you need a good reason to legalize it."

Yes, and the reason for legalizing something, is that the reason or reasons that are used to support something being illegal are shown to be insufficient. Once again, due to the requirement that illegality needs a good reason to support it, the law just saying something is illegal is not enough in of its self. Example in Some Muslim Nation, Christian preaching is banned. Just using the fact that the law says christian preaching is banned is insufficient grounds for making that something illegal. Just like just referring to the law that gay marriage is banned is insufficient grounds for making that something illegal.

Pro says "Second, if we must have good reason for making something illegal (contention two), then that must mean since it's illegal there was good reason for making it so."

This is clearly shown false, imagine a Nazi argument, hey we passed a law making it illegal for Jews to live, and according to Pros logic the fact that its illegal must mean there is a good reason for it.

Contention 3) 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 has gone without challenge.

Pro makes the claim that the contentions are refuted, yet they seem to agree with them, at least in principle. I hardly think the contentions are refuted.

Just because its the law doesn't make it right

Pro agrees here, and is also a way of summarising my contentions. Pro also says "Agreed. However, even though it's the law doesn't make it wrong. You still have to show why it's wrong."

I never argued that just because its the law that makes it wrong. The short answer of why its wrong to ban gay marriage, is because there isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage, and without that reason the banning doesn't have sufficient justification for its existence.

The morality of sexuality

Pro makes a point about you can't be wrong by being too much Mexican, fair enough, but the question is, has Pro given a good reason for selecting gays out of the pack to be denied being able to marry other gays ?

Same sex marriage = Special rights ?

Previously I argued against Pros argument that said denying gays to marry gays is equality with heterosexuals being allowed to marry hextrosexuals, but if gays are allowed to marry other gays this is inequality with hetrosexuals marrying other hextrosexuals. as I said before this is an interesting piece of logic.

But Pro provides us with an answer as to explain this as Pro says "This is irrelevant. The fact remains that the only people who would want to marry a member of the same sex are homosexuals. They are seeking special privileges under the guise of "equal rights." Heterosexuals would have no desire to marry a person of the same sex, so really the only people who benefit from it would be homosexuals."

First its VERY relevant as Pros argument was about how allowing gay marriage gives gays a special right. As I said before the allowing of gay marriage would allow hetrosexuals to marry the the same gender too, Pro can't refute that so the whole argument that gay marriage = special right for gays is shown false. Never the less Pro goes on to make an argument that allowing gay marriage gives gays a special right.

So lets see here, Pro has no problem only allowing hetrosexuals to marry and this only applies to hetrosexuals cause only hetrosexuals want to marry the other gender. BUT if gay marriage is allowed, then this give a special rights to gays cause only gays want to marry gays. So what we have here is........

1) Marriage that bans gay marraige and is exclusive to Hetrosexual marraige and only applies to hextrosexuals cause only hetrosexuals want to marry people of the other gender does not give a special right to hetrosexuals.

2) Marriage that includes both hetrosexual and gay marriage gives gays a special right.

To emphasise this point let me use an example, an example where ONLY gays are allowed to marry but heterosexual marriages are banned.

(Assume only gay marriage is allowed, and hetrosexual marriage is banned) I argue, look, heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of their own sex, but what they are seeking is special rights. If we allow hetrosexual marriage, this only applies to hextrosexuals as only hextrosexuals want to marry people of the other gender. As such this confers are a special right to hetrosexuals.

Is this a joke ? You would condemn such reasoning to ban hetrosexual marriage (I hope), thus you should condemn such reasoning to ban gay marriage.

Yes, that's right, in Pros world, if some one or group is being treated differently, then that group is being treated equal, but if that group is treated equal, then that group is getting special rights. As Pro says "What they are pushing for is legislation for which only they would benefit, ergo they are seeking special privileges"

Oh by the way, I am against slavery being abolished. You see only blacks are slaves, so abolishing slavery only benefits blacks, ergo they are seeking special privileges. I am also against the minimum wage, you see because slaves work below the minimum wage, slaves seeking a minimum wage only benefits then, ergo they are seeking special privileges.

Once again, you would reject such logic, as such the logic of Pro banning gay marriage here should be rejected.

Marriage should only be allowed to couples that can make babies ?

Pro says "1) Homosexuals don't need to be married to express their love for each other. I fail to see where this logic is relevant to the debate"

Cause you implied marriage was something that should only happen to couples that can produce children as you said before..."Homosexuality also goes against nature. A man cannot procreate with another man, and a woman cannot procreate with another woman. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for our species to continue, we must conceive children to replace the elderly who are dying off. Homosexual unions do not allow this to happen."

Pro says "3) I never said marriage should be restricted to only couples who can reproduce."

Then why did you bring up the whole gays can't have children with each other then ? If marriage is not restricted to those who can have children like granny, then why did you bring up this irrelevant point about how gays can't have children with each other ?

Gay marriage and the slippery slope

Pro says "I should point out that I never made the slippery slope argument. I never said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing incest, polygamy, etc." then Pro says " If gay marriage should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why these other forms of sexuality should not be allowed. Otherwise, they should all be allowed."

Of course your not Pro, your just saying that allowing gay marriage will result in incest marriage and bestiality and the doors of hell being open to Satan and his demons conquering the world......

I am running out of characters, I will address the slippery slope of gay marriage in more detail in the next round.

I look forward to Pros reply.
KeytarHero

Pro

Again, I thank Con for their rebuttal. As it stands, some of my contentions remain uncontested, as I will show in a moment. Con has also not offered compelling reason for why something which is currently illegal, should be made legal.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

I did not agree completely, and I have not backtracked. My position on this was the same in my first round argument as it was in my second round argument. While we do enjoy freedoms, we do not enjoy unlimited freedom We do not have absolute freedom of speech, neither do we have absolute right to marry. You have not offered compelling reason to support same-sex union and have not sufficiently argued against my reasons.

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

Number one, Con has not shown any sort of precedent for why we need a good reason to make something illegal. Alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not, however both have the same effects on a person. The only reason I know of that marijuana is illegal is because the government can't tax it. That's not a good enough reason to keep something illegal, especially when alcohol, which is responsible for drunk driving deaths and for liver failure, is legal. "There much be good enough reason" is not an argument for making something legal. You have not shown me why having gay marriage legal would be a benefit to anyone, other than some people would get to marry members of the same sex. That only benefits those attracted to the same sex. There are other ways to express your love than getting married.

I fail to see how another country banning Christian preaching is in any way comparable to banning gay marriage. Laws are based on morality, and if a country is hostile to a particular religion (e.g. Christianity) then of course it will be illegal. This country was built on religious freedom, so we are free to accept any faith we deem the most reliable.

"...imagine a Nazi argument,..."

I'm afraid I must invoke Godwin's Law here. [1] Comparing the banning of gay marriage is not comparable to Nazi, Germany. The Nazis were massacring the Jews, which was an extreme violation of their basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right. Even if you accept gay marriage, I can almost guarantee you think some other form of marriage is distasteful.

Contention 3) 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 has not gone without challenge. I, in fact, challenged it quite thoroughly in my second round argument. Rather than address it, Con has decided to ignore it altogether.

We do not have absolute freedom. Also, we need good reason to keep something legal, not make it illegal. See my analogy regarding marijuana above in this argument.

I have not agreed with my opponent's contentions, in theory. It's a interesting leap to take "we don't have absolute freedom" and make it agree with "we must have good reason to make something illegal." The fact that we don't have absolute freedom, itself, indicates that there are things which will be illegal since our freedoms are not absolute. Even though we have freedom of speech, we cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or threaten the president. While we have freedom to marry, we cannot just marry anyone we want. There are limits.

Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

"Pro agrees here, and is also a way of summarising my contentions."

What does that prove? It may summarize your contentions, but you haven't proven that this particular instance is one in which the law is wrong.

"The short answer of why its wrong to ban gay marriage, is because there isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage, and without that reason the banning doesn't have sufficient justification for its existence."

I disagree. There are good reasons for banning gay marriage, as I have shown, and you have not contested those. My arguments stand unchallenged.

The morality of sexuality

My contention here stands unchallenged. Belonging to a particular race is not a moral issue. It's not immoral to be too Mexican. However, sexuality is based on morality, and everyone has different opinions on what sexuality is acceptable and what sexuality is wrong. You have not addressed this.

I have given good, secular reasons for denying gay marriage, which I will give again here since you have not properly addressed them:

1) We cannot just marry anyone we want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I cannot marry her. Just like no one should be able to marry a member of the same gender.
2) Gay marriage goes against nature. Homosexuals cannot naturally procreate with each other. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for humanity to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off.

Special rights

"As I said before the allowing of gay marriage would allow hetrosexuals to marry the the same gender too..."

I have, in fact, contested this. The only people who would benefit from this would be homosexuals. Heterosexuals would not benefit from making gay marriage legal, therefore they are seeking special privileges. Let me give you an analogy:

Suppose there's a Jewish boss who makes any form of religious expression punishable by firing, but you can wear a yarmulka to work and have a menorah by your desk if you so choose. Is this acceptable? You could argue that anyone in the office is free to wear a yarmulka or place a menorah by their desk, but only the Jewish people would want to. This rule only benefits Jews in the office, even though anyone else would be free to follow suit.

In the same way, homosexuals are seeking special rights because they're fighting for legislation that, at the heart of it, only benefits them.

1) Con's first point is irrelevant. Marriage promotes the natural order of procreation. In order to keep our species going heterosexual relationships are required. Marriage gives incentive to do so.
2) I did not fully understand the point he's making here. He seems to be agreeing with me here.

The analogy Con gave, to give me my "just desserts," falls flat on many levels. There would never be a world in which only homosexuals were allowed to marry, unless (assuming there is intelligent life out there) that species could reproduce asexually or through homosexual union. Our species cannot, therefore gay marriages should not be encouraged.

Con now attempts to strawman me by creating a fictional "world" he sees me creating, but in reality this world exists only in his head. I do not advocate anyone being treated unfairly. I have already said I believe homosexuals are people deserving of the same basic human rights we all are. Marriage is not a basic human right.

If there was a Godwin's Law for slavery, I would invoke that here, too. Slavery was a violation of their basic human rights to not be treated as property (i.e. freedom). This is not comparable to gay marriage.

Marriage only allowed to childrearing couples

1) Con supports his logic but fails to refute my argument.
2) Con fails to refute this argument.
3) I brought it up to show how homosexuality goes against nature. Heterosexual marriage is legal, so anyone, fertile or infertile, can take advantage of it.

Slippery Slope

Con is making another strawman argument by claiming I am making a slippery slope argument. [2] I have made no such argument, I was only showing how my view is more consistent than my opponent's. He has not addressed any of my reasons here, so I extend my arguments that there is no good reason to ban any other form of marriage if you accept gay marriage. I am not making the argument that they will eventually become legal, just that, in fairness, we have no reason to continue to deny them.

I look forward to our final round, and thank my opponent for a thought-provoking debate.

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

Con

Gay marriage and the slippery slope (continued from the last round)

You will recall that Pro maintains that they have never seen a good reason that allows for gay marriage (I wonder how hard Pro really has looked) which if accepted, in the interest in fairness would not result in incest, bestiality & pedophilia.

I gave some possible reasons that can be accepted that would justify the ban of the other things pro mentions but not ban gay marriage. But notice that Pro moves the goal posts, even though I provided possible reasons, Pro doesn't acknowledge those as good reasons. Allow me to elaborate on one of my reasons and maybe see if Pro will accept it as a "good" reason that if applied won't result in the other things mentioned.

1) Sexual consent must be given by all parties involved.

If we adopt this reason as a good reason, then this rules out beastiality, as the requirements of "consent" can not be met. Consent here is referred to here in a legal context.

Now maybe Pro could just say well I don't find that a good reason. Well Pro is entitled to their opinion, just like people who think their is no good reason to allow whites to marry non whites. Its not my job to provide Pro with what they think are good reasons, Pro doesn't get to ban gay marriage by default, I only provide this possible reason to stimulate thought.

The Slippery slope is not a good reason to ban anything (unless you have sufficient warrant). Consider the example of where women were not allowed to vote, and a person wanted to keep it that way. The person could argue something along the lines of.... If women voteing should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why we don't allow pigs and donkeys to vote other wise it should be allowed. I am not making the argument that pigs and donkey voteing will become legal, just that, in fairness, we have no reason to continue to deny them.

Would you accept such reasoning to deny women voting ? if not, then why accept such reasoning to deny gay marriage ?

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

Pro seems to be having alot of trouble understanding this simple concept. Contention 1 does not conclude therefore there are no limits. Its makes the point how we err on the side of freedom, we give freedom of something the benefit of the doubt. When we have a good reason to make something illegal THEN we make it illegal.

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

Pro says "Number one, Con has not shown any sort of precedent for why we need a good reason to make something illegal. "

That's just awful. If people with the mindset of Pro every get into positions of power, God help us. Any statement that says or implies that you don't need a good reason to make something illegal condemns its self.

Contention 3) 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.

I never argued we have absolute freedom, my contention 2 even allows for things to be banned. As such all of Pros arguments based on this straw man is irrelevant.

The morality of sexuality

Pro says "My contention here stands unchallenged. Belonging to a particular race is not a moral issue. It's not immoral to be too Mexican. However, sexuality is based on morality, and everyone has different opinions on what sexuality is acceptable and what sexuality is wrong."

I would remind Pro, that their are still Nazi's and kkk around. Seeing Pro implies that any disagreement makes something a "moral" issue (example gay marriage). By Pros own standard, this refutes that being a particular race isn't a moral issue.

Now maybe Pro or some one else might retort, just because there are some people that regard being a certain race is immoral, doesn't make it so, and even if it does, doesn't mean we should deny things to them. Indeed, just like because some one says or implies being gay is wrong, doesn't make it so, and even if it is, doesn't mean we should deny things to them.

Consider Pros argument here....1) We cannot just marry anyone we want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I cannot marry her. Just like no one should be able to marry a member of the same gender.

1) We can't marry anyone we want (I agree)
2) I can't marry my cousin (I agree)
3) Therefore lets ban or keep gay marriage banned ?

This is a non sequitur, even if we agree with the premises the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.

Gays and Nature

Pro says "2) Gay marriage goes against nature."

Gay marriage goes against nature ? Even if it does, so what ? Are we to ban things that go against nature ? How natural do you think a plane is ? If God wanted man to fly, he would of given us wings, obviously man in flight is a moral abomination. I think we should all go Amish.

Pro says "Homosexuals cannot naturally procreate with each other. They cannot raise a biological family together."

Pro already agreed that being able to have children is not a necessary criteria in order to allow marriage, for example dear old granny.

Pro says "In order for humanity to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off" What's the argument here ?

1) In order to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off
2) Therefore ban gay marriage

We have been over this, hetrosexuals can produce children both outside and inside of marriage. Don't worry Pro, if gay marriage is allowed, you can have all the hetrosexual sex in a marriage, and produce all the children that are are a product of that sex, in that hetrosexual marriage. Allowing Gay marriage doesn't change that one bit.

Same sex marriage = Special rights ?

Pro still maintains, that if a group is being denied something and that group seeks to end that denial, cause the removal of this denial would only advantage them, then this equates to that group seeking special rights.(Its 1984 all over again people !!!) Maybe those Islamic nations should use this argument the next time they are rebuked for banning Christian preaching. Hey Christians are allowed to preach Islam, the only people who want to preach Christianity are Christians ergo they are seeking special rights. Would you find this kind of reasoning utterly contemptible ? I hope so.

Closing remarks

Pro pretty much grabbed what ever they could get their hands on to justify the banning of gay marriage, I am surprised they didn't use a think of the children speech, or that the very survival of humanity depends on the banning of gay marriage (oh wait they kind of did). At the end of the day, the denial of something to a person or group is serious business. What is being denied here is gays being able to marry other gays, the question is, has Pro being able to justify this denial ? has Pro being able to provide a good reason for this limit of freedom ? or has Pro merely given a bunch of excuses ?

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an elephant in the room here, and that elephant is people just don't like homosexuals or homosexual behavior. Not only do people not like it, some may even find it disgusting. Well the great thing is, you don't have to like it, nor do you have to not be disgusted by it. The only thing that is being asked is that you don't use any personal prejudice on your part to deny gays to marry other gays.

Don't like gay marriage ? The solution is simple......just don't marry a gay person, not deny gay marriage.

Vote Con.

I thank Pro for participating and seeing the debate all the way to the end.
KeytarHero

Pro

Slippery Slope

I reiterate, I have not made a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope would be saying that if gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. would also be legalized. [1] I have made no such claim. I have only shown how my views are more consistent by showing that if you legalize gay marriage, then in fairness you would have no reason to reject other forms of marriage that there is no real good reason for denying. There is good reason for denying gay marriage, so there is cause to keep it illegal. Also, I have looked for good reason and haven't found it, and Con certainly has not offered any good reasons to allow it in this debate.

"I gave some possible reasons that can be accepted that would justify the ban of the other things pro mentions but not ban gay marriage."

You have not. Allow me to refresh your memory. From your round two argument:

"1) Children can't get married (This would ban children being married but wouldn't exclude gays)"

I have shown that they can. In Nevada, an underage girl can get married to the father if she is pregnant. Also, children in other countries get married all the time.

"2) Consent must be freely given (This would ban pedophiles raping or forcing the marriage of children, but wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)"

Again, other countries have arranged marriages where the couple has no choice in the matter.

"3) Inter species should be banned from marriage or sex (This would prevent bestiality, but wouldn't includes gays as they are of the same species)
4) Incest and incest marriage should be banned (This wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)"

You have given no reasons at all to back these up.

Hence, I extend my arguments that there is no good reason to deny these types of marriage, since you gave no reason to deny two of them and you did not answer my objections to your first two points.

I have already shown that gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage. It is also not comparable to denying women the right to vote, as they were being discriminated based on gender. Being a certain gender is not a moral issue, just like being a certain race is not a moral issue. As I have illustrated, and you have refused to even try to refute, gay marriage is a moral issue. There are good intellectual reasons to deny it, and even if you accept it, you will likely find another form of marriage to be distasteful.

Contention 1) Freedom is our default

I am not having a hard time understanding anything. Whether or not freedom is our default, that doesn't mean we have absolute freedom. If freedom of speech is our default, there are certain types of speech that are not allowed (e.g. hate speech). If freedom of marriage is our default, there are certain types of marriage not allowed (e.g. adult to minor, polygamy, gay marriage).

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

"That's just awful."

Why? Because it's damaging to your case? Does not our own Supreme Court cite precedent when making a ruling? Now we see that Con has resorted to ad hominem attack to try and make his case.

Contention 3) 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.

I have not made a strawman here. You may not have argued that we have absolute freedom, but neither have you argued that there is good reason to make gay marriage legal. You have not fulfilled the burden of proof.

Here, you are making a strawman argument against me. I have not stated that disagreement makes something a "moral" issue. There is no morality involved in being a particular race, otherwise slavery would still be legal. You cannot make an intellectual case about belonging to a certain race or a certain gender. However, you can make an intellectual case against a particular type of sexuality (e.g. pedophilia, homosexuality, polygamy, etc.).

I also have not made a non sequitur. Con, again, has misrepresented my position. I will put it in a syllogism here:

1) We can't marry anyone we want
2) There is no good reason to allow homosexuals to marry; in fact, there is good reason not to encourage it
3) Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal

Homosexuals and Nature

Homosexuality is not comparable to aviation. Airplanes were built to aid humanity. They allow us to travel great distances in a relatively short period of time. They help us to fight wars (which is dubious, of course, but without airplanes we couldn't win wars and we'd be mostly helpless). However, homosexuality actually hinders humanity because homosexuals cannot procreate naturally.

I said that Granny would be able to marry because it was legal for her to do so, since heterosexual marriage is legal. It doesn't matter if Gramps and Granny can procreate. They are past their childbearing years. Heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because our species must continue.

My opponent, again, misrepresents my position. I will fix the syllogism for him:

1) In order to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off
2) Therefore, heterosexual relationships should be encouraged.

Sure, heterosexuals can produce children both inside and outside of marriage. But homosexuals don't have to be married to express their love for each other. Your example is moot.

Special rights

Notice that my opponent has altogether ignored my analogy, which shows why allowing everyone to do something that would really only benefit one group of people is granting them special rights. The United States has no control over what other countries legislate, and there are many Americans who believe we should keep our noses out of other countries' business. I haven't made my mind up on that issue, but that's really irrelevant because other countries make legislations based on their morality. Their laws have no basis on ours.

Closing remarks

It is clear that that Con really has no argument for supporting gay marriage, and his entire argument rested on strawmanning me left and right, and throwing in an ad hominem attack or two. I have shown sufficient reason for not allowing gay marriage, and many of my arguments have gone uncontested by my opponent.

Society should pass laws for the greater good, not to make a small minority of the population happy. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit no one but homosexuals. Heterosexual relationships are what will ensure our race (not just Americans, but humanity as a whole) will continue on. I have nothing against homosexuals as people. They deserve the same basic human rights as all of us. Gay marriage is not comparable to slavery or women being treated as property, because those are a violation of basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right. It is not even guaranteed in our Constitution.

I don't have to tell you how to vote. Vote based on whose arguments were stronger, not just based on which side you agree with.

I thank Con for issuing this challenge, and I hope that both sides have given you something to think about.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mern 1 year ago
mern
Homosexuality is an outward expression of things which affects much deeper in a person"s life " issues for many originating back to their childhood. It is scientifically proven that the reason behind the transformation of an individual to a homosexual is his family background and experiences through which he has grown up.Sexual problems, mental disorders, and even the "habit" of homosexuality etc are formed through the negative experiences of one"s life. Good alternative to the belief 'Homosexuality will never be eliminated or cured' "Cure for homosexuality is available in India. Read more : www.curehomosexuality.com
Posted by QuestioningAuthority 1 year ago
QuestioningAuthority
I like this debate, it's civilized and not full of playground insults, I am fully for gay marriage, but I would still stand for making it illegal if I had to debate it. I am bisexual myself and I would go for pro and I like that the pro here is actually approaching this maturely. +1 for you!
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"It sounds like you are saying that a person must explain why they should have a right to something, in a country that is based on freedom."

Yes that is exactly the position I would hold in a debate, you can not just state that we have a right to X unless you can prove we do not. Rights have to be established by both a meta and normative basis. Pro made both. Now you can attack the position, many have - but it is still there and he certainly did not say SSM are not ok until you prove it otherwise, which he could have done and still tied the debate.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
Cliff, you lost me a little on that last statement. It sounds like you are saying that a person must explain why they should have a right to something, in a country that is based on freedom. Also you keep going back to this "I win unless you show me wrong" statement but the problem is that both participants used this same approach so I'm not quite sure you use this to justify your vote. I agree with you that diversity is a good thing and yes you are only one vote, but you do vote a lot (which I appreciate very much BTW, despite disagreeing sometimes) so it is just interesting to pick at your reasoning.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Double_R, there is considerable disagreement on DDO about BoP and responsibility in debate argument. Some do hold with the view that you can defend the legality of an action by default, i.e., it is legal unless you can show that it is not. I don't consider this a practical approach to law and certainly not in debate where you start any topic and then say "I win unless you show I am wrong". But I am one voice, one vote, it isn't something to be concerned about. It is not like I am going to askbob IC if he doesn't change. In fact I think it is a good idea he doesn't as we (DDO community) benefit from diversity. However I disagree strongly with the last statement you made that we do not need reasons for rights, we can claim anything unless opposed. Any claim to right has to be made off of a well established normative basis and the one doing the claiming is the one who should be doing the norming.
Posted by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
"that it is not a reasonable argument to say prove me wrong or victory is mine"

I'd have to disagree with you Cliff. Illegalcombatant stated full well that keeping something illegal needs sufficient reasoning, so saying gay marriage should be illegal requires a strong case against gay marriage. KeytarHeros only response to that was to say that freedom is not absolute. Indeed its not but he misses the point. The reason we do not have absolute freedom is because there are good reasons to restrict certain rights, not because we need reasons to grant rights.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
@ Cliff

Sounds to me, your mis-representing the debate.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
In a debate yes, I would argue as written, that it is not a reasonable argument to say prove me wrong or victory is mine.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
@ Cliff

You equate my reasoning that we need a good reason to ban something as logically fallacious as a God of the gaps argument ? I might have to debate you on that Cliff.
Posted by theusername 6 years ago
theusername
It's a waste of time spending your time whether to legalized or not to legalized the gay marriage. Gay people should know their limit. They should know that there are actually alot of people fighting for this issue especially.. the Catholic church was insulted.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I was impressed with KeytarHero's ability to keep Con on track and drive home his arguments. I do not necessarily agree with Keytar but he proved to have the stronger arguments.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument is based on logic, Pros argument is based on examples. Pro uses many examples of why something is justified by saying that it is legal somewhere. Legality is not a justification. Pro also attempts to shift the BOP by misconstruing Cons argument. Con explains full well that making something legal is simply the result of inefficient reasoning to keep it being illegal. Yet Pro tries to say that Con must show good reason to legalize it. This is false. Freedom is the default in the US.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro attempted to drop arguments and build new ones. Slippery slope is not a good argument. Pro was the only one with sources so I have to give it to him. Overall, this was a fun debate to read.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: A round could have been removed here. Con opens with a position with no support and is on the defense the entire debate and essentially argues - I right unless you prove me wrong, ironic considering the avatar pic. 3:1 Pro
Vote Placed by Dmetal 6 years ago
Dmetal
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won by a long shot. Pro didn't seem to get any of Con's arguments; he just kept going with the same old arguments that Con continually refuted. The debate was centered on two very simple contentions that Pro never refuted.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 6 years ago
Jillianl
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments are weak at best and contradictory as well. They claim that we should not base our laws off of other countries and yet attempts to cite children being married in other countries as an example of the "slippery slope" argument. Pro has not proven that gay marriage is detrimental to society or even effects procreation in ANY way between heterosexuals. Marriage hardly is a good indicator of who will procreate even among heterosexuals after all. Con wins hands down.
Vote Placed by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
IllegalcombatantKeytarHeroTied
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: Decent back and forth, though arguments weren't that well followed through on both sides. Con edges ahead in persistence.