The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
Contradiction
Pro (for)
Winning
25 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 6 votes the winner is...
Contradiction
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,840 times Debate No: 17044
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (85)
Votes (6)

 

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.

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

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.

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 interfer 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.

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.
Contradiction

Pro

My response will focus primarily on premise (2) of my opponent's argument.

Same-sex marriage should not be legal because the state has a compelling interest not to recognize it. This compelling reason is the fact that the very nature of marriage does not include same-sex couples within its purview. Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts. Since sexual acts between individuals of the same sex are not procreative in type, they do not qualify as marriages. This renders Con's response against the point that "Gays can't have children" to be irrelevant. Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. Infertile coupels are therefore irrelevant to the argument.

Consider then the following argument.

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. [1]

Heterosexual marriage provides a framework under which future citizens can be raised and produced due to the fact that heterosexual union (The joining of a sperm/egg) is possible under this type of relationship. It is for this reason that the state confers legal and economic benefits upon married couples, for it recognizes that these notions are crucial for the maintenance of a healthy society. Thus, since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

Con anticipates this argument, he writes. "Allowing gays to marry doesn't stop hextrosexual marriage, nor does it in anyway stop or interfer with children being produced in a hetrosexual marriage."

Unfortunately, this fails to capture the argument. I am not claiming that same-sex marriage would stop heterosexual marriage or that it would interfer with the production of children. Rather, I am claiming that since procreation is impossible between couples of the same-sex, that therefore their relationships cannot be counted as a marriage.

Though I have more to say, I'll end on this note and turn it over to Con.

___________

1. http://wisdomandfollyblog.com...

Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Defining marriage to exclude people

You always define something in order to exclude a person or people. For example you could define not being a slave as only something a WHITE person can have, thus its impossible for blacks to not be slaves. Like wise you can define marriage in a way that excludes gays from marrying other gays for example marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. You can also define marriage as only between a blonde and another blonde and thus exclude non blondes.

Yes marriage can be defined as only between a man and a woman and thus by definition exclude gay marriage, but should it ? that's the question.

Marriage and Procreation

Pro says "Marriage is fundamentally centered around procreative type acts. Since sexual acts between individuals of the same sex are not procreative in type, they do not qualify as marriages. This renders Con's response against the point that "Gays can't have children" to be irrelevant."

I beg to differ I think it is relevant. I assume Pro doesn't deny marriage to grandma or an infertile couple. This shows that the ability to have children is NOT a necessary requirement to allow two people to get married.

But what about this "procreative in type" argument from Pro. Well under this type of reasoning I suppose we can allow lesbians to marry, as long as they use a fake penis, you know cause of this rule by Pro that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect."

Pro later on says... "Rather, I am claiming that since procreation is impossible between couples of the same-sex, that therefore their relationships cannot be counted as a marriage."

Pro here denies marriage based on whether the couple in question can have children with each other. I assume you don't deny marriage to grandma or an infertile hetrosexual couple, was I wrong in this assumption ? If not, maybe Pro would like to explain why non breeders like grandma and the infertile couple can get married but other non breeders like the gays can't.

Hetrosexual Union & Hetrosexual marriage

In order to understand my critique of Pros argument, its important to keep in mind the clear distinction between these two concepts of hetrosexual union and hetrosexual marriage which Pro uses throughout their argument.

As Pro says hetrosexual union is "(The joining of a sperm/egg)". Clearly hetrosexual Union is NOT the same as Hetrosexual marriage nor is hetrosexual marriage required for hetrosexual union to happen. These two facts are very problematic for Pros argument.

Fact 1) Hetrosexual union is NOT the same as hetrosexual marriage
Fact 2) Hetrosexual marriage is NOT required for hetrosexual union to happen

Pros Syllogism

Pros first premise says "1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society)."

If we accept this premise, we would have to give two teenagers that get drunk and have sex "special social value" since a hetrosexual union just took place.

What about in the case of a man raping a woman ? According to this premise since a hetrosexual union just took place, and as such has special social value.

Even if we accept premise 1, it doesn't prove hetrosexual marriage has special value, just that hetrosexual union has special value.

"2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value."

Hetrosexual Union can happen outside of hetrosexual marriage, thus hetrosexual marriage is not "indispensable" for hetrosexual union.

"3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction."

"4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions."

Nope, hetrosexual unions according to this argument is the thing that has special social value NOT hetrosexual marriage.
Premise 4 doesn't follow. Premise 4 tries to switch hetrosexual union with hetrosexual marriage which are not the same thing.

The argument breaks down so the conclusion that "6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. " does not follow.

Child rearing

Pro says "Thus, since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. "

If the state wants to provide incentives for creating and maintain a healthy environment for children it should do just that. Hetrosexual marriage may or may not be a healthy environment depending on the people in the marriage and circumstances.

A gay loving couple trumps abusive married hetrosexuals where the interest of the child is concerned.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Contradiction

Pro

The Infertility Objection

Con's response to my counterargument to the infertility objection completely misses the mark. Recall that I distinguished between acts that are procreative in type and procreative in effect, arguing that conjugal marriage is based on the former as opposed to the latter. Con argues that this would exclude old or infertile couples -- not so, this is simply a reiteration of his objection. Although the sexual relationships of old and infertile couples are not procreative in effect, they are procreative in type. Therefore, the conjugal conception of marriage does not prevent old or infertile couples from marrying.

Con responds: "Well under this type of reasoning I suppose we can allow lesbians to marry, as long as they used a fake penis." Not so, for outside/third party intervention does not make an act procreative in type. What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it. If external factors have to be introduced so that a certain act meets a desired effect X, then X is not intrinsic to that act. Con's counterargument therefore fails.

Moreover, also note that procreation is impossible between homosexuals. Artificial reproductive techniques which yield children do so, but those children are not the biological children of both spouses.

The Terrible Two?

Con brings up the following as being "very problematic" for my main argument:

Fact 1) Hetrosexual union is NOT the same as hetrosexual marriage
Fact 2) Hetrosexual marriage is NOT required for hetrosexual union to happen

So what? What does this have to do with the main argument I presented. It does not assume that heterosexual union is the same as heterosexual marriage, nor does it assume that heterosexual marriage is required for heterosexual union. Recall premise 4, which stated:

P4: Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

The argument itself makes no mention of heterosexual marriage. Rather, it relies simply ont he special social value of heterosexual union. There is no mention of the term "heterosexual marriage" at all. Instead of assuming that both are the same or that one is required for the other, the point of the argument is found in the fact that the recognition of gay marriage would deny the special social value of heterosexual unions.

So rather than being "very problematic", this has nothing to do with my argument.

A Defense of Marriage

Defending P1

In arguing against premise one, Con writes:

If we accept this premise, we would have to give two teenagers that get drunk and have sex "special social value" since a hetrosexual union just took place.

What about in the case of a man raping a woman ? According to this premise since a hetrosexual union just took place, and as such has special social value.

This completely and utterly fails to engage with the argument. This is tantamount to saying "If medicine is a good thing for society, then is someone who overdoses on prescription medication doing something good?" Clearly we have to distinguish between heterosexual union simpliciter and how it is used in the context of an act or situation. Heterosexual union has special social value because it is the sole means through which society is advanced. Simply because it may take place in the context of a bad act (Say, rape), does not mean that heterosexual union does not have special social value.

He then writes:

Even if we accept premise 1, it doesn't prove hetrosexual marriage has special value, just that hetrosexual union has special value.

Irrelevant. The resolution I am defending is that gay marriage should be illegal. Whether or not heterosexual marriage has special social value has nothing to do with this.

Defending P2

Con writes,

"Hetrosexual Union can happen outside of hetrosexual marriage, thus hetrosexual marriage is not "indispensable" for hetrosexual union."

This is simply a strawman. I never made any such claim along the lines of heterosexual marriage being necessary for heterosexual union.

Defending P3-P4

Con's argument here is again irrelevant. I could care less about the special social value of heterosexual marriage -- that is not the resolution of this debate. Rather, I am defending the proposition that gay marriage should be illegal. Whether or not heterosexual marriage has special social is inconsequential and irrelevant to this. As a matter of fact I think it does have special social value, but I need not defend this as part of my argument.

Finally, regarding the point of child rearing, Con argues:

"Hetrosexual marriage may or may not be a healthy environment depending on the people in the marriage and circumstances. A gay loving couple trumps abusive married hetrosexuals where the interest of the child is concerned."

This misses the point. Marriage is not just about an environment in which responsible child-rearing can take place, it's about a normative environment. Since same-sex couples aren't normative, they should not be allowed to raise children. True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative.

Con's arguments thus fail miserably. I now turn it over to Con for his reply.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Child rearing

Here I was making the point that a hetrosexual marriage does not automatically mean a good environment for children. So when I say that the state might want to provide incentives to create a good environment for children that does NOT automatically mean create incentives for hetrosexual marriage.

Defining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoning

Normative = "Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines. Generically, it means relating to an ideal standard or model.In practice, it has strong connotations of relating to a typical standard or model (see also normality)." [1]

Pro says... "True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative."

This argument assumes that heterosexual marriage is the ideal, and therefore gay marriage is not the ideal. This simply presupposes that hetrosexual marriage is the only type of marriage and as I said before you can always define something in order to exclude other people.

1) Marriage is only between a man and a woman
2) Gay marriage is not between a man and a woman
3) Therefore don't allow gay marriage

Your going to need more to ban gay marriage than just referring to your own pre-supposition and/or a circular defintion argument that marriage can only happen between a man and a women.

Some further problems is that we just don't ban things because they are not "ideal". Pro would have to show that heterosexual marriage is the ideal as well as show why the pursuit of this ideal should be so strict as to deny gays to marry other gays.

Marriage and Procreation

Previously I sought to accommodate Pros rule here by getting lesbians to wear fake pensis. But alas Pro throws in another rule and says "What makes an act procreative in type is the nature of the act itself, and not any external factors which may be imposed on it."

Who made Pro the procreative in type but not effect fake pensis doesn't count king anyway ? It does sound kind of ad hoc you just throwing in another rule even when I try on behalf of lesbians everywhere to accommodate your rule. Why do I get the feeling your just throwing up unnecessary obstacles ?

--- Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. ---

Now we have an interesting situation here, Pro doesn't think the ability to have kids matters to who can get married, yet still won't accept gay marriage. How does Pro justify the infertile couple being allowed to get married but gays can't ? cause Pro has this rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect."

Now because of this rule, Gays can't get married according to Pro. The price that has to be paid in order to adhere to this rule is that free consenting adults can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That's right murders and rapists can marry one another as long as its man and woman, but if your gay cause of this rule your out of luck.

So Pro, what justification is there that we must follow this rule, please enlighten us to what compels you to adhere to this rule even though it rules out gays being able to marry other gays, I bet it must be a very very good reason right ?

Hetrosexual Union & Hetrosexual marriage

So we are clear that hetrosexual union is not the same as hetrosexual marriage and also that hetrosexual marriage is NOT indispensable for hetrosexual union to take place.

Pros Syllogism

"1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society)."

"2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value."

Pro agrees that hetrosexual marriage is not necessary for hetrosexual union to take place. I would also point out the purpose of my rape example was to show that just because there is a way for a sexual union to happen, even if you accept that sexual union has special social value, doesn't mean the way in which that sexual union does or can happen has special social value, whether that be a rape or hetrosexual marriage.

"3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction."

Even if you accept that sexual union has special value, as shown before this doesn't mean hetrosexual marriage has special social value.

"4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions."

Huh ? How does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ?

It can't be because in what ever way a sexual union happens this way must also be of special social value as shown in the rape example.

It can't be because hetrosexual marriage is necessary for hetrosexual union cause as Pro says... "This is simply a strawman. I never made any such claim along the lines of heterosexual marriage being necessary for heterosexual union."

It can't be because gays can't produce children with each other, because Pro doesn't think the ability to have kids is necessary to be allowed to marry such as the infertile couple.

So how does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of hetrosexual union ? The argument here breaks down.

I look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

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

Pro

On Normativity

Recall that previously I argued that homosexual couples should not be allowed to raise children because such relationships are not normative. Con charges this argument with being circular, since I'm assuming the vailidity of heterosexual marriage to make my point. Unfortunately he misinterprets my statement. By "normative," I was referring to the fact that homosexual relationships are not ordered to procreation by virtue of procreation being impossible. This is why they should not be allowed to adopt children. I was not, as Con argues, presupposing my conception of marriage as true. His counterargument therefore fails.

On Procreation

Con's arguments here are simply bizzare. He argues:

Who made Pro the procreative in type but not effect fake pensis doesn't count king [sic] anyway ? It does sound kind of ad hoc you just throwing in another rule even when I try on behalf of lesbians everywhere to accommodate your rule. Why do I get the feeling your just throwing up unnecessary obstacles ?

An act is procreative in type if it is intrinsically ordered toward procreation. Homosexual acts, even if you introduce third party intervention/criteria, are not procreative in type simply because they are not intrinsically ordered toward procreation. After all, we're talking about the act, not what's external to the act. If we introduce external criteria, then we're no longer talking about the act itself. Con's counterargument thus fails.

In further responding to my distinction between acts that are procreative in type and acts that are procreative in effect, Con writes:

The price that has to be paid in order to adhere to this rule is that free consenting adults can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That's right murders and rapists can marry one another as long as its man and woman, but if your gay cause of this rule your out of luck.

This is an argument? What do murderers and rapists have to do with my argument? I might as well say that on Con's view, murderers and rapists of the same sex can marry each other, therefore his view is unsound. How does the fact that murderers and rapists of the opposite sex can marry have anything to do with the plausibility of heterosexual marriage? They may have a morally repugnant character, yes, but the right to marry is another issue altogether.

I might as well say that there is something wrong with the right to the pursuit of happiness because murderers, rapists, and child-molesters enjoy this right. This is a character issue to be dealt with on an individual basis, and has nothing to do with the argument I offered.

On the Argument

Yes, I agree with Con that marriage is not necesary for heterosexual union to take place. But as I pointed out earlier, this has nothing to do with the argument I presented. In fact, I'm not even sure what Con is trying to say here. Rapes are morally repugnant acts, yes, but what does that have to do with the premise that "Heterosexual union has special social value"? The circumstances in it occurs is repugnant, but that has nothing to do with the merits of heterosexual union. After all, a child born out of rape is still a valuable person, even if the circumstances under which he were conceived were not morally desirable.

In response to premise three, Con writes: Even if you accept that sexual union has special value, as shown before this doesn't mean hetrosexual marriage has special social value.

Um... what? I never used this argument, not did I argue for the conclusion. My argument is that heterosexual union has special social value. This is a strawman.

That being said, Con does raise one somewhat "good" point. He asks: "How does recognizing gay marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ?"

For that, I refer him to my initial argument:

Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place. The state, therefore, ought to give special recognition to heterosexual unions, for they function as a precondition to a flourishing society. Relationships which do not have procreation as their core do not deserve such recognition, for they are not foundational to society. The recognition of homosexual unions as marriages would therefore be unjustly denying the special social value of heterosexual unions.

In essence, recognizing homosexual unions would be trivializing the value of heterosexual unions since they are not foundational to a flourishing society by virtue of the fact that they cannot procreate.

Con finally raises the infertile couple objection again, but I have already dealt with that in my prior arguments. He has not bothered to respond to my criticisms.

I now turn it over to Con.
Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their reply.

Child rearing & adoption

Even if its the case that gays should not be allowed to adopt, this is outside of the purview of this debate. After all we are debating gay marraige not gay adoption. But never the less Pro throws in their two cents worth on this subject, so I think I will take liberty here and throw in my three cents worth.

Pro says... "By "normative," I was referring to the fact that homosexual relationships are not ordered to procreation by virtue of procreation being impossible. This is why they should not be allowed to adopt children"

Maybe Pro is right here concerning adoption, maybe we should ban homosexuals being able to adopt because their relationship can't produce children with each other, and while we are at it, we should also ban the infertile couple from adoption because there relationship can't produce children with each other either. Let me guess Pro has some ad hoc rule to get them out of this dilemma that gays can't adopt but the infertile couple can.

Defining marriage to exclude people & circular reasoning

I think its pretty clear that Pro has being pre supposing that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. As Pro says..."True, some heterosexual marriages will be dysfunctional, but same-sex couplings are always dysfunctional since they aren't normative."

As I said before you need more to ban gay marriage than just your own pre supposition that marriage is between a man and a woman and thus gay marriage should be banned.

Last round I said ..."Some further problems is that we just don't ban things because they are not "ideal". Pro would have to show that heterosexual marriage is the ideal as well as show why the pursuit of this ideal should be so strict as to deny gays to marry other gays."

Marriage and Procreation

--- Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect. ---

Pro asks... "This is an argument? What do murderers and rapists have to do with my argument?"

As I pointed before, the consequent of adhering to this rule is that gay marriage is banned, but a murder and rapist can marry as long as they are a man and woman as well as an infertile couple as long as they are man and woman. This strange consequences is the result of what you want us to accept as the criteria of a marriage. So I asked why you and why should anyone else should adhere to this rule. What justification did you give us that this rule must be adhered to even if it results in two people of the same sex not being able to marry, you gave us NONE.

Without anyway warrant to justify this rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect", gays who can't have children with each other should be allowed to marry just as much as the infertile hetrosexual couple that can't have children.

I suspect Pros rule here is made up in order to allow the hetrosexual infertile couple who can't have kids to marry but deny marriage to gays who can't have kids with each other.

Pros Syllogism

Pro says... "Since procreation and child-rearing are essential to the advancement of society, the state has a vested interest in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place"

Pros argument here was all about the special value of hetrosexual union and how allowing gay marriage is a rejection of a special value. It said nothing about child rearing.

Pros statement also can be used to support gay marriage and other relationships. Hetrosexual marriage is NOT the only type of relationship where procreation and child rearing can take place. For example a gay couple where one of them has sex with a member of the opposite sex and the gay couple raises the child. Here I would argue just like Pro the state has a vested interested in protecting a stable relationship under which this can take place.

Premise 4 says... "Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions." But Pro acknowledges that hetrosexual marriage is not indispensable for hetrosexual union, thus it hasn't been establish that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union.

In order for this argument to get of the ground, it would have to be shown that hetrosexual marriage also has special social value. But even that wouldn't be enough cause then it would have to be shown that gay marraige that is comparable to hetrosexual marriage rejects the special value of hetrosexual marriage and therefore rejects the special value of hetrosexual union. And even this kind of reasoning can be argued against.

I think its worth repeating some points that further undermine premise 4.
    • 1) Just because there is a way that a sexual union happens does not mean that way has special value for example rape or hetrosexual marriage.
    • 2) Hetrosexual marriage is not necessary nor indispensable for hetrosexual union to take place.
    • 3) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual marriage happening.
    • 4) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual union happening.
    • 5) Gay marriage doesn't stop or interfere with hetrosexual union happening in a hetrosexual marriage.
    • 6) Pro doesn't regard being able to have children as necessary for allowing a couple to be married such as the infertile couple.
Yet with all that said, Pro wants us to believe that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union ? I don't think so.

Pro says... "In essence, recognizing homosexual unions would be trivializing the value of heterosexual unions since they are not foundational to a flourishing society by virtue of the fact that they cannot procreate."

Of course the infertile couple can't produce children either, so infertile couples are not "foundational" for a flourishing society but Pro still allows them to get married. Allowing gay marriage doesn't reject the special value of hetrosexual union anymore than allowing the infertile couple to marry, or grandma or the rapist and murder.

Closing Remarks

Once you get passed the implied idea that marriage should only be between a man and a woman and start looking at the justification for not allowing gay marriage, you are left with a strange unjustified, unsupported rule that says "Marriage is based on acts that are procreative in type, not whether they are procreative in effect." and a syllogism argument that wasn't able to show that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the "special value" of hetrosexual unions.

I ask the vote go to the Con.

I thank Pro for participating in this debate.
Contradiction

Pro

Recall that at the start of this debate, I presented the following argument:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

The Irrelevancy of Con's Arguments

Throughout the course of this debate, Con's responses to this argument have either been irrelevant, gone off on wild tangents or have been refuted. For instance, he raises the infertile couple objection in his opening statement. In replying, I distinguished between acts that are procreative in type and acts that are procreative in effect. Infertile couples are still capable of heterosexual union, even if those specific acts are not procreative in effect. Con appears to have conceded to this, as his reply had nothing to do with what he was defending. Instead, he went off on a tangent and wrote " That's right murders and rapists can marry one another as long as its man and woman, but if your gay cause of this rule your out of luck," which had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Con brings up child-rearing and adoption and charges me with going off on a wild tangent -- this is false. The debate only wandered into that area because it was Con himself who brought this up by arguing that some homosexuals should be allowed to marry because they are capable of raising a child.

Con also charges me with circular reasoning in that I assumed marriage was conjugal to prove that it was. This is ludicrous. I did absolutely no such thing -- indeed, the argument I presented was based off the special social value of heterosexual union. It had nothing to do whatsoever with what marriage is, nor did I assume that a certain conception of marriage was valid. There is therefore absolutely no circular reasoning taking place.

Indeed, most of Con's responses have nothing to do with attacking the argument. While I have responded to all of them adequately, my original argument remains unaddressed.

Marriage and Procreation

Pro makes a bizzare argument, he writes: the consequent of adhering to this rule is that gay marriage is banned, but a murder and rapist can marry as long as they are a man and woman as well as an infertile couple as long as they are man and woman

Yes, is there a problem? There's nothing wrong with the latter example since marriage is based on procreative type acts, nor is there anything wrong with the first. Despite the fact that their character may be bad (This has nothing to do with what marriage is), a murderer and rapist can still marry if they meet the gender complementarity requirement. Pro's argument here is irrelevant -- attacking the character of those who may marry does nothing to attack the definition of marriage itself. Con then asks:

What justification did you give us that this rule must be adhered to even if it results in two people of the same sex not being able to marry, you gave us NONE.

What exactly does "this rule must be adhere to" even mean? At any rate, the rationale for heterosexual union (ie: procreative-type acts) having special social value can be found in premise two of the argument. Oddly enough, Con never bothers to address premise two! Thus, he has not shown my argument to fail.

The Argument

Here I will simply quote Con's responses and follow then up with responses of my own:

Pros argument here was all about the special value of hetrosexual union and how allowing gay marriage is a rejection of a special value. It said nothing about child rearing.

RESPONSE: My argument was indeed about the special value of heterosexual union. I supported the fact that heterosexual union had special social value by appealing to both procreation and child-rearing. Con's response thus again misses the point.

Pros statement also can be used to support gay marriage and other relationships. Hetrosexual marriage is NOT the only type of relationship where procreation and child rearing can take place

RESPONSE: I don't deny this, but it has nothing to do with my argument. Of course child-rearing can take place outside of marriage, but that's irrelevant. My argument is not that procreation and child-rearing are exclusive to heterosexual marriages, but that heterosexual UNION has special social value because it is intrinsically oriented toward procreation and thus deserves special social value. This is yet another red herring and strawman.

Pro acknowledges that hetrosexual marriage is not indispensable for hetrosexual union, thus it hasn't been establish that allowing gay marriage is a rejection of the special value of hetrosexual union.

RESPONSE: That was never a premise in my argument, so my acknowledgement of that has (once again!) nothing to do with the soundness of the argument at hand. The argument does not rely on the assumption that heterosexual marriage is indispensible for heterosexual union, only that heterosexual union has special social value because it is the only means through which society can advance itself. Once again, this is another red herring and strawman

In order for this argument to get of the ground, it would have to be shown that hetrosexual marriage also has special social value.

RESPONSE: And indeed it has -- Con never once disputed premise #2.

With that in mind, points 1-6 are also irrelevant. (1) is false because the special social value of heterosexual union is based on the fact that it is the exclusive means through which society is advanced. (2) attacks a strawman, since I never once argued that, nor does the argument rely on that fact. (3), (4), and (5) are irrelevant since my argument was not that same-sex marriage would "stop or interfere" with heterosexual union, but that it would deny its special social value. (6) is true, but there's nothing to be inferred from that which would damage the argument I offered. The argument, after all, is based on heterosexual union -- NOT its effects.

As once can see, nearly all of the arguments presented have been either strawmen or red herrings.

Conclusion

The points that I have raised have gone nearly uncontested. Most of Con's counterarguments are either red herrings, strawmen, or both. Despite the fact that he attacks my argument as being unsupported, Con seems to have ignored premise 2 as being the basis for the special social value of heterosexual union.

My thanks to Con for participating in this debate. I urge a strong vote for Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
85 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lilly-Kate 4 years ago
Lilly-Kate
Of course sex is done for pleasure. That is the primary function of sex now. Humans do it for the pleasure first. Then they decide to have children. I mean there are huge amounts of products on the market to prevent pregnancy and business for these companies is booming. There are condoms, the pill and the morning after pill too as well as other products like the implant and female condoms etc which you have to assume means that people just want the pleasure of sex. Biologically the primary function of sex is to continue the species of course otherwise there would be no creatures alive of any type, but that has been displaced now in humans for the pleasure. Sex is done for pleasure 8 time out of 10 roughly. And why don't infertile couples count? Because I see gay couples as infertile couples. Infertile meaning unable to conceive. And then what about couples who don't want kids? They have made a conscious decision not to have children so surely they should not be able to get married. And then what about the same type of couples who have gone a step further and had operations to stop pregnancy such as vasectomies and hysterectomies? All of these couples engage in "procreative type acts" knowing that a child will NOT result through their own actions and decisions.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
so not having children if able is unjust? you fail to answer my question: What doesvSSM hurt?
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
No. Infertile marriages are only infertile per accidens. The infertility is not intrinsic to the relationship, which is the case when it comes to same-sex marriage. Moreover, heterosexual marriage is based on procreative type act, not effects.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
teue, but based on your logic, non-fertile marriage is unjust
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Note: union of sperm-egg. Artificial reproductive procedures still rely on that.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
ok, but you can have that from artafical inspermination—Which gays can and dodo!
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Union of a sperm-egg. That's what Spiegel means by it too.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
hey, pro, what do you mean by heterosexual union?
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
Here is a good way to explain it
Posted by thigner 5 years ago
thigner
To pro,
what if one hetrosexual couple doesn't want to do procreation, The state should make them stop their marriage?

In this highly developed society, It's insane to say that marriage = birth...

If you think the government should ban gay marriage, you must first say that "no procreation = no marriage. no creating couple even though boy and girl couple = no marriage"
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to establish his argument and completely misunderstoo Pro's argument.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con started off with a good argument but then abandoned it to focus on the argument made by his opponent. By doing that he placed the burden on himself to refute Pros argument which he never fully did, and in fact seems to misinterpret. Con also suffered from the lack of a well constructed argument that included many irrelevant and even distracting statements. Meanwhile Pros argument was well put together.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: see YYW's R4V
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con starts out with two assertions with no basis then takes the position I am wrong until proven otherwise. He fails to understand what "in type" means and presentation fragments. Contradiction hammers home a well structured argument which is clearly presented. 5:2 Pro
Vote Placed by charles15 5 years ago
charles15
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I would say that Pro had more convincing arguments because he appealed to logical reasoning rather than emotion and prejudicial conjecture like Con. Although I do think it was clever of Con to call Pro out on his presupposition. I believe Con could have won this debate if he would have focused more of his arguments on this point. He could have made Pro look truly arbitrary.
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
IllegalcombatantContradictionTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro’s championed “harm” in effect turns out not to be so harmful. If that is the case, then gay marriage ought not be illegal. Con, by default, then, wins. 3:2. See reasoning in comments.