The Instigator
izzykay1204
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 500 times Debate No: 32778
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

izzykay1204

Pro

I'm not gay myself, but gay marriage should be allowed. Religion is not supposed to be in politics. It shouldn't matter if they get married or not. If you don't like it, don't get one. Love is love. Most heterosexual couples get a divorce in the first five years. Give gay people a chance.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I’m going to assume that the post for round one was his opening arguments, so I will respond. I can discern four separate points that my opponent is making. I numbered and bolded out his points. Next to my rebuttals, I put an underlined word referring to the main mistake that my opponent is making.

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

1- Religion is not supposed to be in politics.

irrelevance: True, but that does not mean that gay marriage should be legal. You do not need religion to oppose gay marriage. My positive arguments make that clear.

2- If you don’t like it, don’t get one.

irrelevance: I assume my opponent means that if you do not like gay marriage, then do not enter into a gay marriage. Good advice, but how is this an argument for why gay marriage should be legal? It isn’t.

3- Love is love.

rhetoric: True, but there are different categories of love, and one kind of love is not identical to another kind of love. Plato might have been the first prominent philosopher to distinguish between different kinds of love (this is why we have the term “platonic love”). C. S. Lewis was another, and recently Harry Frankfurt has taken up the issue. The most common distinction is between sexual love and non-sexual love. A man’s love for his mother should be non-sexual, while his love for his wife should be sexual. A man is allowed to love his mother, but most people would consider something to be wrong with the
man if he had sexual love for his mother. We can clearly see that the word “love” does not just refer to a single unambiguous thing. It can be used in many ways. Simply saying that love is love and you shouldn’t stop people from loving each other is miles away from giving support to homosexual relationships.

Being opposed to gay marriage does not commit one to being opposed to love between two people of the same sex; it only means being opposed to sexual love between two people of the same sex. An argument for gay marriage based on the value of love needs to go beyond my opponent’s three-word
tautology and explain why there is no significant difference between sexual love and platonic love, or that a respect for platonic love between two people of the same sex should poor over to respect for sexual love between two people of the same sex.

4- Most heterosexual couples get a divorce in the first five years.

irrelevance: My opponent should have provided evidence for this since it is an empirical claim, but I’ll take his word on it. But even being true, this also is not an argument for gay marriage. Failure in heterosexual marriage does not entail either the success of appropriateness or homosexual marriage. It rather means that people sometimes get married too hastily, or to people whom they do not really love,
or they get married for money, or status, or whatever. The point is that the failure of heterosexual marriages is indicative of the fact that humans marry for the wrong reasons or that they are chronically bad at predicting what will make them happy in the future, not that homosexual marriage is a good thing.

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

[1] reductio ad absurdum: A logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum points out how a belief leads to absurdities, then the belief should be rejected. If we change the definition of marriage to appease gay people, then we have to be fair and change it for all other groups. We have to allow people who engage in bestiality to marry animals. We have to allow incestuous family members to marry each other. We have to allow pedophiliac adults to marry children. We would also have to allow people to marry inanimate objects (not that it would happen, but the principle remains). But allowing these is absurd, so we should not allow gay marriage either. If gay marriage supporters believe that the law should be changed for people who want to enter into gay marriages but not changed for people who want to marry their pets, their spouses, children, or objects, they have to explain why. Until then, support for gay marriage remains absurd.

[2] inequality: The reason why gay relationships should not be given equal marital rights as heterosexual relationships is because gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. This country was founded on the principle that we are all born equal (that as citizens we are all equal, no one is superhuman or sub-human) , not that we should always treat people equally regardless of the circumstances. Do we give the same punishment to someone who stole something as we do to someone who is a mass murderer? Of course not. We give proportional treatment, not equal treatment.

There are several facts that reveal to us the conclusion that homosexuality is not simply an equal alternative to heterosexuality and therefore should not be treated with equal rights.

(a) biology: Heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual ones cannot. Procreation is essential for the survival of the human race. If you gave gay people their own country (a country in which only gay people lived and had only homosexual relationships), in a century it would be
empty because there would be no way to reproduce. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence.

Now of course there are cases in which people cannot conceive. But this does not refute my argument. It does not mean that these people are immoral. It is recognized as a biological mistake that they cannot conceive. Their bodies normally would conceive if an error had not occurred, but a homosexual biological union was never meant to procreate. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is one of the purposes in healthy sexual union.

Why should homosexual unions be legitimized if they cannot even meet one of the key purposes of sexual union? Biology is on the side of gay marriage opponents.

(b) sexual anatomy: Even aside from biology, there is anatomical inequality. Penises and vaginas fit together like hands and gloves, or keys and locks. They compliment each other. There is balance. You can’t fit a penis into a penis or a vagina into a vagina, and anal intercourse is unsanitary and unhealthy. Why should we legitimize an imbalanced a and non-complimentary union?

(c) holistic anatomy: Men and women’s bodies as wholes also compliment each other. Men’s bodies are larger, more muscular and rugged than women’s, which are softer, smaller, and more supple. Again, there is balance and symmetry in heterosexual unions, but this is missing from homosexual unions. Apply the same logic to the minds/spirits of men and women.

If you take a marriage and subtract from it procreation, sex, proper sexual anatomical union, proper holistic anatomical union, and proper spiritual union, then what do you have? A friendship, maybe a really good loving, caring friendship, but not a marriage. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. Why can’t gay people be content with having loving and caring friendships? Why do they want marriage to include both balanced and imbalanced unions? This points towards the conculsion that the motivation behind gay marriage is politically based, not morally or legally based. They can enjoy their lives as homosexuals without infringing on marriage, but they want to change marriage's definition. It all looks political in the light of all I've just said.

CONCLUSION

My opponent has offered no argument for why gay marriage should be legal, but I have given several arguments for why it should not be legal. It leads to absurdities and it requires that we treat unequals as equals. I await his reply.


sources in comments
Debate Round No. 1
izzykay1204

Pro

Sorry for the confusion. I just made this so I wasn't for sure how to start. Your argument has some valid points. I must give you credit for that.

I have some more points to make though

It will be great for the economy. Legalizing marriage for any two people opens up a huge market for the wedding industry. Just imagine the over-the-top expensive wedding a stereotypical gay man would throw. Expensive or not, more weddings means more jobs and stronger small businesses that dominate the wedding industry.

The 1st amendment of the Constitution states that a person’s religious beliefs or a lack of thereof must be protected. Legislatures also cannot discriminate against marriages of the minority party which, homosexual people fall into that category. There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God.

To your sexual anatomy point , we are already in overpopulation in some parts in the world. So, there would be no fear of the human population going extinct. Further more, some animals are homosexual.Animals do things based on instinct. So, they are born with the instint to be gay. Homosexuality is a abnormal prental hormon that people are born with,and was labeled as a sexual oriantation disorder,so they are basicly outlawing something that people are born with they are trying to descrimanate against gays, yet it is just a natural thing they are trying to define natural.Here are some links to prove this http://www.news-medical.net...

Gay marriage will also help children in foster homes. There are over 500,000 children currently living without parents in the United States; gay marriage will increase the chances for thousands of foster children to gain loving parents and families.

The Federal Marriage Amendment doesn't actually ban incest, that laws pertaining to marriage and divorce could not be adapted to include polygamous unions, and that in cases of bestiality, one of the parties involved isn't human and therefore isn't covered by the Bill of Rights. In any case, the way to ban incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages is not by passing a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages. It's by passing a constitutional amendment banning incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages.






CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

My opponent has dropped all of his previous points. Now he has made some new ones:

[1] Legalizing gay marriage would be great for the economy.

irrelevance: Maybe, but that still does not mean that it should be legal. There are other ways to stimulate the economy without legalizing gay marriage. You can’t argue that we should do something just because it creates jobs. Theoretically, if murder were legalized, it might create a lot more jobs for hitmen, but that does not mean that murder should be legalized.

[2] There is also an amendment stating there is separation of church and state, so you cannot declare that a marriage is a gift from God.

false claim: First of all, the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in an amendment in the constitution. That is a common myth. Look for it. You won’t find it. Those words were contained in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote fifteen years after the constitution was written, in response to a woman who was concerned that the state was overriding the rights of the church.

straw man: I did not argue that marriage is a gift from God. I did not make any religion-based arguments (or any arguments mixing church and state), so this point is irrelevant.

[3] Homosexuality is natural.

naturalistic fallacy: I agree that homosexuality (and all sexual orientation for that matter) is natural, but that does not mean that it is right, or moral. It is a fallacy to equate what is with what should be. The philosopher David Hume was the first to substantially point this out. Another philosopher, George Moore, also made the point, calling the mistake the “naturalistic fallacy”. We can understand this point with some other examples. Evolutionary sociologists have found that rape is a completely natural phenomenon, but does that mean that rape should be tolerated? No. Just because something is not a choice does not mean it is not wrong. We can distinguish between moral wrong and natural wrong. The fact that homosexuality is not a choice (it is natural) means that it is not a moral wrong, but that does not mean it is not a natural wrong.

[4] They are trying to outlaw something that people are born with.

confusion: That is not true. No one is trying to outlaw homosexuality. What we are trying to outlaw is homosexual marriage. In other words, the condition is not being opposed, only a legal relationship based on the condition. That’s not the same thing. I’ve never criticized anybody for being gay. I’ve only been critical of gay marriage.

[5] Gay marriage will increase the chances for thousands of foster children to gain loving parents and families

i
rrelevance: This is a separate issue: Should gay couples be allowed to adopt? Some argue that every child deserves the right to a mother and a father, so gays should not be allowed to adopt. But aside
from this, why can’t we just make it so that a couple does not need to be married in order to adopt a child. We can give children a home and family without legitimizing gay marriage. This is not a reason to legalize gay marriage. It is a reason to change adoption laws.

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS (FIRST REBUTTAL)

[1] reductio ad absurdum
The way to ban incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages is not by passing a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages. It's by passing a constitutional amendment banning incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages.

straw man: I did not say that by banning gay marriage we can ban incestuous, polygamous, and bestial
relationships. I said that there is no reason to ban some and not others. If you want to legalize some, you have to legalize all. If you want to ban some, then you have to ban them all. Gay marriage supporters have to explain why either a) they should all be legalized (so that gay marriage will be legalized) or b) why only gay marriage should be legalized. My opponent still has not done that.

[2] biology
We are already in overpopulation in some parts in the world. So, there would be no fear of the human population going extinct.

missing the point: I did not say that we would become extinct. I was making the point that heterosexual relationships allow for procreation and hence the continuation of the human race, while homosexual relationships allow for neither, so there is a discrepancy between the two, with the favor going to heterosexual relationships. Overpopulation is irrelevant. The point is that any population at all is allowed by heterosexual relationships but not homosexual ones.

[3] imbalance
I also argued that in a heterosexual relationship, men and women’s bodies compliment each other, but that is not true in homosexual relationships. There is an imbalance. I applied this to both their genitals, their bodies as wholes, and their spirits. My opponent did not address any of these points.

CONCLUSION

My opponent dropped his previous points and took up new ones, but these also suffer from errors. He made two rebuttals to some of my arguments, but he attacked something I did not say and argued beside the point, so my arguments still stand. My other positive arguments are without a response and so remain standing too.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Hume, David


Principia Ethica
Moore, George Edward

http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
izzykay1204

Pro

izzykay1204 forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I’m sorry to see that izzykay1204 forfeited. I hope he enjoyed the debate until that. I extend all my arguments to the final round.

Here is my evaluation of the debate. If you disagree with me, please explain why:

Arguments: Con
Pro dropped all his initial arguments. Then he brought up new ones and after I rebutted them, he
forfeited. He also admitted at the start of round 2, “You argument has some valid points. I must give you credit for that.” Both my rebuttals of his arguments and my own positive arguments remain without a response.

Spelling/Grammar: Tie
Each of us had proper spelling and grammar.

Sources: Tie
We each used sources.

Conduct: Tie
Proper conduct was maintained on both sides throughout.

3 points to me. 0 points to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
[1] C. S. Lewis was another.
The Four Kinds of Love Lewis, C. S.

[2] Harry Frankfurt has taken up the issue.
The Reasons of Love (2004) Frankfurt, Harry G.

[3] "chronically bad at predicting what will make them happy.
Stumbling on Happiness (2005) Gilbert, Daniel
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vulpes_Inculta 3 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
izzykay1204CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
izzykay1204CriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dominated, Pro F.F.