The Instigator
briantheliberal
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Weiler
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
briantheliberal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,123 times Debate No: 38694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

briantheliberal

Pro

When discussing the topic of same sex marriage, the majority of those who oppose the legalization of allowing gay couples to marry do so based on religious grounds without any logical consensus as to why it should not be legalized. This led me to conclude that there are no real arguments against gay marriage. Using religion to dictate legislation is a violation of every American's constitutional rights and in this case should be considered discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender.

I want my opponent to present a logical, clear argument against gay marriage. If necessary provide evidence from a credible source to support your claims
Weiler

Con

During this debate I will show that there are legitimate public health and societal concerns with gay marriage.

I contend that:

1. Banning homosexual marriage is no greater discrimination than banning incest or pedophilia.
2. Homosexual sex creates personal and societal health hazards.

I thank my opponent for setting the floor for this debate and anxiously await his opening.
Debate Round No. 1
briantheliberal

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge...

For my initiation, I feel it is necessary that you provide evidence from an accredited source to support your claims in regards to homosexuality being a "health hazard". Please make sure such sources are validated by licensed medical professionals or health experts. I would also appreciate if my opponent did not use any form of religious documentation as such forms of "evidence" is not valid during this debate so please keep that in mind. The United States is not a theocratic nation so your argument must be relevant to the discussion and must abide by the United States Constitution. The first point I will address in your argument so far is your comparison between homosexuality and incest and pedophilia. Please be specific in your claims on how exactly homosexual marriage and activity between consenting adults are connected to sexual relations between family members and the sexual abuse of children. Also include the qualifications in which homosexual can be considered a "personal and societal health hazard". Also keep in mind that incest and pedophilia are paraphilias, not sexual orientations, so please know the difference between them before you make your comparison.

I now await your response.
Weiler

Con

My opponent seems to be pushing the burden of proof to my side. I would remind him that in a debate, except under certain special circumstances, the BOP lies with the PRO position. However, I will provide an opening here and advise my opponent to introduce some arguments for Gay Marriage in the next round.

As a health issue, gay men are at higher risk of many bacterial infections, usually in the colon. [1] [2] [3] Bacterial infections are a major public health concern.

As a discrimination issue, banning gay marriage is no different than banning incestuous or pedophilic marriage. My opponent is basically saying (in the case of incest) "but they are related". The argument of the other side is, "but they are both men". This simply demonstrates that my opponent is trying to draw a moral line, just a different one than is generally accepted.

Sources
1. http://www.bcmj.org...
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
briantheliberal

Pro

During a debate the Burden of Proof is an obligation that both sides must abide by. But in your case, I asked for evidence because your claims required some form of validation. You cannot compare one thing to another unless you provide some form of evidence and reasoning to support your claims.

Now to address your first claim which stated that "gay men are at higher risk of many bacterial infections, usually in the colon." but you should know, there are several errors to this claim.

For one, you have failed to address what particular infections in which gay men are at higher risk. And you have failed to include whether or not this applies to all gay men or how this is relevant to the argument. Even if you were able to list some infections, you cannot apply this to all gay men because this claim is not even true. Gay men are not somehow automatically at risk for bacterial infections (even in the colon) because there are a number of ways someone can develop a bacterial infection, and homosexual behavior is not one of them. And you must consider all the variables. Bacterial infections are not a result of homosexual behavior, it is caused by bacteria. Anyone can come in contact with bacteria.

Please know the difference between a bacterial infection and a viral infection as there are various ways someone can contract either one and homosexuality is not the main cause of any of them... Notable examples of bacterial infections are strep throat, tuberculosis, and urinary tract infections (UTI).

http://www.mayoclinic.com...

You also claim "As a discrimination issue, banning gay marriage is no different than banning incestuous or pedophilic marriage."

Again, how? You have yet to provide any actual evidence as to how same-sex marriage is comparable to incestuous marriage (which is legal in some places) and pedophilic marriage which leads me to believe that you are being biased. Comparing something to something completely different without logic is not helping your argument at all. You completely ignore the fact that children are not able to consent to marriage and that pedophilia leads to physical and psychological trauma in children, which is why it is illegal. You also ignore the fact that marriage between people who are closely related, if there is sex involved, can result in children born with a higher risk of genetic disorders and deformities. How can you compare the sexual abuse of children and sex between those in close relation to a consensual agreement between adults of the same sex? How is that justifiable? Under what circumstances is same-sex marriage harmful because it involves two people of the same sex?

You also claim that I am "trying to draw a moral line" but I am not. I told you the reasons in which it is consequential to marry and have sex with family members. My moral views have nothing to do with it because clearly mine are different from yours. My points come from what is evident regarding the situation.

By the way, your sources have absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The sources you provided were focused on the bacterial species "Campylobacter fetus" which is characterized by a strong tropism for the genital tract of cattle and causes abortions (enzootic abortion) and meningococcal group C which is a form of meningitis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Campylobacter bacteria was found in the stools of homosexual males who contracted HIV, not normal, healthy homosexual individuals. Not to mention that the report in which your sources were taken is dated back to October 18, 1983, when HIV was thought to be a "gay cancer" making your sources invalid, irrelevant and not to mention biased. It is not known whether or not the homosexual men who developed meningitis in 2004 contracted the infection from sexual contact as it is highly unlikely. It is not normally sexually transmitted, although urethral infections may occur after oral sex which is NOT exclusive to homosexual men. ANYONE is at an increased risk of getting the bacterial infection after performing oral sex on a person who has the bacteria in their mouth or on their genitalia. This was completely preventable and has nothing to do with gay men. And even these claims were valid, how does that relate to marriage?

I recommend updating your sources to something more up to date and relevant to the topic.
Weiler

Con

My third source shows Homosexuals are more likely to carry a bacteria that causes Septicemia and Meningitis. "Helicobacter cinaedi has been most frequently isolated from rectal swabs of homosexual men with proctocolitis."[1] This bacteria is especially dangerous to newborns[2], and therefore creates a public health hazard.

My opponent rejects incestuous marriage because it can result in abnormal children. As shown above, homosexual couples are also a danger to children.

My opponent says homosexual marriage and pedophilic marriage are different because pedophilia results in a severe trauma to the child, but provides no source evidence that child marriage causes such a trauma.

We outlaw these things because the general morals of our society say they are wrong, which is how we get most of our legal code. My opponent feels gay marriage is not wrong, an opinion he has every right to hold and argue. However, until that opinion is held by society as a whole, it will, and should remain illegal.

" there are a number of ways someone can develop a bacterial infection, and homosexual behavior is not one of them." This argument falls flat in the face of science. Homosexual men engage in anal sex. The anus is not naturally able to handle such a load (no pun intended). Increased rectal tearing allows more bacteria into the system, and causes infections. Also, inserting anything into what one might deem an "exit only" bodily cavity is likely to introduce more bacteria.

My opponent implies I may be biased, but the only evidence he offers is that I make an argument he doesn't like.

My opponent implies my source (in this case the National Library of Medicine at the Nation Institutes of Health) may be biased, and then uses the same source for his argument!

Sources
1. Helicobacter cinaedi has been most frequently isolated from rectal swabs of homosexual men with proctocolitis.
2. ibid.
Debate Round No. 3
briantheliberal

Pro

"My third source shows Homosexuals are more likely to carry a bacteria that causes Septicemia and Meningitis."

Once again, homosexaul men are NOT more likely to carry meningococcus. Infection with the meningococcus can affect anyone, but those most at risk are children aged under 5 years (especially babies under a year), teenagers and young adults under the age of 25. This has nothing to do with homosexual men in particular because anyone can be infected or carry the bacteria.

Look at my source below for more information...

http://www.patient.co.uk...

The sources you provided do not in any way state that homosexual men are somehow more likely to carry these infections. It was a single breakout that affected homosexual men in particular due to unfortunate circumstance in one particular location, which was British Columbia. Just as a group of children in a school would measles or chickenpox. This does not somehow make them more likely to catch it because they are homosexual, it was because of the condition in which they were exposed to that influenced their likelihood of infection. They just so happen to be homosexual, but that was not the main cause.

But you are applying this outbreak to ALL gay men when there were only ten people involved in the case. This is why I called you biased (even though liar is more appropriate). That is like saying all heterosexuals everywhere are more likely to carry the HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) because of an outbreak of HPV amongst ten heterosexuals in New York City. Do you see how biased that sounds? That is exactly what you were implying. You are associating a bacterial infection to ALL gay men because of an outbreak that occurred in ONE place, that had absolutely nothing to do with their sexual activity because apparently you forgot to include that "at least five cases (56%) were known to have smoked marijuana or shared joints in the week prior to onset of illness" which was the likely cause of infection. It is a bacterial infection, not an STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) and like all bacterial infections, this can be prevented with routine vaccinations, proper hygiene and avoiding contact with surfaces with bacteria that may expose one to infection. Anyone can be affected by it.

Now that we have gotten that out of the way, that does not prove that homosexual couples are somehow a "danger to children".

You claim "My opponent says homosexual marriage and pedophilic marriage are different because pedophilia results in a severe trauma to the child, but provides no source evidence that child marriage causes such a trauma."

Pedophilia causes severe physical and psychological harm to children, as it is classified as sexual abuse. The majority of sexual abuse cases occur during childhood, and incest is the most common form of sexual abuse towards children. The impact or overall effects of child sexual abuse varies from person to person, case to case, some effects being worse than others depending on how much an impact it had or how severe the abuse was. Children who have been sexually abuse exhibit cases of increased anxiety and almost always develop some form of depression. In almost all cases, victims of child sexual abuse experience higher levels of guilt, shame, self-blame, eating disorders, social developmental issues, dissociative patterns, and repression. These issues almost never go away and remain until adulthood requiring long hours of therapy to recover. It affects future relationships and causes sexual problems including low sex drive, sex addiction, and risky behavior as an adult. It disrupts sleeping patterns and eating patterns. Many who experience child abuse exhibit violent and suicidal behavior. It also increases the likelihood of drug addiction and repeated abuse. People who experience child sexual abuse also have feelings of confusion, feelings of disorientation, nightmares, flashbacks, and
difficulty experiencing feelings. As for physical trauma, depending on the severity of he abuse and whether or not the child is too underdeveloped, sexual activity can lead to severe physical damage to the vagina or rectum and in many cases this results in death. Sexually transmitted infections are also a risk and if contracted, can cause sterility or even death. If a girl gets pregnant too early in development, she can die or suffer miscarriage. Is this evidence enough for you?

http://www.counseling.org...

THIS is why it is illegal. Children cannot consent to marriage because marriage is an agreement between consenting adults. You cannot force children to consent to something they are not able to consent to and expect it not to result in severe consequences for the child. You also cannot compare child sexual abuse to a relationship or agreement between consenting adults of the same sex either. This comparison is illogical.

It also has nothing to do with 'morals' or what our society says. It's about the physical and psychological development of children. Some societies encourage child marriage and pedophilia, does that make it okay? No, it doesn't because you cannot always establish laws because of the majority agrees. If society as a whole agreed with the legalization of gay marriage, would you still be in agreement? I doubt it. But according to the most recent polls the majority of Americans are for gay marriage by over 60% and that number is rising.

And you claim "until that opinion is held by society as a whole, it will, and should remain illegal."

So only your opinions determine what should and should not be legal until everyone disagrees? That's not how the legal system works, sorry. If it did, women would still not be allowed to vote or hold office and African American students would probably still be prohibited by law from attending educational establishments with White American students.

You claim "Homosexual men engage in anal sex."

Not all homosexual men practice anal intercourse, this is another biased claim.

You also claim "The anus is not naturally able to handle such a load (no pun intended). Increased rectal tearing allows more bacteria into the system, and causes infections."

All forms of sexual contact, whether it be anal, oral or vaginal is at risk of infection and tearing. This is why people who engage in receptive anal and sometimes vaginal intercourse use lubrication. Anal tearing (called 'anal fissure') is very rarely caused by anal sex. It affects people of any age, sex or sexual orientation equally. You don't even have to be penetrated to be affected by anal tearing. Anal tearing does not automatically result in infection either.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...

"My opponent implies I may be biased, but the only evidence he offers is that I make an argument he doesn't like."

Actually I called you biased because you were making biased claims about gay men without any valid evidence to support your claims. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. The evidence is the biased claims and biased sources in your argument. What I do not like is when people clearly do not thoroughly read information before using it as a source and trying to pass it off as something it is not.

For example...

"Helicobacter cinaedi has been most frequently isolated from rectal swabs of homosexual men with proctocolitis."

This source is not valid because you failed to include the fact that the rectal swabs were taken from homosexual men who died from AIDS, again not normal, healthy homosexual men. It's funny how you conveniently forget to include that. The bacteria Helicobacter cinaedi was also found on the rectal swabs of heterosexuals who suffered from AIDS as well. But you conveniently forget to include that too... Like I said, you are being biased.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Weiler

Con

My opponent has called me biased several times now, and it's getting old. If I knew my opponent was going to act like such a child I would not have accepted this debate.

An estimated 90% of men who have sex with men and as many as 5% to 10% of sexually active women engage in receptive anal intercourse. The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner.[1]

Anal sex increases your risk of:[2]
  • HIV/AIDS
  • HPV and Anal Cancer
  • Hepititis A
  • Hepititis C
  • Escherichia coli

Sources.
1 http://www.webmd.com...
2 http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 4
briantheliberal

Pro

"My opponent has called me biased several times now, and it's getting old. If I knew my opponent was going to act like such a child I would not have accepted this debate."

I called you biased, because you were being biased. Sorry if that offended you or if I was too aggressive. It wasn't meant to be disrespectful but if you are going to present an argument, don't use biased sources or fabricate information to fit your agenda. That is exactly what the FRC does, and they are known as a hate group because of it.

Anal sex does not directly cause anal cancer, however having sex (vaginal AND anal) with many partners, increases your chance of contracting HPV which then causes anal or cervical cancer but this is preventable especially if you receive an HPV vaccine.

Escherichia coli is not sexually transmitted. You can get it simply by shaking hands with someone who didn't wash their hands. People don't get it directly from anal sex, they get it from oral-genital contact after anal sex. This is completely preventable with decent hygiene (always wash your hands after using the bathroom, showering, taking a bath, using an enema, douching etc...), routine vaccination to protect against disease and not eating rotting or undercooked foods.

You get HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis A and C from having sex with an infected partner just as your would any disease. This has nothing to do with homosexuals or what kind of sexual activities someone prefers. ANYONE can contract disease by having sex, vaginal, anal and oral with someone who has it. All of this can be prevented by always using protection (male or female condom) during sex and limiting how many sexual partners you have.

http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...

How to prevent disease -
http://www.webmd.com...

This exactly proves my point...

Having any form of sex increases your risk of contracting disease. Anyone with a fifth grade education knows this. What does this have to do with homosexuals getting married? Absolutely nothing. The whole point of this debate was for you to provide some sort of logical argument against legalizing gay marriage but you have not done this. This was a complete waste of my time.

However, thank you for taking the time to debate with me anyway.
Weiler

Con

My opponent says he means no disrespect, then again calls me biased and accuses me of fabricting information, then top it off by comparing me with an organization he considers to be a hate group. Very classy.


My opponent accuses me of having an agenda. My only agenda was to have a respectful debate. So much for that.


I have not argued that ONLY gay men contract these diseases. I have only argued that they are at an increased risk for very deadly deseases and therefore pose a public health hazard. I have used respectable sources, even if my opponent disagrees with their content.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
I am aware that you made some of the argument, but you didn't quite follow through on it, and you didn't successfully pull the debate back on topic.

Piece of advice, when your opponent strays off topic it is not necessary to even address that portion of the argument, or the sources supposedly supporting it. Just state that it is irrelevant, then move on to debating the correct topic. An example of this is a debate I am have right now, notice my opponent spends most of his time in the first round arguing points irrelevant to the topic. My response simply states that most of his argument is irrelevant, and then I continue debating the correct issue ( http://www.debate.org... ) I left my opponent with no opening to continue down the wrong road and forced him to address the topic at hand.

I have no hard feelings, and wish you luck in your future debates.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
I did make that argument...

"You get HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis A and C from having sex with an infected partner just as your would any disease. This has nothing to do with homosexuals or what kind of sexual activities someone prefers. ANYONE can contract disease by having sex, vaginal, anal and oral with someone who has it. All of this can be prevented by always using protection (male or female condom) during sex and limiting how many sexual partners you have."

I made this point in the last round of the debate. I also previously addressed the fact that you strayed off topic as well... But before I did that I felt that it was necessary to tell you that your sources were not complying with the points you made in your argument because you claimed legalizing same sex marriage was "a danger to children" so I had no choice but to address you claims in regards to diseases. It was frustrating but I could only type so much in one round.

Also, I meant no disrespect if you felt that I was calling you a liar if you didn't have a clear understanding of your own sources. I am very aggressive when I debate with others. I am also new here so I don't really know how everything on here works. Debating with older, more experienced people is a challenge especially on such a sensitive topic.
Posted by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
@briantheliberal You are correct that the debate was about marriage, not anal sex. You allowed me to divert the topic. Some would consider this an unfair tactic in a debate, but many consider it a legitimate tactic if you can get your opponent to go off-topic with you. My argument was a clear logical fallacy, but you failed to call me on it.

P1: Gay people engage in anal sex.
P2: Anal sex results in higher rates of infections.
C1: Gay people should not be allowed to marry.

This is a classic non-sequitor (Conclusion doesn't follow the premise).

"If two gay men are disease free, in a monogamous relationship or married and they practice anal sex, they are no more likely to catch disease than a disease free heterosexual couple that only practices vaginal sex. There is no potential risk of disease involved if both partners are disease free in the first place. And even if they already have disease, why should that hinder their right of marriage?"

That is a great argument that should have been made during the debate.
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
Thank you for voting. However I feel that I should bring attention to the fact that con did not specifically address the overall topic of the debate which was "Gay Marriage" not "Anal sex" and even then, he wasn't completely honest about that either. His argument strayed way off topic and was completely irrelevant. I do understand where he was coming from, but it was clear that he was far from being honest, most of his arguments in this debate consisted of false information and propaganda which automatically makes his side in the debate the losing one.

Even you noticed that he lied multiple times. That also includes his proposition on anal sex, in which he claimed it CAUSED disease but I made it clear that it does not, in itself, cause disease but increases risk of infection if you have sex with an infected partner.

If two gay men are disease free, in a monogamous relationship or married and they practice anal sex, they are no more likely to catch disease than a disease free heterosexual couple that only practices vaginal sex. There is no potential risk of disease involved if both partners are disease free in the first place. And even if they already have disease, why should that hinder their right of marriage?

I don't really understand how he had a more convincing argument if it was full of lies, clearly biased and way off topic. I didn't insult him because he did lie and I find it quite absurd that the entirety of the debate is being held against me because of it. I didn't even call him a liar.
Posted by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
== RFD ==

Pro is better at debating than Con. That should be apparent to every reader, but in the end of the day, facts and strong arguments are better than debating skills. Con showed that Anal sex will raise risks of infection and Pro didn't seem to effectively refute that. I sensed that he avoided that and made all forms of sex hazardous, when Con had previously explained that Anal sex is more harmful than traditional forms of sex. This gave Con the upper-hand in a very-close debate. Pro also argued that gay marriages don't necessarily involve anal, which is true. However, Con showed with statistics that most do. Hence, allowing gay marriage would increase that. I'm personally with allowing gay marriage but I felt that Pro failed to deal effectively with Con's claims. I would have responded that gays have the right to do "biologically hazardous" things, similarly to smokers who have the right to smoke. If Con said that gays might infect others(and here Con's arguments were weak) I would have replied that smokers do that to second-hand smokers too, and that the cases of that happening are very limited to be found significant, and they are. This stems from my belief that humans have right of "suicide" and "harming themselves."

Sources go for Pro because Con lied about the content of some of his sources, which is really unacceptable in DDO. Such moves automatically diminish your credibility.

Conduct goes to Con because Pro called him "biased" and explained that he should have called him a "liar." This is bucket-belting at best. You can disprove his sources and show any fabrications without insulting his person. What Pro did was shameful and not accepted in DDO. Pro should have been very careful in such situations given that this is going to cost him his conduct mark.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
briantheliberalWeilerTied
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: The BoP was placed firmly on you in R1 prior to your acceptance. You can't simply deny it later because you don't want it. Conduct to Pro because of that. Arguments to Pro for several reasons. Even if the health hazards argument is accepted, he fails to see that the rectums of gay men containing bacteria does not equal a health hazard to newborns...further, Pro rebutted that example of Con's on the grounds that it was a single incident and not a trend. The other examples fail to make any kind of prima facie case against gay marriage which, I remind both debaters, was the subject of the debate (and not gay SEX). Pro seemed to keep this better in mind than Con, but I think both would do well to remember to focus on the resolution at hand.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
briantheliberalWeilerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Saying that LGBT people are like pedophiles and beastiality is exactly the same as saying that racial minorities are like apes. The argument is an insult, but also requires a BoP that can never be attained. Pro was right to abandon any other aspect of the debate until this BoP was placed firmly onto Con, or the extreme statements needed to be dropped in favor of something that actually might address the resolution. Pro is not proposing anywhere near as great an assertion in making the claim that most objections to gay marriage are religious. All but calling Pro a pedohile and saying that he was acting like a child are good for the conduct point.
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 3 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
briantheliberalWeilerTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.