The Instigator
Stasavraam333
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Inquisit0r
Con (against)
Winning
9 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...
Inquisit0r
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 360 times Debate No: 75986
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Stasavraam333

Pro

I am heterosexual and am pro Gay marriage. The argument "it isn't natural" is a fallacy. Not only is homosexuality found in hundreds upon hundreds of species on earth, but how many times have you seen two dogs get married? The entire concept of marriage is that two (or more) people who love each other very much can be together 'till death do they part'. Marriage should know no boundaries, social or otherwise, and not allowing gays to be wed is discrimination and a violation of there human rights to get married.

Religion being used as an excuse is also a demonstrably shallow and incorrect argument, as all religious books are outdated and religion itself is becoming all but an anachronism. The bible, for example, may be anti-gay, but also forbids: Shaving, cutting of the hair; eating shellfish; and getting tattoos. I find it hilarious how Christians choose what parts of the bible to listen too (and only acknowledge the parts which benefit their views).

In conclusion, allowing non-heterosexual human beings to get married is a human right, and not allowing them to get married is a violation of them
Inquisit0r

Con

I hereby accept this debate, and thank my opponent for spending his time to discuss this issue with me. I am obviously heterosexual, and was pro-gay marriage for the past few years, but I've come to realize that gay marriage is not wholly beneficial to society at large. Before I begin my debate, I would also like to clarify not all arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, as I am agnostic and still oppose it. I assume BoP is shared. Since there are no rules on when we can begin contentions, I will begin them upon my own initiative:

1. Marriage is, naturally, the union of man and woman

My opponent believes that the "it isn't natural" argument is a fallacy, but I find that it is not. Marriage as an institution was created many millennia ago, and has been the almost universal tradition until recent decades. Marriage was created to reflect our biological imperatives that best resulted in the survival of our species. Marriage was created to be for heterosexual couples, as they can procreate children and raise them to be productive members of society. Thus, the matrimony of man and woman is best suited for humanity, and should be protected.

2. Animals may exhibit homosexual behavior, but this does not mean it's due to orientation

My opponent has stated that "homosexuality is found in hundreds upon hundreds of species on earth", but they never asked why. Animals perform sexual acts for more than sexual attraction. Simon LaVey, a homosexual scientist, also stated that "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world [...] homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[1] Animals perform homosexual acts as a result of other instincts than love, such as dominance. These findings show that homosexuality among animals (i.e., the attraction to the same-sex) is rare, and is not as natural as my opponent suggests.

[1] Levay, Simon. Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality, p. 207
Debate Round No. 1
Stasavraam333

Pro

And who was the figure whom decided that marriage was between two heterosexual people? As with religion, things which were made millennia ago no longer apply to today's modern society. Whilst I agree that homosexuality as an orientation is somewhat rare, it doesn't justify calling homosexuality unnatural.

Marriage is a concept which is made by humans, ergo unnatural, whether you choose to believe or not is irrelevant. My main point is, however, that not allowing gay marriage is blatant and obvious discrimination against a group of people, and is no different to not allowing mixed-race couples to be wed.
Inquisit0r

Con

My opponent asked the following, "[W]ho was the figure whom decided that marriage was between two heterosexual people?" Stating afterward that "[m]arriage is a concept which is made by humans, ergo unnatural..." and that these traditions are outdated by modern standards. I have to disagree with the idea that marriage is unnatural and that the protected matrimony of man and woman is outdated, and here's why:

1. Matrimony of man and woman was created organically due to terrestrial realities

The figure who decided marriage was between man and woman isn't actually a who, it's an it: nature. Nature gave unto all animal life the drive for sexual attraction to the opposite sex for the continued survival of species, and human society epitomized this. That is, that they included this biological imperative into their society. It's the extension of a natural reality into social custom, that rose organically from the realities of nature that surrounded them. It's not unnatural, it's the definition of natural,[1] and since nature is omnipotent and immortal it fully applies to today's society.

2. Marriage is not a universal right since marriage is not a matter of civil law but a matter of natural law

Let's refute the main point: Marriage is not a human right. The US Constitution, and many other social contracts, protect freedom of association. However, civil law and the institution of marriage are two different entities. Marriage, as an institution providing for the bond of man and woman, is defined as such due to natural law. As stated before, "[Marriage is] the extension of a natural reality into social custom." It's not discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to be married because the institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years while gay marriage is an idea that has only become popular in recent decades. Homosexuals have no right to redefine marriage for their own purposes, no one has that right.

[1] Merriam-Webster - being in accordance with or determined by nature
Debate Round No. 2
Stasavraam333

Pro

Explain to me how marriage as a concept, is natural. How many times have you seen a sparrow getting married to a sparrow. In reality, almost all animals have no relationship at all with their mates, which makes the "natural" (existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.) part of marriage irrelevant. The only thing which has created marriage as well as its boundaries are human beings.

According to the Universal deceleration of human rights (UDHD), "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Meaning that a man and a man, woman and a woman, and woman with man can all be married (The UDHD is widely accepted by almost every country).
Inquisit0r

Con

My opponent has asked the following, "How many times have you seen a sparrow getting married to a sparrow[?] In reality, almost all animals have no relationship at all with their mates..." To which I respond with the following:

1. Marriage was built around biological realities, and humans have the ability to reason

The basic thing we need to understand is that people are bound by laws of nature like all life. Thus, we reproduce with the opposite sex to create offspring in order to continue our species' survival. However, we have a higher conscience and higher thinking. Sparrows don't get married because they can't even begin to comprehend marriage (or even permanent partnerships), we humans have capabilities to reason as nature bestowed that gift upon us. We have an institution of marriage because our ancestors understood that it would be the most beneficial to our species to build an institution in accordance with natural law, and to create a relationship in which child-bearing was a given for the continuation of the species. All animals in the kingdom mate and produce children, we built an institution that was in line with the natural realities surrounding us.

2. Popularity does not equate to it being true/right/etc., and the statement is vague at best

The statement in the UDHD is fairly vague, and it doesn't say there isn't a limitation based on sexual orientation. If there's some background as to the intent behind writing that statement, then I will reconsider my previous statement. However, there's another caveat: my opponent makes an appeal to popularity. Simply because a majority of the world accepts it as true does not mean that it is true. The notion that marriage is a right simply because the majority of nations believe so is incorrect, rights do not trump what is right, and there are areas democracy should have no control over. Two plus two does not equal five no matter what people think, it's objectively wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
Stasavraam333

Pro

My opponent is still not accepting that marriage is NOT natural. WE invented the idea of marriage, WE invented the boundaries, WE are responsible for them. Natural, by definition, has a completely opposite meaning to the points I have just made. May I add that, as someone said in the comments, the argument " Almost a universal tradition" is ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatum? How can we have the foundations of something practised today, based on ideas which where made by a group of people millennia ago. NATURE may have created the biological boundaries, but WE were the ones which built marriage around it; having the ability to reason better than a sparrow doesn't make it any more/less natural.

Ideas are constantly changing, and if enough people believe and accept it as the truth, it becomes the truth. Some people can argue that the earth is flat, and they accept it as flat, simply because some other people accept it. Even 2+2 could equal 5 if you can back it up with reliable evidence; whether YOU believe it is irrelevant.
Inquisit0r

Con

My opponent claims that I'm not accepting that marriage is not natural, which he believes it is not. However, my opponent never took the time to read the definition of natural that I provided. My opponent essentially turned this debate into a semantics argument. However, there are parts of their argument which need to be dealt with:

My opponent stated that ideas are always changing, and ironically after criticizing me for jumping on a bandwagon, they do so themselves. "[I]f enough people believe and accept it as the truth, it becomes the truth." They even go as far as saying that 2 + 2 can equal 5, if there's enough people providing evidence of that conclusion. To which I respond, no. No matter what people think, there are objective truths. My opponent said that I made an appeal to the masses in my use of universal tradition, but I didn't make the appeal because it is (or was) popular, but because it follows what is objectively good. Matrimony of man and woman is inherently right as it provides for the common good of child-rearing, creates a relationship which is best suited for humanity's biological imperatives, and ultimately resorts in the continued survival of the human species. If my opponent has the gall to say that material pleasure overrides our obligation to provide for our common good, then I hope you can see the recognition of an objective morality in you. Opening marriage to homosexuals will only further degenerate the institution of marriage into a partnership for pleasure rather than procreation.

I will be reserving Round 5 for rebuttals and a concluding statement, as I will be the last to go. I will be courteous and not make any new arguments in Round 5, as my opponent will not be able to rebut them.
Debate Round No. 4
Stasavraam333

Pro

Stasavraam333 forfeited this round.
Inquisit0r

Con

I'm not exactly sure what the correct conduct is for dealing with a forfeiture in the final round. So I'm just going to say my arguments still stand. Now commence the voting.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mremann87 1 year ago
Mremann87
"almost a universal tradition"-
Is this an argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatum?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Henceforth_Truth 1 year ago
Henceforth_Truth
Stasavraam333Inquisit0rTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro contradicted himself multiple times, and made hypocritical arguments
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 1 year ago
PatriotPerson
Stasavraam333Inquisit0rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Stasavraam333Inquisit0rTied
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: Pro ff a round