The Instigator
Ad_Infinitum
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,429 times Debate No: 15963
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (4)

 

Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate before hand.

RULES)

1) No semantic arguments. We are debating over the issue, not over the wording that I put the issue into.

2) Use common sense. We should use common sense, and not twist the ideologies of each person's argument merely to win the argument.

3) No insults. This is a clean debate. It should not devolve into a flame war.

4) The Neg has the responsibility of providing an argument as to why gay marriage should not be legal within the US. This is so that it is focused on the pro refuting the arguments presented by Con, and not the opposite.

I sincerely hope my opponent accepts this debate. Thanks.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate; however before Actually getting into the bulk of the debate I would like to make a few clarifications of my own.

First, since I was challenged directly to this debate; I feel the need to point out that it is the Pro that should have the burden of proof in this round. however since my opponent has openly spoken out against that in his fourth rule, then we simply hae reciprocal burdens.
I must prove that Homosexual marrige should be illegal, and my opponent must prove that is should be legal. Whomever does a better job in convincing the voter on their stance will the winner. If my opponent is opposed to this then they may simply say so in their next speech.

That said, here's to a fun debate, I await the first round of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First of all, I'd like to point out I explicitly place the burden of proof on the Negative opponent. Seeing as he had the choice to accept this debate or reject it, he accepted the responsibility of providing the burden of proof. In other words, he had the responsibility of holding "Gay marriage should not be legal in the United States." The wise reader may have noticed, however, that my opponent failed to uphold this at all. In fact, he didn't even provide an argument at all. I'm accepting that perhaps he was confused as to whether arguments would be presented in the first round, but that is no excuse. Not presenting a case in the opportunity I provided wastes not only Round 1 Pat 2, but also my part of Round 2, because I have no arguments to refute. I hope my opponent will be able to adequately make up for his mistake in the remainder of the debate, and that he utilizes the next part of this round to lay out a worthy argument.

Remembering that the burden of proof rests upon Hello-Orange, I simply have no argument to refute and my end of the debate is upheld. The default position is that it should be legal, not vice-versa, and that the Con has the responsibility of showing why gay marriage should be illegal. I can't enunciate enough as to how this responsibility was not met.

The opponent may argue that it is abusive that I put upon him the burden, but referring to this [1] debate of his, we see that he is completely capable of providing arguments that deal with this subject and also upholding the same requirements.

I await my opponent's case and response, and sincerely hope that the rest of this debate can be utilized to it's full potential and that something an be learned here today. Thank you.

Sources

1 - [http://www.debate.org...]
BangBang-Coconut

Con

Well It would seem I have made a bit of a fool out of myself by entrusting that my opponent would accept my proposal to allow this debate to one of reciprocal burdens. So before I begin with my once sided constructive, I would like to then thank my opponent for allowing me such an opportunity as this to again test the metal of my beliefs; and since I do have the burden, as my opponent has made abundantly clear, I would like to present some clarifying observations as would be prescribed to me under common etiquette.

First; the manner of this debate is one-sided. I have the burden to prove that homosexual marriage should not be legal in the United States. the Pro has the burden to simply disprove whatever arguments I put forth.

Second; As of the start of this debate (this speech) there are no pre-dispositions toward either side of the debate; except that the Pro has the power of fiat. Meaning that if this debate ends with zero ground for either debaters then Pro will win. That said, since this is not a debate of reciprocal burdens, if I win even one point or argument; then I win the entire debate.

Third; as per "RULE 4)" If I offer an argument that my opponent cannot refute, then I will win this debate regardless if I present 100 arguments and my opponent refutes 99 of them. This is the manner of debate my opponent prescribes; thus this is the manner in which my opponent must debate.

With all of this said, I have a request that I wish to make abundantly clear; In the course of argumentation, I intend to be as blunt and frank as I can be. Thus please take my argument's for what they are frank, logical arguments, instead of interpreting them as malicious hatred. I will now present a few arguments that I will expand upon as necessary through-out the course of this round. If there is any misunderstanding, I ask that I my opponent clarify their misunderstandings in the comments section.

Contention 1: The bible condemns homosexuality-

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." NIV

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." NIV

Contention 2: Homosexuals couples are not able to contribute to society what Heterosexual couples are able to contribute.

-Homosexuals cannot procreate, this is my biggest argument here.

Contention 3: Extinction-
Prolonged encouragement of homosexuality could lead to a society where there are no heterosexual marriages, and thus the human population would become extinct.

Contention 4: Disease-
Sexually transmitted diseases are much more common among homosexuals [1] [2]

Contention 5: Marital Faithfulness-
Due to the influences of the homosexual culture, and he devaluing of Sex as something sacred, there is much less reason for homosexual men and women to be faithful to their partners [1] [2] [3]

Contention 6: Marriage's origin-
Marriage as we know it in American society, has it's roots stemmed in Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus by giving marriage over to homosexuals [4] (Fascinating article by the way) would violate the freedom of religion of billions of American Christians.

I have a few other arguments that I will present as necessary, for now I feel I've presented a couple of solid arguments.

Sources:
[1] http://home60515.com...
[2] http://www.catholiceducation.org...
[3] http://www.rightremedy.org...
[4] http://www.christiancourier.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Ad_Infinitum

Pro

I thank my opponent for his neatly structured, clearly stated arguments.

I will, for the sake of getting to more important arguments, concede the point that I have a responsibility to refute all of the arguments that my opponent provides. However, it should be noted that I have a responsibility to win the arguments by showing that my refutation is more logical or rational. Also, although none were presented, if a ridiculous argument comes up that plays at extreme semantics or is completely ridiculous, I will call bs and simply not waste characters with a refutation.

So now I will in the blunt, logical manner my opponent asked refute the arguments he has provided.

Contention 1: The Bible condemns homosexuality.

I have two main refutations for this point.

The first point is regarding the role of religion in government affairs. In the United States, which is where the resolution concerns, there is a very clear "separation of church and state" policy that the government follows. This is because the United States and its policies are not based upon the Bible, but are based upon the Constitution, a document which emphasizes personal freedoms. If the Bible did indeed condemn homosexual marriage, this still would be not any justification as to why this should be translated into US law, something that would effectively destroy separation of church and state.

My second point is that it doesn't necessarily condemn homosexual marriage in the Bible at all. What it does condemn, however, is homosexual sexual acts, specifically sodomy.While marriage often entails sexual relations, it does not require them, as some married couples go their entire lives without ever having sexual relations of any kind. To say that gay couples couldn't be married because of the possibility they have intercourse would be to make an assumption. If we allow our government to begin making laws based upon such assumptions, then it becomes allowable for it to make even bolder assumptions that only begs for great corruption.

Contention 2: Homosexuals don't contribute to society whilst heterosexuals do.

This point is rather small, and simply deals with procreation. First of all, it should be noted that married homosexuals will often have a surrogate mother have their children. This alone enunciates homosexuals' ability to have children within marriage. My opponent's argument assumes that, upon marriage, it becomes physically impossible to have children, an assertion that is completely ridiculous.

Also, it should be realized that procreation is not necessarily a good thing. [1] While it is essential to the continuation of the human species, the human species itself nowhere near dwindling, much less nearing extinction. Overpopulation, however, meaning procreating too much, has many negative effects that range from negative political effects to negative economic effects even on to negative environmental effects. The fact that homosexuals can't procreate simply by themselves means that overpopulation won't result because of homosexual carelessness.

Contention 3: Extinction.

This argument is essentially the same as the previous, except that I'd like to make one more point. There are two main views when it comes to how homosexuals became homosexuals. The first says that homosexuals are born this way. If homosexuals are indeed born homosexual, then following that logic heterosexuals are born heterosexuals. This means that there wouldn't be some mass conversion of straight to gays because it would be genetically impossible. The second view holds that homosexuality is a choice. If this is assumed to be true, then the same logic goes that homosexuals, in a time of need (eg near extinction), could choose to be heterosexual and save the dying species. No matter which view is held, the problem of extinction is effectively put out of the question.

Contention 4: Disease.

First and formost, I would direct the voters' attentions to the arguments regarding assumptions. To bar gay marriage on grounds of the possibility that disease might be spread is something that makes a bold assumption and violates unfairly upon the rights of the individual.

My next point, however, turns the argument around. My opponent seems to have the assumption that homosexuals will have sex with more people IN a marriage than OUTSIDE of a marriage. This, of course, is illogical. [2] This site here shows us detailed information about married gay couples and how their faithfulness to each other is greater when married as opposed to single or as a simple "couple". The site has many great statistics, such as that 50% of gay married men have remained faithful to their partner and are still married. This is relevant because it shows how gays that are married will have less partners than non-married ones. In fact, according to a study that covered year 1989 to 2009 [3] shows that homosexual non-married males will have an average of about 50 partners in their lifetime. This clearly demonstrates the fact that non-married homosexuals will have more sex with more men than married gay men will. It is only logical, then, that we allow gay marriage because it will slow the spread of disease amongst the gay community.

Contention 5: Marital Faithfulness.

Gay marriage has not been legal in one place in the United States long enough to collect accurate statistics involving divorce rate. However, looking to my source earlier regarding statistics of married gay men, we see that after 5 years only 22% of gay couples had divorced. In Denmark, however, gay marriage has been legal since 1989, and many statistics have been recorded including divorce rate. For heterosexuals, the divorce rate was 46%. For homosexuals, this rate was only 17%. As we see here, even if twice as many homosexuals got a divorce, it still wouldn't be equal to the rate of divorce for heterosexuals. Statistically, this shows my opponent's point is almost completely groundless. Even in his sources is was nearly impossible to find anything regarding fidelity barring an article dealing with the lives of three (just 3) gay individuals who had rough lives. This is not a large enough number, not even close, to be a statistic. [4]

Contention 6: Marriage's Origin.

First of all, no. Marriage as we know it in American society is not based upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a legal entitlement recognized by the government that comes with its own legal and social benefits. My opponent's argument basically assumes that all people that want to get married do it out of a Judeo-Christian tradition, something that is observably completely false in today's society. In fact, there are many atheists that get married, only enunciating the fact that there is some other driving force behind a marriage (ie love).

Also the assertion that marriage will take away the freedom of religion from Christians is illogical. In no way does granting group A a right that doesn't affect group B remove group B's right. In Islamic tradition infidels do not have the right to live. Following the logic of my opponent, all infidels (in the eyes of Muslims) should not be granted a right to life because it "would violate their freedom of religion". (This is just an analogy. I am not saying this is the wishes of all Muslims or that I am qualified in the area of Islamic faith.)

Conclusion

All points have been refuted in a logical manner backed up also by evidence. I wish my opponent luck into this next round and the remainder of the debate.

1 - [http://geojoedr.tripod.com...]
2 - [http://www.frc.org...]
3 - [http://inductivist.blogspot.com...]
4 - [http://www.psychologytoday.com...]
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for his arguments against my contentions.
So before I begin with my refutations, I will go back to the framework to solidify a few points for understanding, and simply because I feel re-iteration will be beneficial to this round.
first; we have already pointed that if I win even one point, then I win this debate; thus the voting will not be based on magnitude of argumentation, but in clear cut black and white.

That said, I will move onto the contentions

Contention 1:
First; church and state-
First of all, separation of church and state is not an institutionalized law that must be adhered to in society; but a principle that is simply commonly accepted. This theory was first mentioned in a letter by Thomas, in which he emphasized a separation in that the state does not interfere with the church. This is because back in England the State controlled the church ([2]the Church of England). Thus my opponent's argument holds no magnitude since there is no law legitimately separating church and state, but simply an idea that is adhered to.

Second; The fact is, the majority of marriages do entail Sexual Intercourse [3] different studies will show different rates of how often Sex is had, but never once have I even read one study saying there where even married couple who never once had sex. (given I don't research this all too much) Point being, my opponent is breaking his own rule 1 and 2 regarding Semantics and common sense here.

Contention 2:
Two points here;
One, My opponent never covers my argument that Homosexual couples are unable to procreate with each other. While it is true that in very rare cases a surrogate mother is needed for a couple to have a child, more often than not this is not the case. However in ever single case of a homosexual couple having a child, they are completely dependent on an out-side person of the opposite sex.
Two, My opponent never warrant that our society IS over populated. In fact overpopulation is a simple theory often assumed as fact [4] [5], just like evolution. We need to take a methodical Solipsism approach here; just because it is a possibility doesn't mean it's pertinent to this round,I win this argument on magnitude.

Contention 3:
I do not want to get into the argument of how Homosexuals become Homosexuals. It's completely and utterly irrelevant to the contention at hand. It's been statistically proven that societies more open to homosexuality have more homosexuals. A prime example would have been Ancient Greece; Homosexuality was nothing to them, an the majority of society practiced polygamous, bisexuality.

Contention 4:
Following my opponent's first link on this argument (link 2) we can see that although the idea is present in the article, the statistics jump around dramatically. The article even goes so far as to say "only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years." The point is that many marriages end in divorce, regardless of whether it is heterosexual, or homosexual in nature. Ultimately my opponent does not even touch the argument I make here, that these couples can bring STD's they had prior to marriage into their marriage.
As for my opponent's second source, it a blog and thus not a viable source in this manner of debate. I politely ask my opponent to present another, more reputable source. Other than that, this argument does nothing to diminish the point I'm making, he actually strengthens my argument. Also, this is not an argument of refutation, but one in which he is actually building up constructive arguments for himself. As as prescribed by the first two rounds, he is not in line to make constructive argument, but only arguments offensive to my own contentions.

Contention 5:
First, if my opponent can present no evidence on this subject completely relevant to the U.S. then it is not relevant to the round since we are discussing Homosexual marriage within the United States only.
Second, My opponent's provided source is far too vauge, and does not cite the source these "statistics" come from. We don't know whom took these polls, or among which social groups. It is completely and utterly unviable.
Third my opponent's own source, and rebuttal argument towards my prior contention, points out that Homosexual Men have an average of 50 partners in the course of their lives.

My opponent loses any and all impact here.

Contention 6:
First my opponent does not provide any counter evidence that marriage is not based on Judeo-Christian society, thus at this point he loses all impact and his argument is akin to simply saying "nuh-uh" The fact is that marriage, in the way it's set up, the way it functions in american society, and the way it is viewed is in every way based on judeo-christian society.

Secondly, the argument my opponent brings up regarding Islamic Infidels, is not only non-sequitar to the line of logic this debate has been following; but he again breaks his own rule two, by bringing such an irrelevant argument regarding extremist Shi'ite religious views. We are debating marriage, not religious legitimacy, let's keep this in mind so we don't simply back down to pathos arguments.

Third, would a Pagan's right to religion be violated is groups of people non-associated with the pagan religion began to use the pentacle as a good luck charm, or would a Jewish person's Freedom of religion be completely disregarded if people just randomly decided to start having Bar Mitvahs?
At the point that a right is given, it is only guaranteed so long as it does not trample on he rights of others, my using marriage so loosely, we begin to trample on the rights of the religious communities.

there is reasons that Civil Unions exist.

In conclusion of this round, my opponent has utterly failed to win even one of my argument.
Please Vote Con.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://askville.amazon.com...
[4] http://www.wnd.com...
[5] http://thepeacock.com...
[6] http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Ad_Infinitum

Pro

Ad_Infinitum forfeited this round.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

My opponent has forfieted, and thus he drops my attacks. Because this is true every argument of mine will extend across, and the vote in this debate, must go Con.
please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
You dropped argument, thus you didn't prove your stance beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Posted by Ad_Infinitum 6 years ago
Ad_Infinitum
I may have had a forfeit, but I certainly didn't break any rules? You may have felt some of my arguments to violate common sense or be purely semantic, but that is because we have different views on the central axioms of the arguments themselves. Perhaps Innomen felt that you violated the common sense argument and broke the rules?
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Innomen Also, how are you going to vote me down? My opponent broke the rules regardless of the forfeit. That makes me feel cheated, ad though you're voting based on your own beliefs and not the round.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@Innomen Send me a PM :)
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Orange, each one of your contentions in round 2 is worthy of a separate debate - I'd be game if you are.
Posted by Ad_Infinitum 6 years ago
Ad_Infinitum
To BlackVoid, I didn't give up. I had technical issues. However, I did forfeit.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I won't have time to frame a decent debate for a while. Unless you just wanna debate something vague in a PFD style.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
I won't have time to frame a decent debate for a while. Unless you just wanna debate something vague in a PFD style.
Posted by Ad_Infinitum 6 years ago
Ad_Infinitum
I'm cool with that. I'd actually like to debate you on a topic more grounded in philosophy. You can decide and challenge, and also define the rules.

Thanks.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
No thanks.
To be honest, I didn't really like this debate.

If you want to have another debate on this topic; but one where we both have reciprocal burdens, then I would be open to that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Ad_InfinitumBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: By dropping the last round, Con was unable to refute any of Pro's last arguments. Typically I would weigh this into the debate, rather then making it a key factor, but since Pro went to the effort of re-directing the BOP onto Con (rather than simply re-wording the debate to make himself Con), I'm not giving him a lot of leave way.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Ad_InfinitumBangBang-CoconutTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a pity that pro dropped a round, but i found con's arguments weak with the bop. I give conduct to con because of the sincere effort he made, and pro dropped thh ball with his forfeit.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
Ad_InfinitumBangBang-CoconutTied
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 get's conduct points for Pro's forfeit and also countered Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Ad_InfinitumBangBang-CoconutTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Even debate up until the forfeit. Shame pro gave up.