The Instigator
Chrysippus
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
37 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 10 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,949 times Debate No: 9731
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (10)

 

Chrysippus

Con

First of all, my greetings and thanks to my opponent; hope this will be a good debate! :)

PROPOSITION: Gay Marriage should be legal.
DEFINITION: Gay Marriage: A legally recognized socio-economic union, treated as a single entity for tax and liability purposes, with or without religious sanction, between two humans of the same gender.

Not arguing about the constitutionality or current legal status of same in America or any other country; just whether it SHOULD be legal. We are assuming that all humans have the same inherent rights, and that implementation is not an issue.

I am approaching this debate from a centrist, authoritarian viewpoint, and will argue the CONVERSE. My opponent is welcome to argue any position he wants that AFFIRMS the proposition as stated.

This is a philosophy debate; I don't have the time to dig out the most scholarly sources on this topic, and will not hold my opponent to a higher standard of research than myself. Wikipedia and a few online dictionaries/encyclopedias will have to suffice.

Arguments begin R.2.

Thanks again!
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate - it honestly looks very promising!

I agree to with my opponent's definition of gay marriage, and am glad to see it includes the fact that it has tax and liability issues, and is not exclusively a religious institution (which many theists and atheists fail to see). I will also agree with my opponent's assessment that all humans have the same inherent rights - it'd be a whole other debate to talk about the meta-ethical merits of natural rights, or what have you.

I don't know exactly what my opponent's argument will be, but alas that's for me to wait. Since my opponent states that arguments begin in Round 2, I will not post anything further.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Chrysippus

Con

I'll start by laying out the first premises I have adopted for this debate.

Governments exist. Here are a few examples:

http://www.usa.gov...
http://www.madagascar.gov.mg...
http://www.royal.gov.uk...
http://english.gov.cn...

Whether a government exists to protect its citizens (Switzerland, Israel), to serve a more powerful government's ends (East Germany, the Marcher Lords in medieval Wales), or merely to line the pockets of the rulers (Cuba, Saudi Arabia), it needs power to achieve that end. That power is based on the ability to wield deadly force. A country without ability to defend itself or impose order on its citizens is, in the normal course of events, waiting for a conqueror; and unable to effectively fulfill its purpose.

Whatever diminishes from a nation's ability to defend itself is thus considered less desirable than an option that increases that ability, under this theory of government. As one cannot foresee how much power of coercion may become necessary to have available for future events, the logical course is to maximize one's available power to be as prepared as possible.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...

There are two aspects of gay marriage that make it undesirable for the maximization of power:

1. Gay marriages do not result in any offspring, thus not creating additional potential soldiers or workers to increase the power available;

and,

2: Any marriage results in one legally taxable entity where there was two before; decreasing the potential income through taxation. Marriages tend to collect dependents, reducing the working population; and the resulting potential emotional stability adds resistance to government-employed emotional conditioning/propaganda, potentailly reducing control and thus power.

This second argument applies to any marriage, of any type; although gay marriages may be less likely to attract dependents (although adoption is still a possibility, as are mendicant in-laws) the arrangement still allows one partner to remain at home rather than contributing to the workforce. Thus, the arguments against *any* marriage being legal apply equally to gay marriage.

It may sound harsh for a government to impose restrictions on its citizens merely to increase its power (or order, or stability); but in reality it is an everyday occurrence. Examples of such restrictions include:

-Militia laws
-Gun control laws
-Traffic laws (forbidding un-liscensed individuals from driving certain vehicles)
-Anti-sedition laws (forbidding conspiracy to overthrow the government)
-Anti-trust laws (forbidding monopolies)

------------------------

From the viewpoint of the government, therefore:

Gay marriage should NOT be legal, as it tends to diminish the power available to the government to fulfill its purpose for existence.

To my worthy opponent; best of luck!
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, it's quite thought-provoking given that it takes the subject matter to a more conceptual basis - political philosophy. I will respond to his arguments in the same successive fashion as he did, and demonstrate why gay marriage should be legal - namely because there is no substantial reason to forbid them from doing such.

====================
Governments existence and it's role
====================

The claim that governments exist is given that I won't even bother to contend. I also agree that for a government to efficiently exist, it must have some capacity to wield deadly force; it needs power, whether it be political or militaristic.

What I don't agree is the following conclusion: "whatever diminishes from a nation's ability to defend itself is thus considered less desirable than an option that increases that ability." This is my opponent's cardinal claim, and if this were to be defeated then the rest of his argument crumbles along with it. This position, which is known as political realism, is something that is historically interesting but ultimately unjustified and absurd.

So I will disregard the two other arguments, since they are contingent upon the idea of political realism. I will dedicate my arguments to defeating political realism, and thus leaving my opponent bankrupt of any reason to ban gay marriage.

I thank my opponent for his response, it's quite thought-provoking given that it takes the subject matter to a more conceptual basis - political philosophy. I will respond to his arguments in the same successive fashion as he did, and demonstrate why gay marriage should be legal - namely because there is no substantial reason to forbid them from doing such.

====================
Attack on political realism - A little clarification
====================

To first clarify, political realism (which my opponent not only defends but puts a link to) "is a theory of political philosophy that...takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest.[1]"

As is with many theories, political realism (which will henceforth be abbreviated as PR) can be dichotomized into a descriptive and prescriptive view. Evidently, I and my opponent should and will focus on the prescriptive version, since this is what gives fuel for my opponent's argument. The descriptive version is best left to political scientists and social scientists who are concerned with how politics works, while the prescriptive version is best left to the philosophers when asking HOW politics should work. Since my opponent argues that gay marriage should be banned, we are forced to embrace or reject the prescriptive version of PR.

Furthermore, we should examine PR in it's domestic prescriptive version (though it's international version is equally absurd).

====================
Attack on political realism - An unjustified and absurd ethical principle
====================

To glaring question we need to ask is what justification does my opponent have for believing a government's role is primarily to improve it's power? Any attempt at answering this problem would need to deal with several issues, of which I will elaborate upon. Though many of these points are interconnected, it will serve best for both of us if they are taken apart and see individually to see the many gaping holes of PR:

1. According to PR, the intrinsic or primary value for politicians is to "strive to maximize their power[1]", or in other words for the government to become more powerful. This would seem to mean that maximizing power is somehow the desired end...but this is intuitively troubling, why so? Usually gaining power is meant for the means of obtaining some other end, whether it be wealth, order, etc. If PR upholds that power is the ultimate value, then it must preclude to itself a reasonable case for why this is so.

2. According to PR, might would be right. This brute concept is rarely upheld by sane, rational thinkers because it seems to be devoid of any philosophical merit. I ask of my opponent, how would you justify this?

====================
Conclusion
====================

"Political realism in essence reduces to the political-ethical principle that might is right.[1]"

Ultimately, PR is a brutish and unjustified theory. Conceived of long ago, it should also have been thrown out long ago. In the face of overwhelming evidence of the contrary, PR's conception of ethics is not only twisted, but completely unjustified. Such a contemptuous theory should be thrown out until further consideration.

Since this is the only weapon my opponent has, until he can effectively defend it he is left bare and thus as of now the winning side is clear, PRO.

---References---
1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Chrysippus

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, and his courtesy. This debate, suggested by my opponent back in September, has given me the opportunity to learn more about political philosophy, and has given my mind a much-needed opportunity to stretch; I didn't know Political Realism existed until this debate...

-------
As my opponent has stated, my arguments are invalid if he can disprove my starting premise; although this debate threatens to center on the validity of Political Realism rather than whether or not governments should allow homosexuals to marry. I choose to take that risk; I believe that by defending one proposition, I can defend both.

Notice, that my opponent has staked everything on his ability to discredit PR:
"So I will disregard the two other arguments, since they are contingent upon the idea of political realism. I will dedicate my arguments to defeating political realism, and thus leaving my opponent bankrupt of any reason to ban gay marriage." Fair enough, but by so doing he has conceded that IF PR is correct, then my arguments against gay marriage logically follow.

I will now address my opponent's arguments in order, and examine my opponent's assumptions.

--------
Defence of Political Realism:

"...what justification does my opponent have for believing a government's role is primarily to improve it's power?"

My cynicism tempts me to rant here about the nature of all governments, but instead I shall limit myself to suggesting that my opponent would have been better off had he written "should be" rather than "is." Also, I recommend the little book by Lincoln Steffens, "The Shame of the Cities," dealing with political machines in the early 1900's.

"This would seem to mean that maximizing power is somehow the desired end...but this is intuitively troubling, why so?"

Is my opponent appealing to common sense in a political/ethical debate? :P

"Usually gaining power is meant for the means of obtaining some other end, whether it be wealth, order, etc. If PR upholds that power is the ultimate value, then it must preclude to itself a reasonable case for why this is so."

And my opponent has put his finger on the point: power is the ultimate value, because it is the means to all ends. Allow me to demonstrate.

Societies throughout the millennia have adhered to various ethical standards. Most ethical standards originate in, are codified by, and/or propagated by one or more religions. These religions are metaphysical in nature; they are neither provable nor disprovable, as they deal with untestable factors. Thus, the ethical systems based on them have their basis in untestable assumptions.

On the other hand, the vast majority (if not all) of societies have valued, sought, revered, or otherwise approved of power. It is one of the few universal factors in all human relationships, human societies, and human activities. It should be self evident that the power to exist is fundamental for existence, not only on the basic level of human life, but extending all the way up through the largest institutions conceivable. Similarly, the power to accomplish one's purposes is necessary to actually achieve the same, applying in the same way to all entities.

Because it is necessary to achieve any other proposable value for society, power can be considered the ultimate value. Society cannot achieve wealth, or knowledge, or order, or happiness, or any other goal, without having the power to do so. PR states that power is the rightful goal of government; why? Because if governments have specific purposes for existence (probably based on the values of their society) they must have power to be able to achieve those purposes. By maximizing their power, governments are best able to achieve the things the rest of society values.

Because:
Power as a ethical value is derived from observation of human nature and the realities of existence, rather than having the tenuous ethical backing of metaphysical assumptions;
And:
Power is necessary to achieve all other values;
I submit that Power is the ultimate value, both worthy and necessary to be sought.

"2. According to PR, might would be right. This brute concept is rarely upheld by sane, rational thinkers because it seems to be devoid of any philosophical merit. I ask of my opponent, how would you justify this?"

Where to start? First, I object to the charge of brutishness; and the idea that somehow my insanity precludes my ability to reason. Both are emotional charges leveled at my person, which have no bearing on this case. Also, the appeal to asthetics; using the word "brute" to describe my position and "sane, rational" to describe your position (whatever it is!), generates an emotional response in the reader that has no bearing on the validity of our respective arguments.

Second, I have already detailed the philosophical basis for PR; twice now. If the pursuit of power is ethically justified, and my opponent cannot provide a logically justified ethical system that condemns "Might," I hold this maxim to be, although crude, essentially correct.

"...it should also have been thrown out long ago."
Reasons? All you have said is that my position is "intuitively troubling" and "rarely upheld."

"In the face of overwhelming evidence"
Where?

"PR's conception of ethics is not only twisted, but completely unjustified.
Give your ethical basis for this condemnation. Justify it. I'm unaware of any generally accepted ethical standard; does your statement have any basis in fact?

---------
My opponent assumes that: a) there is a universal ethical standard by which the pursuit and use of power can be condemned, and b) it is not in a country's best interest to protect itself to the best of its ability against stronger countries. I refuse to accept either without proof.

I await his arguments, and extend all of mine into the next round.

To my worthy opponent; best of luck!
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response, it is treading on grounds of political philosophy that I find quite interesting - I always find conceptual topics to be more appealing (yeah, I'm a stereotypical philosopher).

Before I delve into the merits of PR, I want to note that it may seem almost tangential of me to focus my arguments on the validity of PR and not gay marriage. I will responding by saying there has been two conditions obtained in this debate: we both accept all humans have the same inherent rights and that if marriage is abolished, then both heterosexual and homosexual marriage should thus be eradicated. Thus, it seems to be that gay marriage should be legalized prima facie if heterosexual is as well - my opponent has made no effort to draw a distinction (and I suspect he doesn't see one). Obviously, he instead takes a stance against marriage in general, which will give him suitable footing to be against gay marriage. So to combat this, I fight against PR.

This should be straightforward and without confusion; my attack on PR constitutes a defense of gay marriage.

====================
Attack on political realism - A precursor
====================

Before I begin, I want to remind the audience that it seems since my opponent hasn't touched on my two other sections (my acceptance of the existence of governments and the clarification on PR), that it should be assumed he accepts such claims. If this is so, then we are on an even plain of understanding, so now onto his defense:

====================
Attack on political realism - Meta-ethically unsound
====================

Political realism depends on the idea of value monism, which states that for an ethical theory there is only one ultimate or rather intrinsic value (for example, utilitarianism is a value monist theory because they view happiness as the ultimate value). According to value monism, "the intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has "in itself," or "for its own sake,"� or "as such,"� or "in its own right[1]." This mostly conveniently known as an end-in-itself, which translates into power for PR. Here are the problems:

My opponent contradicts himself. He states that "power is the ultimate value", but then goes on to say that it is the means to all ends. An intrinsic value cannot be a means to anything, it is the end to all ends! This was the point of my original criticism, which makes it seem my opponent doesn't understand what I mean. In fact, he actually states that "power as a ethical value is derived from observation of human nature and the realities of existence, rather than having the tenuous ethical backing of metaphysical assumptions." This is a naive attempt to bridge the gap between what IS the case and what SHOULD be the case. In terms of ethics, this was famously noted by the philosopher David Hume, and is called the is-ought problem: "systems of moral philosophy, proceeding in the ordinary way of reasoning, at some point make an unremarked transition from premises linked only by "is" to propositions linked by "ought" (expressing a new relation) — a deduction that seems to Hume "altogether inconceivable.[2]"

He needs to resolve this major meta-ethical question: how does PR account for it's purported intrinsic value? How does it show that power must be the ultimate value?

Referring to the previous problem, my opponent attempts to give a justification for this. He directs attention to the fact that many societies has valued power to a certain extent, because -- as he correctly points out -- power is a very useful means to a variety of ends (wealth, political standing, etc.). Almost expectedly, however, he then bridges this fact to power being the intrinsic value and acts as if this is an adequate account...nope it's not. As stated before, he both contradicts his position and fails to give an account for the meta-ethical foundations of PR. These two critical errors is something he needs to address.

====================
Remarks about intuition and Conclusion
====================

Before I conclude, I want to observe that my opponent seems to attack me several times of "appealing to intuition." In response, wile I share similar sentiments I do warn him of belittling intuition. In analytic philosophy, it is commonly used as a tool to test out claims and ideas; it is a handy method that has led to much philosophical progression (Frankfurt examples, Gettier problem responses, etc.). While I do agree it should not be a tool for conclusively proving claims (just merely hinting towards the correct answer), I used it in this debate as a precursor to my arguments with significant reasoning behind them. So no, I am not rightfully charged with appealing to emotion and whatnot since I do not intent to use intuition as my conclusive method of disproving PR.

As you can see, PR suffers from embarrassing meta-ethical problems in all sorts of form. Such a flimsy political theory should be thrown away, as it is philosophically ludicrous.

---References---
1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
2. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
Chrysippus

Con

I want to thank my opponent for making this debate so enjoyable; I was not expecting this debate to go so deeply into the philosophy, and have thoroughly relished the journey.

In this, my last round, I offer my defences against my opponent's last two arguments, and submit my final summary of my points.

--------
Final Defence of Political Realism:

"Political realism depends on the idea of value monism..."
As it is traditionally held, yes; but Power need not be the ONLY value in such a society, merely the supreme value. Nor need it be "Power for power's sake," such a goal is meaningless; power does not exist in a vacuum, it is only power because it enables some action or or state of being to occur or remain.

"An intrinsic value cannot be a means to anything, it is the end to all ends!"
This is incorrect in this case. If were were discussing Happiness, one could rightly say that it is not a means to anything, but an end in it's own right to be sought; however we are discussing Power. Power is an end to be sought BECAUSE it is the means to all ends; no other value (as I argued before, and my opponent has not disagreed) can be obtained without the power to do so.

My opponent's argument here is a false dichotomy: either something is an end, or a means to an end. Power is both.
*
An analogy: I seek money. I work hard for money. Money is one of the main ends of my activities these days; in fact, you might say that almost all of my productive hours are spent in pursuit of it. Money is an end I seek.

(Just drop it into the hat there, on the floor; thank you... much appreciated!)

Now, I COULD conceivably be seeking money because I love the color, and want to wallpaper my room with it; but more likely it is because I want to own a house, be able to raise a family (and help give Malthus nightmares), or some other activity that requires money. Golf, or Gardening, or Pro Chess; doesn't matter. Money is the means to my other ends.

Money is thus both an end and a means to ends.
*
Power is both the ultimate end and the means to all ends.

No other answer is necessary to my opponent's purported "major meta-ethical question." I have argued for both parts of this equation, and my opponent has not attacked my arguments. We must assume that he does not because he cannot, and the only objections to PR that he can find are a perceived contradiction and his own squeamishness in accepting such a brutally honest theory. In regards to IS/OUGHT, I have only to say that I have shown him what IS; he has yet to show me what OUGHT (or more cogently, why PR ought not) to be. He may find this rather difficult, as he has yet to advance and defend an ethical theory that condemns PR.

-------
Arguments my opponent has dropped:
-PR is better grounded ethically than religion-based philosophies,
-Power is the necessary means to all other values,
-Governments must have the power to achieve their purposes,
-By maximizing their power, governments are best able to achieve the things the rest of society values.

I have put forth these arguments, and my opponent has disregarded them. I have countered all of my opponent's objections to my other arguments, but these he has not even taken the time to disagree with; thus, all of these remain upheld. The political theory of Political Realism follows logically if these are true.

I submit to the voters that I have sustained Political Realism over my opponents objections. I further submit that, if PR be true, all of my arguments against the legality of marriage are true as well.

I strongly urge you to vote CON.

To my worthy opponent, my thanks for a great debate!
TheSkeptic

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for this debate; I have also learned something from this and it's been quite fun :). And though I believe he has misunderstood several elements of this discussion, this will probably heal in time as this is a new topic for both of us (albeit this is the last round).

====================
Attack on political realism -- A precursor
====================

My opponent's defense of PR seems to stem from his misunderstanding of what a final end/supreme value/intrinsic value/etc. is. Once he realizes what exactly this concept entails, he will see that my arguments are much more sound than he initially thought them to be.

As stated before over and over, value monism holds that there is only one (thus the monism) intrinsic value; the end of all ends. For example, utilitarianism states that happiness is the intrinsic value and is something we should all strive to uphold (namely in relations to ethical judgments). By definition, an intrinsic value CANNOT serve as the means to another end (otherwise it wouldn't be the end of all ends). So for example, many people traditionally hold that happiness is an intrinsic value, because they desire it for the sake of itself.

In examination of my opponent's analysis of my arguments, he stumbles over this cardinal point about an intrinsic value:

====================
Attack on political realism -- Meta-ethically unsound -- Intrinsic Value
====================

"As it is traditionally held, yes; but Power need not be the ONLY value in such a society, merely the supreme value. Nor need it be "Power for power's sake," such a goal is meaningless; power does not exist in a vacuum, it is only power because it enables some action or or state of being to occur or remain."

----> Thank you, you've helped me expose a flaw of PR - power does not exist in a vacuum, but only as a means for some other end. And true, power is not the only value (in terms of things that are wanted), but you do grant that it is the intrinsic value. And since this is so, then it CANNOT be the means for any other ends...which you admit happens, thus contradicting your own position.

"This is incorrect in this case. If were were discussing Happiness, one could rightly say that it is not a means to anything, but an end in it's own right to be sought; however we are discussing Power. Power is an end to be sought BECAUSE it is the means to all ends; no other value (as I argued before, and my opponent has not disagreed) can be obtained without the power to do so."

----> You have very backwards thinking. You agree that happiness is an intrinsic value because it's desired for itself, but then you say that power is something that can be sought as a means to other ends. If that is so, then you are saying power is NOT the intrinsic value and thus PR's main tenet is wrong. You can't fiddle with the definition of intrinsic value - the issue at hand here is to see whether or not power can be thought of as an adequate intrinsic value, which we both agree it does not.

"My opponent's argument here is a false dichotomy: either something is an end, or a means to an end. Power is both."

----> I can defeat all your analogies by refuting this point: to make this dichotomy clear, it must be shown that either something is an intrinsic value (end of all ends) or its merely a means to another end. Take the money example for instance. While it's true many people work at jobs with the intent of gaining money (which seems to be a clear cut case of means --> end), the further thinking they have is that such money will buy them the things they desire, which in turn causes them happiness. Once this list ends, they will point to happiness as the intrinsic value, NOT money. To say money is an ends is perfectly okay, but this is just a partial view of the whole schematics. I am referring to an intrinsic value, and thus it is at the end of the chain.

====================
Attack on political realism -- Meta-ethically unsound -- Is-ought problem
====================

"In regards to IS/OUGHT, I have only to say that I have shown him what IS; he has yet to show me what OUGHT (or more cogently, why PR ought not) to be. He may find this rather difficult, as he has yet to advance and defend an ethical theory that condemns PR."

----> My opponent doesn't seem to mean what I am referring to as the is-ought problem. It is talking about the problem of coming from a group of descriptive statements (you say many countries value power to a certain degree) and arriving at a prescriptive conclusion (you conclude by saying power is the intrinic value). There seems to be a fundamental gap, because how can a group of descriptive statements show what we OUGHT to do? I am posing this problem to you, and to every other ethical theory - I purport it has yet to come across a satisfactory answer. I do not need to advance any ethical theory, since this question presupposes all of them are currently unsatisfactory.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent supplies a brief list of arguments I have dropped. What he doesn't realize is that I have either agreed with most of them (government must have power, power is a necessary means to most if not all other values, etc.) and the others I have not argued for but rather hinted on as an introduction (namely ones related to intuitive examples). I simply don't need any of these to be discussed, since I am attacking a focal point in my opponent's ethical theory.

As it stands, PR is a ridiculously philosophically naive theory. It is a far stretch from solving major meta-ethical hurdles that all normative theories have to handle.
Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightymisfit 6 years ago
mightymisfit
yeah i want to get married...for real married, on a beach
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Could people give an RFD for their votes please?

Mine:
All points tied except Arguments, which I gave to myself. Conduct, Spelling/Grammar, and Sources were equally good; but I remain unconvinced by my opponent's refutations. Very good form in this debate for both sides!

Double post; oh well...
(stumbles off under the icy glares of the readers)
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
@ Guy: Well, it's hard to argue against liberty if you assume that protecting human rights trumps all other obligations of government. I needed to prove that there is a good reason to ban gay marriage; and to do that, I needed a framework with some other goal more important than personal liberty. PR gives such a framework, if it is valid.

Thus: a debate on gay marraige whith no discussion of STD's, Constitutional rights, traditional morality, freedom of choice, tax/welfare implications, or any of the plethora of alternate (and well-trod) approaches that are commonly seen.

I enjoyed it.

(Of course, the same reasoning that allows us to ban marriage under PR similarly allows us to limit or abolish any other human right that we find inconvenient. Life, liberty, and property are at the discretion of the ruler if Political Realism is followed. _I_ think that would be a bad thing; but then, I'm biased, and an adherent of an unpopular value system. :)
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
It's actually pretty clever. If you can prove political realism, then perhaps you can have an avenue against marriage (though one can argue that marriage strengthens society by giving a couple financial stability).
Posted by Guy_In_Mi 7 years ago
Guy_In_Mi
This was one of the weakest arguments against gay marriage.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Sure, when I finish up several of my debates I'll drop a challenge on you :).
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
I hadn't either! I found it while preparing for this debate, and thought it looked like an interesting viewpoint to argue this one from. :)

If you ever want to do another philosophical debate, pick a view point and let me know.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
@TulleKrazy:

Well, the basic reasoning was that it seemed prima facie between my opponent and I that we both accepted gay marriage and heterosexual marriage to have no morally significant difference - in other words, if one is to be legalized than the other should be as well. However, since he tackled the concept of marriage itself I responded to that more fundamental point.

And ah, I see Chrysippus :). Props to you for taking a position then, I haven't heard of political realism before, so this was a good introduction.
Posted by nonentity 7 years ago
nonentity
Thanks for the welcome! I wrote an essay on this 3 years ago so I'll definitely be watching to see how it turns out :)
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
And, welcome to Debate.org!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ricky78 6 years ago
ricky78
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by Arianna0991 7 years ago
Arianna0991
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by Thade 7 years ago
Thade
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by DanteCloud 7 years ago
DanteCloud
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
ChrysippusTheSkepticTied
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:05