The Instigator
Faraday
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Dann
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Gay marriage should be legally allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Dann
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 32983
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (3)

 

Faraday

Pro

My position is that marriage between partners of the same gender has no significant negative effects on society and therefor should be legal.

My opponent has the burden of proof to show that there are negative effects (or can reasonably argue that there will be) and should go ahead and make their opening arguments.
Dann

Con

I accept this debate and will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legally allowed.

Marriage. Traditionally, marriage has been a formal act of union between a man and a woman. An act recognised as the formation of the nucleus of another of the cells that make up society; the family.

Whilst it is true that marriage is not contingent upon the intent to reproduce, historically, traditionally, there were no birth control methods save the withdrawal method. It can be safely assumed that marriage and children, for the majority of history, are bound up together.

As late as the 20th century there was a social stigma attached to women having children out of wedlock. Should a couple find themselves pregnant, it would be the done thing to be married. A moral and social responsibility. This demonstrates that children are a fundamental part of marriage, or more precisely, that marriage is the genesis of the family unit.

Of course, the reasons for two people being married is that they are in love and they intend on spending the rest of their lives with each other and all manner of fluff. Underpinning that thought however is that they will start their own family. There are naturally those exceptions who will want to be married but not to start a family, but it is far more widespread that marriages produce children than the contrary.

Since homosexuals cannot produce their own family unit, their desire to marry is purely down to an expression of their love for each other. In more cynical cases, perhaps their desire to marry is more to 'get even' with heterosexuality. Perhaps they would like the perks and legal protections afforded to married couples by the system. But these would be no reason for allowing them to marry. I propose a separate institution is best. The homosexuals inability to form a family should preclude them from the traditional institution of marriage, but since homosexuality is so widespread and accepted in the mainstream these days, they should be allowed to join together in a formally recognised act of union, like a civil ceremony.

The real crux of the matter is which legal perks and protections would they receive?
If homosexuals were given all the same legal and societal assurances as a natural couple in their own bespoke act of union, would there be an issue? They are 'married' in all but name. They are joined together in a recognised act of union. It offers most of the same advantages, but it is not called a marriage.

Keep marriage for naturally occurring families and create a separate institution for separate unions.
Debate Round No. 1
Faraday

Pro

In order for my opponent to win this debate he must meet the burden of proof. As I stated:

"…show that there are negative effects [from legalized gay marriage] (or can reasonably argue that there will be)"

Dann has not done that with his reply. I await his next response which must meet the burden of proof.
Dann

Con

There has been a media frenzy over this issue over the last couple of years. People are separated into 3 distinct camps, as ever: those who say it should be allowed, those who say it should be disallowed and those who have no interest in the matter whatsoever.

I will argue that there will be negative effects from gay marriage. If you look at the media coverage, if you look at why this debate was even started, you will see that even the idea of gay marriage is divisive. This division of society is the biggest negative effect that gay marriage has. It seeks to put people into their camps and from there they attack each other. This is the worst thing that can be done to a society.

It helps to separate out and polarise ideals and when that occurs, you will find more often than not civil strife, perhaps civil war, follows. In the context of the present day world, there is already the shifting ideals of science vs atheism, gun control vs no gun control, republican vs democrat, labour vs conservative etc. This issue just heaps further straws onto the already overloaded camels back.

There is no good reason to incorporate homosexuals into an already established institution. Doing so just cheapens the institution for others. Nobody likes to share. Nobody likes to see their own life cheapened by others and, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people do see it that way. The fact that there are those who oppose it is proof in itself that it has a negative effect on society for it has merely caused a further,a different rift in the confused ideology of our times. And it the homosexuals who are the instigators of this public debate.

It threatens people's religion, or they perceive it to. I'm sure I do not need to go into the details of how incendiary religion can be. Religion and politics are often said to be the two topics of conversation to steer clear of. Why provoke such a response? What does marriage mean to homosexuals that it is so important? I contend that the idea in itself was largely designed to cause ructions in society. And it has done so, and it will continue to do so. The whole topic is a poison chalice that had no need for introduction in the first place. But now that it is here, its divisiveness and negative effect on society is out there in the open for all to see.
Debate Round No. 2
Faraday

Pro

Dann argues that the divisiveness of gay marriage is a negative effect and therefor gay marriage should not be allowed. A few questions:

1. At one time (and still to some) the idea of desegregation and desegregated marriage was divisive. Incredibly so. To this day evolution is divisive (in the US). Would you apply the same logic to these issues?

2. Do you believe that if an issue is divisive we should let the issue alone? Especially when doing nothing about it is has a consequence in-and-of-itself (e.g. segregation)?


3. How is leaving gay marriage banned less divisive? Discrimination is divisive. Wouldn't the majority of people in this country who support it [1][2] be unhappy with this and feel divided against the people who are getting their way de facto?

"There is no good reason to incorporate homosexuals into an already established institution. Doing so just cheapens the institution for others. Nobody likes to share. Nobody likes to see their own life cheapened by others and, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people do see it that way."

How do homosexuals cheapen marriage? How do people's opinions about how gays affect the institution of marriage have any bearing on real societal harm?

"The fact that there are those who oppose it is proof in itself that it has a negative effect on society for it has merely caused a further,a different rift in the confused ideology of our times. And it the homosexuals who are the instigators of this public debate."

Would this be the same way that people of color were the instigators of the debate for civil rights? Why is it the onus of the minority the bow to the status quo instead of the status quo chugging based on new information? Again, would you see it that racial minority rights should have stayed the same because of it's divisiveness?

You continue to argue that the status quo should not change if the issues are divisive. Where would we be as a society if we took this stance with every divisive issue. We'd still have slavery in this country. This country may not exist in the first place as revolution is divisive.


Why do the gay marriage supporters get blamed for causing the division? Didn't the people who made gay marriage impossible in the first place cause the division? If the laws weren't so strict in the first place wouldn't this have been a non-issue? It would seem the division comes from those who can't let others live their lives. Those who can't let things that offend them exist. Those who wish to treat others as second class citizens.

You speculated that the only reason the idea was designed was "to cause ructions in society". Isn't it the discrimination that is causing the "ructions"? Couldn't the fact that people are so unwillingly to treat these people the same way they treat others a good reason to bring the issue up?

Dann has brought up the divisiveness of gay marriage as the sole reason for it to stay illegal. I posit:

1. The divisiveness of an issue is on those who are factual and/or morally in the wrong should be the ones to concede (those in opposition).

2. Other divisive issues have been dealt with in US past that I don't believe my opponent would be opposed to/support (e.g. support slavery, oppose civil rights, oppose evolution etc.)

3. That banned gay marriage still leaves divisiveness and therefor does not help society.

4. That divisiveness isn't sufficient reason for the ban for the above reasons.

[1] http://www.gallup.com...

[2] http://features.pewforum.org...

Dann

Con

"Would this be the same way that people of color were the instigators of the debate for civil rights? Why is it the onus of the minority the bow to the status quo instead of the status quo chugging based on new information? Again, would you see it that racial minority rights should have stayed the same because of it's divisiveness?"

My opponent has cited, as I thought they might, the civil rights movement. Can we really liken the LGBT struggle to that of black people? I dont think we can. Now in direct answer to your questions above, no I would not see that racial minority just bow to the status quo IF the status quo is against them - if they were actively discrriminated against. But this isn't the case for homosexuals and it is a stain upon the memory of the civil rights pioneers to try to associate their struggle with the apparent homosexual struggle.

Homosexuals arent a race. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexuals were never made to use separate bathrooms, were never made to give up their seats on a bus, were not forced to eat in separate restaurants, were not kept segregated, were not officially considered second class citizens and were never forced into slave labour. The attempt to liken the two groups to show some sort of solidarity of plight betrays a wonderfully naive and biased attitude towards homosexuals.

The truth is more friendly. Homosexuals often have entire sections of a city dedicated to them - and not through the ghettoisation of homosexuals, but by their choice. They often create dedicated areas full of boutiques, gay clubs, shops that sell sexual paraphernalia. They are not stopped and searched by the police on a whim. Nobody automatically associates them with crime.

Revolution unites. The American revolution gave birth to a new country and chased the British away. It united the American people under their commonality. Were there Americans opposed to the revolution? Of course. Was the revolution divisive? Of course. But they were fighting for much bigger fish. The Anti-gay marriage crowd are not going to be driven into the sea as a result of losing the gay marriage debate. Everyone will continue to live in the same country, but it will simply add to the already significant undercurrent of divisiveness, and needlessly so. People see the very notion as no more than a part of the politically correct zeitgeist we have found ourselves in throughout this millenium and they dont know where it is all headed.
The question shouldnt be Should gay marriage be allowed? but rather, it should be Why do gays want to be allowed to marry the traditional way?

Of course its divisive. Of course its deliberate, brought forward by the militant wing of the LGBT community. It is not everybody else who particularly sees them as different, it is they who see themselves as the victim, constantly trying to find ways to equalise with 'normal' people. (by normal, I mean those whose lives are according to the norm, ie heterosexuals) Such a desire to constantly be striving for equality means that in their collective psyche it is they who see themselves as inferior, hence they feel the need to argue their perceived slights of society.
They are already allowed everywhere - even in the Army. What need to marry?

1. How would you determine who is morally or factually right in this case?

2. Again, they are not alike and cannot be ajudged side by side.

3. It does not leave divisiveness. The only people who will feel irked are gays themselves, but they have their civil ceremonies. They would just have to 'get used to it', to paraphrase them. Although, they are already used to it.

4. It clearly is.
Debate Round No. 3
Faraday

Pro

Not allowing a person do have the same rights as you based on sexual orientation is discrimination. And although the societal struggle of those in the LGBT community is not the same magnitude as the black community in this country (speaking as a black man myself), the fundamental underlying issue is the same; discrimination of one group of people by another. Discrimination based on the fact that one group doesn't like the other and that seems to be the only negative effect.

Which dovetails with the point of the comparison. Dann claimed the negative effect of allowing gay marriage is due to the fact that some people don't like it and is therefor divisive. If the same logic applied to racial minority rights we wouldn't have the civil rights protections in place that we have now.

"Homosexuals arent a race. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexuals were never made to use separate bathrooms, were never made to give up their seats on a bus, were not forced to eat in separate restaurants, were not kept segregated, were not officially considered second class citizens and were never forced into slave labour. The attempt to liken the two groups to show some sort of solidarity of plight betrays a wonderfully naive and biased attitude towards homosexuals."

Dann argues that the discrimination isn't as bad for homosexuals and therefor there is no discrimination. Except that gays are being discriminated in a way that minorities were. Black persons could not marry whites. Due to their race they weren't able to marry the person they wanted. Just as, due to their sexual orientation gays are not able to marry the person they wanted. Whether it be race, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation disallowing marriage between two people because some people don't like it is discriminatory. But to be clear I don't have the burden to prove this. Dann has the burden to prove the negative effects. Whether or not Dann agrees that it's discrimination is irrelevant to his argument.

"Revolution unites. The American revolution gave birth to a new country and chased the British away."

Read that again. Yes, it is contradictory. The American Revolution was not divisive… among those who agreed with it. The British and the British government on the other hand might have felt as though the division of the empire was, in fact, divisive. The status quo was that we were a territory of the British empire not being properly represented. But some people found it better to become our own state and the British got over it.

"The Anti-gay marriage crowd are not going to be driven into the sea as a result of losing the gay marriage debate."

They won't be driven to the sea but they will get over it or die off leaving society to progress. At the same time those who argue for marriage equality won't go away by leaving it banned. In fact those who agree with it has risen for the last years. Same thing with the discrimination based on race in this country. The onus to change is on those who had the same argument that Dann provided; that disliking it means it should continue to be banned. Even if those feelings of dislike aren't based on any objective negative consequences. Which is what Dann needs to argue to win.

"Why do gays want to be allowed to marry the traditional way?"

Again, this is not the point of the debate. Dann must argue the negative effects on society. But again, the fact that some people want to discriminate against gays in this area is reason enough to want to fight for it. Are the reasons for the anti-gay crowd to fight this good? That's what Dann needs to argue.

"Of course its divisive. Of course its deliberate, brought forward by the militant wing of the LGBT community."

Again, I disagree with who is to blame for the division. And again this is not the point of the debate. I've already argued that the issue being divisive is not enough reason to keep it illegal.

"They are already allowed everywhere - even in the Army. What need to marry?"

They are allowed in the army only recently. Not being allowed would be discrimination. So you agree that discrimination has happened. And you agree that marriage is still an area where they continue to be discriminated against as they aren't allowed to marry. That is why they want it. They don't feel inferior, they are being treated inferior and that is why you see them fight so hard.

"1. How would you determine who is morally or factually right in this case?"

That is not up to me. It is up to Dann to the moral and/or factual problems that may arise do to legalization.

"2. Again, they are not alike and cannot be ajudged side by side."

Again, not an argument as to why gay marriage should be illegal.

"3. It does not leave divisiveness. The only people who will feel irked are gays themselves,…"

Again, it's not divisive for those who are in agreement, but is to those who are not. But it's also inaccurate. As I cited earlier, the majority of Americans support it. Most of those people are not LGBT but straight. They (including myself) do feel it's divisive and that is do to those who discriminate or support discrimination. This divisiveness will not go away. So even if divisiveness were an issue banning gay marriage won't make it go away. But allowing it mind will change like they have for previously discriminated groups.

"4. It clearly is."

This is an assertion, not an argument.

In round 4 I urge Dann to bring up any other negative societal effects due to the legalization of gay marriage. I could argue the divisiveness issue more but I believe I've covered it well at this point.

I would like those following this debate to note an issue in conduct on my opponents behalf, calling me naive which is an unnecessary insult. Also to note spelling issues.

Dann

Con

"Which dovetails with the point of the comparison. Dann claimed the negative effect of allowing gay marriage is due to the fact that some people don't like it and is therefor divisive. If the same logic applied to racial minority rights we wouldn't have the civil rights protections in place that we have now."

I really must beseech my opponent not to persist with this farcical comparison. He is arguing apples and oranges.

Whilst I wholeheartedly concur with my opponent that "Not allowing a person do have the same rights as you based on sexual orientation is discrimination. ", I contend that not all discrimination is harmful.

Lets be honest with ourselves. The catalyst for gays seeking marriage rights is a financial one. The only thing missing from Civil Unions is certain financial benefits.

What negative effects will there be? Whether you like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, gays are looked at differently. Gays are often a laughing stock. The word gay is a byword for rubbish, lame, crap. What does this indicate? This wont change.

Wth homosexuals trying to act the part of heterosexuals - with marriage and adoption - they are just isolating themselves and making themselves even more of a target. They are putting their adopted children at risk. (One presumes that the married homosexual couple will want to acquire children).

Society will never look at homosexuals as just an everyday normal thing. Lets revisit your comparison with the blacks. Black people gained civil rights, as they should. Was everythin9eg rosy thereafter and forevermore for the black community? No. One might even argue that the black community have fared even WORSE since they gained their civil rights in America.

"Dann argues that the discrimination isn't as bad for homosexuals and therefor(e) there is no discrimination"

Not only does your sentence here contradict itself (how can I be arguing that the discrimination isn't as bad AND that there is no discrimination? Arguing that the discrimination isnt as bad carries with it an overt acknowledgement of discrimination), but no such thing was ever said. There is some discrinination against homosexuals. There, let that sentence settle that false attribution. Gays can join together in a civil union. They just dont get tax breaks and the like. Tho whole thing comes to rest on money.

"They wont be driven to the sea but they will get over it or die off leaving society to progress"

This. This is naive. Homophobia is inherent in most peoples psyches. Rightly or wrongly, whether you like it or not. It's not going to die off just because you try to legislate equality. So long as gay people carry on shouting the odds about their sexual preferences you will find that they are shouted right back at. And who says that gay marriage is a measure of societal progress? How will society possibly benefit by allowing gay marriage? There will be an increase in homophobic attacks due to the ubiquity of homosexuals and homosexual causes. It is oft said by people that they care not if a person is gay, so long as they dont shove it down anybodys throat (except each others, consensually), yet the LGBT community is never satisfied unless they are in the limelight, playing the victim. Perhaps that is why they tend to gravitate towards theatre. They love the drama.

By disallowing gay marriage you are indirectly defusing a potentially very hostile reaction to the LGBT community at large. You are doing the community itself a favour.

"They are only allowed in the army recently. Not being allowed would be discrimination"

And again, not all discrimination is bad. Why introduce suspicion into a fighting force? In an organisation where camaraderie and close-knittedness is all important to being effective, why risk jeapordising that by allowing homosexuals? Again, rightly or wrongly, and whether you like it or not, most people just see homosexuals differently. Thats just a fact of life.

I would like to point out that naive is not an insult and that my opponent has taken unnecessary umbrage.

I would also like to point out that, should one see fit to deduct me points for typos, then one also must deduct points from my opponent for spelling errors (some consistent) and using the wrong words entirely etc.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 4
Faraday

Pro

Dann continues to argue his opinions about whether the comparison between gay rights and civil rights is a correct one (while still giving no argument as to why he believes this; just that it is "apples and oranges". He gives his opinions about whether the discrimination of homosexuals in this case is even a bad thing. He gives his opinion as to the motivations of every gay person in their pursuit or marriage equality. These are all irrelevant to the debate and although I'd be glad to discuss these things in another debate it's beyond the scope of this one. Hence why I will not be addressing them here.

"What negative effects will there be? Whether you like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, gays are looked at differently. Gays are often a laughing stock. The word gay is a byword for rubbish, lame, crap. What does this indicate? This wont change."

I must make this comparison again even if my opponent doesn't find it valid. The same could be said of minorities before they were given the same rights. Has it gone away? No. Has it gotten better? Absolutely. I'd posit these legal and social divisions exacerbate and legitimize the prejudices against racial minorities and gays. Prejudice will never go away; I'm not arguing that. But it would start to falter as more acceptance raises. It's already happening. Acceptance of gays[1] and gay marriage[2] has risen as the movement has become more vocal in the last couple of decades. This counts against Dann's argument that legalization will somehow create more division. I'm not arguing that the correlation equals causation but I am saying that his argument does show up in the data. The data seems to disagree with his assessment of the issue.


"They are putting their adopted children at risk."

Does Dann suppose the blame of the risk lies on the gay couples for having a family or those who seek to harm the family? I'll make the dreaded comparison again of Black couples having children or mixed race couples having children. Is the onus of risk on those who chose to have a family or those who look(ed) to harm the family?


"Black people gained civil rights, as they should…. One might even argue that the black community have fared even WORSE since they gained their civil rights in America."

The argument has been made by my opponent that a major reason why gay marriage should stay illegal is that more harm to them and society as a whole will come if gays are afforded the same rights. Dann then says it can be argued that these negative effects have happened to the Black community and yet believes that they should have received their rights (among them marrying who they'd like). What justification then is there for denying these rights to gays?


"'Dann argues that the discrimination isn't as bad for homosexuals and therefor(e) there is no discrimination'

Not only does your sentence here contradict itself (how can I be arguing that the discrimination isn't as bad AND that there is no discrimination? Arguing that the discrimination isnt as bad carries with it an overt acknowledgement of discrimination)"

Here I was positing that Dann was arguing that there is less discrimination (his actual argument, which he didn't seem to understand he was making) but concluding that there is no discrimination. This was to point out his logic fallacy in coming to a false conclusion based on incomplete data; I was not making my own fallacy.


"'They wont be driven to the sea but they will get over it or die off leaving society to progress'

This. This is naive."

Once again I've made no argument that prejudice will go away; only that it will shrink and that it's influence on society will dissipate. I've offered my reasoning on this. Although, again, I must point out that even if I were incorrect here they Dann has not yet met his burden of proof. Which is what he needs to due in order to win.

"Homophobia is inherent in most peoples psyches."


Dann has offered no source of evidence for this claim.

"There will be an increase in homophobic attacks due to the ubiquity of homosexuals and homosexual causes."

Dann gives no reasoning or authoritative source of evidence for this claim. (To be clear he doesn't need to give hard evidence for a hypothetical. He only need to give a source from a proper authority on the matter)

"yet the LGBT community is never satisfied unless they are in the limelight, playing the victim. Perhaps that is why they tend to gravitate towards theatre. They love the drama."

This is bias and prejudice. Not an argument in favor of your position.

"By disallowing gay marriage you are indirectly defusing a potentially very hostile reaction to the LGBT community at large. You are doing the community itself a favour."

I will urge my opponent to back this up with sources and evidence in the final reply. I also urge those who vote to check the veracity of those sources as I will not be able to reply.

"I would like to point out that naive is not an insult and that my opponent has taken unnecessary umbrage."

I will leave this to the voters.

"I would also like to point out that, should one see fit to deduct me points for typos, then one also must deduct points from my opponent for spelling errors (some consistent) and using the wrong words entirely etc."

Fair enough, I agree.

I will try to make it easy for my opponent to stay on track in his final reply by listing all that is needed for him to win this debate:

1. Offer evidence and sources of information for the belief that homophobia is inherent.

2. Offer evidence and sources that more harm will come to the gay community if gay marriage is legalized (maybe look at data from countries and states where it is legal)

3. Conclude as to why, if all the above is true, this means the gay community should continue to be discriminated against

What would be unnecessary:

1. Ranting about how bad some are in the LGBT community

2. Speculating about the motivations of the LGBT community

3. Making more claims without evidence


Final word to the voters. Please carefully consider whether or not my opponent met the burden of proof. Be fair to him and myself in your assessment.

[2] http://www.gallup.com...

Dann

Con

"Dann continues to argue his opinions about whether the comparison between gay rights and civil rights is a correct one (while still giving no argument as to why he believes this; just that it is "apples and oranges"."

I have given an argument as to why I believe there is no comparison. I shall quote myself addressing the point in a prior round:

"Homosexuals arent a race. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homosexuals were never made to use separate bathrooms, were never made to give up their seats on a bus, were not forced to eat in separate restaurants, were not kept segregated, were not officially considered second class citizens and were never forced into slave labour. The attempt to liken the two groups to show some sort of solidarity of plight betrays a wonderfully naive and biased attitude towards homosexuals."

"I must make this comparison again even if my opponent doesn't find it valid. The same could be said of minorities before they were given the same rights. Has it gone away? No. Has it gotten better? Absolutely. I'd posit these legal and social divisions exacerbate and legitimize the prejudices against racial minorities and gays. Prejudice will never go away; I'm not arguing that. But it would start to falter as more acceptance raises. It's already happening. Acceptance of gays[1] and gay marriage[2] has risen as the movement has become more vocal in the last couple of decades. This counts against Dann's argument that legalization will somehow create more division. I'm not arguing that the correlation equals causation but I am saying that his argument does show up in the data. The data seems to disagree with his assessment of the issue."

My opponent says things like 'the data', as though everything is a cold hard statistic. Lets look at black/white relations, if we must argue through analogy, though let it be understood that I really do believe them to be fundamentally different, and you should too.

Blacks gained civil rights. Did they become like whites? No. Blacks live in black neighbourhoods. Blacks live like black people in a white country. The crime rate skyrocketed when black people gained their civil rights. Black neighbourhoods experienced and still experience the most abject poverty possible in the United States. Violent black gangs spread out like a virus throughout all the black population centres. Black people were always at a disadvantage, because they are playing a white mans game in a white mans home stadium. They were always on the back foot.

With homosexuals, they are trying to play a heterosexual game in a heterosexual stadium. Look at it this way, there is the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, MLS. There is also the female equivalent of those leagues. Would you, in the name of equality, decree that the females shall be allowed to compete in the male league or vice versa? Most likely not. Why? Well, because it would rip the soul right out of the game. Less people would attend. The leagues would be ruined.
And so it is with homosexuals trying to muscle in on marriage. They have their civil ceremonies, why not leave them to their own league, and leave the straight league to the straight folk?
They would ruin marriage as an institution, and thereby helping to ruin the concept and value of family too. That would have a devastating effect on society. Look back at the black community. See how lots of them have absent fathers. See what becomes of a community, a society, when you mess around with the stabilising effect of the family unit? To legislate its undermining is a crime against society.

"Does Dann suppose the blame of the risk lies on the gay couples for having a family or those who seek to harm the family? "

The blame lies squarely with the gay couple. They are acquiring something that nature has declared off-limits to them - children. They should accept their fate nobly. They cannot procreate - thats just part of the territory of being gay. By circumventing it through adoption, they are leaving a child open to the most heinous abuses at the hands of classmates etc. and abuses suffered during these most formative years will affect and stick with a child their whole life through. They should be courageous and accept the fact that two people of the same sex cannot procreate, and they should accept it with grace.

"The argument has been made by my opponent that a major reason why gay marriage should stay illegal is that more harm to them and society as a whole will come if gays are afforded the same rights. Dann then says it can be argued that these negative effects have happened to the Black community and yet believes that they should have received their rights (among them marrying who they'd like). What justification then is there for denying these rights to gays?"

Gays have civil unions. No one is denying them the right to be contract-bound to each other.
And really, stop likening gays to blacks.

"Here I was positing that Dann was arguing that there is less discrimination (his actual argument, which he didn't seem to understand he was making) but concluding that there is no discrimination. This was to point out his logic fallacy in coming to a false conclusion based on incomplete data; I was not making my own fallacy."

Sure

"This is bias and prejudice. Not an argument in favor of your position."

That was clearly a joke. You're a bit sensitive. Perhaps you too might be a...

Before you jump on that, that too was a joke.

Word to voters. Cast your minds down the line. Do we ever reach the politically correct vision of utopia, where everyone is equal, we're all colourblind, we all lack prejudice, we have lost our ability to be discriminating and to judge? Or does societal homeostasis always kick in and redress the imbalance in different ways?

Is gay marriage a step in the right direction for society or is this notion of equality just plainly ludicrous? Does multiculturalism work? Can different faiths share the same house of prayer? Will differences always tell and will they always influence society?

Will humanity overcome its inbuilt protection and fear circuitry that evolution has instilled in us? Is it not the same circuitry we see at play in the failure of multiculturalism or in the hatred between races, nations, faiths, cities, rival sports teams, rival schools, rival families, sibling rivalry? Can you really legislate people's attitudes? Can you really legislate people into internally and unconditionally viewing everyone and everything with equanimity? Would the world not be bland and uninteresting if that were the case and its inhabitants vacant, Stepford-like, zombie-like?

I see where the pro-marriage lot are coming from - but only up to a point.I think they haven't thought through the long-term societal consequences, they're just jumping on the equality bandwagon while it still has motion and while its still a free ride.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
No problem, however, I'm no stranger to the LGBT community - not by a long chalk. I have absolutely nothing against them personally and, to be honest with you, my position on should they be allowed to marry is firmly in the 'have no interest whatsoever' camp. In fact, I happen to believe that marriage itself is a shambles.

I never refuted your point because you seemed to (perhaps wilfully) misappropriate the entire point I was making, or you didn't understand it. My basketball analogy? I was using that to highlight the illegitimacy of the comparisons and 'logical traps' you used in you previous comment.

But anyway, thanks for an interesting debate.
Posted by Faraday 3 years ago
Faraday
You clearly can't seem to argue that, as you didn't even try.

No less, congratulations on the win.

Outside of this debate I do hope you reconsider your position. Maybe look at LGBT friendly websites and more importantly meet LGBT people and get to know them. Fear comes from the unknown and your extreme paranoia about the motivations of the LGBT movement as well as your negative characterization of LGBT people tells me you don't know much about them. This may fall on deaf ears but I felt I had to say it anyway.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
Nah, you missed the point. Again.

Thankfully the voters didn't.
Posted by Faraday 3 years ago
Faraday
This is how the analogy you drew would work when I rework it with your current logic (they won't be perfect since I wasn't given a lot to work with but they will be sound):

Basketball players on Team A are allowed to, and are proceeding to, make points. Team B is not as many people believe Team B will ruin things for Team A and all those like Team A. This makes Team B angry as they think they should be allowed to make points as well. Eventually new rules are introduced that allows Team B to make points as well. Sure, this will create tension and some people will take it to the extreme with bitter rivalries but most people agree that, overall, this is best for progressing the game and the rivalry is worth the outcome. According to your logic, this was fair and correct thing to do despite the divisiveness.

In 9-ball Player A is allowed to knock the balls into the pockets, eventually getting the 9 ball and winning. Player B is not as many people believe Player B will ruin it for Player A and all others like Player A. This makes Player B angry as he/she thinks he/she should be allowed to hit balls as well. Player B wants new rulles to be introduced that allows he/she to hit balls as well. Sure, this may create tension and some people will take it to the extreme with bitter rivalries but most people agree that, overall, this is best for progressing the game and the rivalry is worth the outcome. According to your logic, the change in rules shouldn't happen. Your reasoning is that the divisiveness is reason enough not to change the rules. So why does that not apply to basketball?

You say there are difference between basketball and billiards but the differences you point out are red herrings. Either treat both sports the same way or you're contradicting your own point. Especially considering you argued that basketball matters way more and the fallout could be, and might very well have been, worse. Why, then, support the rule change in basketball and not 9-Ball?
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
Your whole comment misses the point. Point being, that I don't equivocate the two in ANY regard. They are, to my mind, wholly distinct subjects so asking questions like you are asking is moot.

If you believe that dunking the basketball is the best way to score points in basketball, then how can you possibly deny that picking up the 9ball, in a game of 9ball, and just dunking it right into the pocket isn't the best way to score points in that game?

That's how different the two situations are.
Posted by Faraday 3 years ago
Faraday
I know you won't go back so here is the point one more time:

-If blacks did had it worse and were discriminated against worse and the issue of civil rights was more divisive, and your argument was that the divisiveness is why gay marriage rights shouldn't be allowed, then why do you support civil rights as you stated?

-If race relations have got better for blacks over time due to the passing of civil rights, even though it was more divisive, then what reason would you have to argue that sexual orientation relations wouldn't get better as well? If things got worse for blacks after civil rights, and that worsening was a reason to deny gay rights, then why support civil rights?

You're in a logical corner. You hold two standards for two issues about discrimination. Your ranting about race issues being far worse simply work against your *own* arguments against gay rights.

I wonder if you don't want this comparison to be valid because it's the last levee before the water comes rushing through and you actually have to.... change your mind. What a concept.
Posted by Faraday 3 years ago
Faraday
It did not form the foundations of my argument. You keep misunderstanding the point I made. I would ask you to look back and read it again but you had a hard enough time doing that to check one word I doubt it'll work with this.

Your reasoning was not logically valid. I'm not going to debate you in the comments on that. I'll just point out that you had a hard time understanding the point.

ComparisonX00;equating. It's you who broke Moore's "law" not me. Again, you missed the point.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
I misspelled adjudge. There. Lets put that one to bed. I was wrong.

You said you wouldn't engage me on those things? How could that be the case when it formed the foundations of your argument? I asked you many times to discontinue the false analogy. I didn't give any logically valid reason as to why the comparison was flawed? Am I going to have to quote myself - again?!?! Perhaps you should go back and read. The logically valid reasons why they aren't analogous should appear in 2 rounds of mine.

I do know what you are saying about it - it's the same cheap thinking that tries to liken any form of discrimination to the 'big one' - racism.

It's no better than every conversation eventually descending into a comparison with nazism.

I just believe that argument for gay rights can stand or fall on its own merits and that you are doing both causes a disservice by trying to demonstrate equivalence in certain regards.
Posted by Faraday 3 years ago
Faraday
First Dann, you want to admit you wrong wrong about the "ajudge" thing since you misspelled it?

I didn't take every opportunity. In fact I said I wouldn't engage you on those things and didn't in many instances. I did in others and that was a mistake. I allowed you to derail me a bit. I haven't debated in a while and will try harder in the future to keep that from happening. To be clear, we are talking about who had it worse not the logical comparison I was trying to make.

You missed the point of my comparison throughout the debate. That the logic you applied to one must necessarily apply to the other. You didn't give any logically valid reason as to why you felt the comparison was flawed in that since aspect I was comparing. I was trying to show that either the logic you used to justify denying gay rights was wrong or that you were contradicting yourself. You didn't understand that nor do you seem to understand what me and DudeWithoutTheE are talking about.

I made it clear that I don't believe that blacks and gays have it exactly the same. Either you forgot (which you are welcome to go back and read), are mistaken (ditto) or you are lying. With some of the twists you've been doing as well as issues you failed to continue once backed into a corner (adjudge and "ajudge") I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. And don't worry, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm only implying that you might be, so don't be so sensitive.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
If you believed it wasn't pertinent to the debate, why did you take every single opportunity available to you to draw comparisons?

There was not a round that went by, barely a paragraph that went by, where you didn't mention similarities between gays and blacks.

I begged you on a few occasions to stop until finally I gave in and accepted the fact, in the last round, that it was a plea in vain. And so I carried the comparison on your grounds.

You made it what the debate was really all about. It could have been entitled 'Gays and Blacks Have the exact same experiences in life' or 'there is no difference between being gay and being black'
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by teddy2013 3 years ago
teddy2013
FaradayDannTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons argument that this does not compare to race discrimination is an excellent point.
Vote Placed by Gondun 3 years ago
Gondun
FaradayDannTied
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: Ok, I'll go right down the list here. Con gets conduct because Pro pretty much used his round two to say that your arguments aren't good enough, so I won't respond. Con gets arguments because I was more swayed by his contentions. Also, Pro kept claiming that Con had the BoP, but gave no justification. While Pro did have the only sources, I believe that he misused them. He claimed that most people in this country support gay marriage, but his sources say 50% and 48% support it, depending on which source you look at.
Vote Placed by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
FaradayDannTied
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: Conduct to Pro because Con kept posting despite the courtesy to keep rounds even. S&G tied -- good on both sides. Arguments to Con because Pro just attacked Con's points but did not bring up own. Sources to pro -- con did not cite any.