The Instigator
Defro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

Homosexual Marriage (Pokemon Challenge)

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 5 votes the winner is...
Fanath
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/29/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,341 times Debate No: 53597
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Defro

Con



http://www.debate.org...


This is the official DDO pokemon challenge. Once upon a time a new Debater woke here. Debates in this world are unlike any other. Depending on which pokemon you have with you, your debate skills are improved. The debater went to get his first pokemon and was beyond excited. After choosing charmander as his start pokemon he left Pewter to become the greatest ever. He decided to head to Pewter City First.


On the road there he had to choose between two paths:

-He would have to fight Action.
-He would have to fight Defro.

The adventurer decided to take on Defro.
=================================================================================



=================================================================================

This will be extremely hard for me, because I am normally completely for homosexuality. I'm doing this for the sake of playing devil's advocate to improve my own skills and allow Fanath a bigger chance of succeeding so that he can move on the the badge holders.

The resolution: There should not be Homosexual Marriage.

-I, Defro, will take the position of Con, whereas the brave new adventurer, Fanath, will take the position of Pro, as agreed upon in a private PM.

-Burden of proof is on me.

1st round: Acceptance only (nothing else)
2nd round: Arguments/Rebuttals
3rd round: Arguments/Rebuttals
4th round: Arguments/Rebuttals
5th round: Concluding Statements (no arguments or rebuttals)

*Failure to follow this structure will result in an automatic loss.
Fanath

Pro

I accept
Debate Round No. 1
Defro

Con

*Disclaimer: I have realized that BOT is not entirely on me. Both sides have an equal share of BOT, therefore BOT is also on Pro, unless Pro proves otherwise.

__________________________________________________________________________________


Marriage (noun): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

https://www.google.com...


-The above definition is the definition used by the world for thousands of years, ever since the concept of marriage was introduced. That is the common definition used by every dictionary.

-By definition, a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Although recently, some dictionaries have altered the definition of the term "marriage" so that it allows those of the same gender to marry, it has not been completely incorporated into the world yet and it shouldn't be incorporated into the world.

-Throughout history in many cases, marriage has been a sacred and spiritual event. [1] Some of these spiritual marriages were religious and others were not. Regardless of whether or not they were religious or not, changing the definition of marriage or having two people of the same gender marry each other would be disrespectful. It would be equivilent to altering Buddhist scriptures or deliberately altering the stories in the Bible.


*Therefore, there should be no homosexual marriages, unless the definition of "marriage" is completely altered, which I have established that it shouldn't. Two homosexual individuals are free to have a relationship, participate in sexual acts, and even live together and have children, but they cannot marry. They are even free to have their own ritual in which they are spiritually bonded, but it cannot be called marriage. They should come up with their own term for bonding two of the same gender.



Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...




Fanath

Pro

Thanks for your arguments Con.

"Disclaimer: I have realized that BOT is not entirely on me. Both sides have an equal share of BOT, therefore BOT is also on Pro, unless Pro proves otherwise"

I accept that the burden of proof is shared.

I would like to thank Pro for accepting. I will analyze Pro"s arguments before I give mine. I might try to keep it bride this round then explain my arguments etc better next one.

"Marriage (noun): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"

https://www.google.com......

"The above definition is the definition used by the world for thousands of years, ever since the concept of marriage was introduced. That is the common definition used by every dictionary"

-By definition, a marriage must be between a man and a woman. Although recently, some dictionaries have altered the definition of the term "marriage" so that it allows those of the same gender to marry, it has not been completely incorporated into the world yet and it shouldn't be incorporated into the world"

Con also contradicts himself right away here. He starts off by saying that marriage is defined as the formal union of a man and a woman in every dictionary, yet later admits that some do not exclude homosexuals in their definition.

Let's take a closer look at Con's source:

"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.

the state of being married"

Excluding the synonyms and antonyms, we can clearly see that the definition even shows that homosexual marriage is allowed in some states, which is true. Even the definition Con used has "altered" the definition of marriage, presumably so that it would be more fitting.

Even Con's source has "altered" our definiition of marriage.

"Throughout history in many cases, marriage has been a sacred and spiritual event. [1] Some of these spiritual marriages were religious and others were not. Regardless of whether or not they were religious or not, changing the definition of marriage or having two people of the same gender marry each other would be disrespectful. It would be equivilent to altering Buddhist scriptures or deliberately altering the stories in the Bible"

Marriage can be religious, but it isn't like it's requires. It would show that the religious people are in fact being disrespectful if they feel the need to steal gay people's rights in order to pretend something that isn't at all religious is. It's the equivalent of forcing your religion onto one.

It's not altering the texts of a bible if you choose not to follow it. We don't force everybody to pray at their meals for example, and that isn't disrespectful.

The whole argument is pretty much debunked by the law of seperation of church and state.

*Therefore, there should be no homosexual marriages, unless the definition of "marriage" is completely altered, which I have established that it shouldn't. Two homosexual individuals are free to have a relationship, participate in sexual acts, and even live together and have children, but they cannot marry. They are even free to have their own ritual in which they are spiritually bonded, but it cannot be called marriage. They should come up with their own term for bonding two of the same gender"

These phrases sort of stand out to me. For example:

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

If Con says they are free to not follow the bible, but it is disrespectful not to then that is an obvious contradiction.

My arguments:

1. Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. It is a fundamental, basic human right. If it's ok for heterosexuals, why not gays?

2. Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.

Gays are not allowed to have many of the benefits from marriage when un married, such as: The hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.

3. There are no convincing arguments against gay marriage, while there are good ones for them.

Thanks.

[1] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Defro

Con


Counter-Rebuttals:


"I would like to thank Pro for accepting. I will analyze Pro"s arguments before I give mine. I might try to keep it bride this round then explain my arguments etc better next one."

-lol Pro is clearly confused if he is thanking himself for accepting and that he will analyze his own arguments before giving his own arguments. That's alright, I understand that Pro may have gotten "Pro" and "Con" switched. I've had it happen to me once too. But I'm not sure what keeping it "bride" means?


"Con also contradicts himself right away here. He starts off by saying that marriage is defined as the formal union of a man and a woman in every dictionary, yet later admits that some do not exclude homosexuals in their definition."

-Pro is putting words into my mouth. I said that the definition of marriage requiring a man and a woman has been used in every dictionary for thousands of years. I specifically mentioned that after thousands of years, only recently have they begun to change it, as to not contradict myself. The keywords are: "for thousands of years", and "recently". I did not contradict myself.


"Excluding the synonyms and antonyms, we can clearly see that the definition even shows that homosexual marriage is allowed in some states, which is true. Even the definition Con used has "altered" the definition of marriage, presumably so that it would be more fitting."

-Pro has violated conduct. He is making things up. That last bit was not part of my source at all. No where in my provided source did it mention that in some jurisdictions it can be a formal union between partners of the same sex. Pro has deliberately used another source and claimed it as my source to disprove my argument. This is lying and therefore a violation of conduct. To prove it, I will provide a screenshot of the source myself.




"It would show that the religious people are in fact being disrespectful if they feel the need to steal gay people's rights in order to pretend something that isn't at all religious is."

-They are not stealing gay people's rights. As established, by definition, gay people did not have the right to marry in the first place. Just like by definition, we do not have the right to turn into pigs, because we can't turn into pigs in the first place.


"We don't force everybody to pray at their meals for example, and that isn't disrespectful."

-This is a bad analogy and unfortunately for Pro, this analogy supports my stance more so than it supports Pro's. When people pray at a meal and you choose not to, you are not opposing their beliefs, but simply abstaining from them. However, gay marriage is not abstaining form religious views. The concept of gay marriage strictly opposes them. An example of abstaining from them would be not getting married or calling your bond with your gay partner something else instead of marriage.

-A proper analogy would be that gay marriage is praying with those who are praying at a meal, but saying the wrong prayers and opposing the prayers of everyone else at the dinner table.


"The whole argument is pretty much debunked by the law of seperation of church and state."

-No it's not. How is it debunked when it has nothing to do with the segregation of church and state? It's about the definition. This claim is not backed up.


"If Con says they are free to not follow the bible, but it is disrespectful not to then that is an obvious contradiction."

-This another unsupported claim and Pro is putting words in my mouth again. I've never said that it is disrespectful not to follow the Bible. I said that it is disrespectful to alter the Bible's intentions and definitions. My Grandma believes in a Chinese-Buddhist religion. Every 2 months or so, there would be a day where she cannot eat meat according to her religion. We call this "Chi Zai". It would not be disrespectful for a Non-Chinese-Buddhist to eat meat on those days, but it would be extremely disrespectful if a Non-Chinese-Buddhist ate meat on those days and called it "Chi Zai".



Rebuttals:


"Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples."

-Yes they should. I completely agree with you. But by definition, they can't call it "marriage".


"It is a fundamental, basic human right."

-It's actually not. There are 30 basic human rights and I had to memorize them all for Model United Nations. Within the list of 30 basic human rights, the right to marry is not one of them. [1] Pro has made another false and unsupported claim.


"If it's ok for heterosexuals, why not gays?"

-It's completely fine for gays to bond and form a union like a marriage, but again, by definition, they can't call it marriage.


"Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples."

-Yes they should. And they can still access these benefits and joys by calling their union something other than "marriage".


"Gays are not allowed to have many of the benefits from marriage when un married, such as: The hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending."

-Exactly! And that is because many people don't like the idea of a gay relationship being called a "marriage". Say the world adopted a new word for "gay marriage". Say they called it a "Garriage". No one can be justifiably insulted and the Government would enforce new policies for garriages and make it an official thing so that they have the same rights as marriages and also get those benefits you mentioned.


"There are no convincing arguments against gay marriage, while there are good ones for them."

-Yes there are. I just made them. This is yet another unsupported claim. All your arguments so far support my stance.



Addendum:

So far:
-Pro has not met his BOT.
-Pro lied by producing his own source and claiming it as mine.
-Pro made several false and unsupported claims, which I even addressed.
-I addressed all of Pro's rebuttals.
-Pro's arguments support my stance.



Sources:

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

Fanath

Pro

Well done.

I'll go over his accusation that I made something up first.

"Pro has violated conduct. He is making things up. That last bit was not part of my source at all. No where in my provided source did it mention that in some jurisdictions it can be a formal union between partners of the same sex. Pro has deliberately used another source and claimed it as my source to disprove my argument. This is lying and therefore a violation of conduct. To prove it, I will provide a screenshot of the source myself"

I am not in fact making this up. Take a glance at the screen shot provided by Con. At the bottom of the picture, you should see a large, light gray arrow. By clicking on that arrow, we receive more information on the definition of marriage. I don't actually know how to put screenshots on DDO but it's there once you click on the light gray arrow.

As we can clearly see, Con has *falsely accused* me. His claim that he deserves conduct is obviously rebutted at this point, voters may consider reversing the automatic conduct point due to the false accusation.

Rebuttals:

I didn't copy paste all of his quotes because most of them say the same thing. Not that that's a bad thing he did. I don't see the need to put the same rebuttal for all of his posts though when I can just say it for one. Anyway:

"This is a bad analogy and unfortunately for Pro, this analogy supports my stance more so than it supports Pro's. When people pray at a meal and you choose not to, you are not opposing their beliefs, but simply abstaining from them. However, gay marriage is not abstaining form religious views. The concept of gay marriage strictly opposes them. An example of abstaining from them would be not getting married or calling your bond with your gay partner something else instead of marriage"

You don't have to be a fundamentalist in order to follow the bible... Yet again, it's not like it's a bad thing to oppose religious views. It doesn't directly affect the religious communities lives. They can co-exist.

"A proper analogy would be that gay marriage is praying with those who are praying at a meal, but saying the wrong prayers and opposing the prayers of everyone else at the dinner table"

This would support my argument, gay people don't directly interfere with others lives by getting married. It's more like a Jewish man trying to pray at his house when a Christian claims he can't.
"It's actually not. There are 30 basic human rights and I had to memorize them all for Model United Nations. Within the list of 30 basic human rights, the right to marry is not one of them. [1] Pro has made another false and unsupported claim"

Con misunderstood again... My stance would support that it's a basic right. The claims would be backed up by the arguments made.

"It's completely fine for gays to bond and form a union like a marriage, but again, by definition, they can't call it marriage"

Marriage laws in both the U.S.A. and in countries across the globe have been *changed/modified many times* in response to our changing culture and standards.

For example, women used to be the property of their husbands, [1] different races such as blacks and whites could not legally marry each other, [2] and some countries even took away the right to choose who you marry... [3]

Removing discrimination from the institution of marriage is not redefining it but making it more accessible and fair to others. It's been changed countless times and can be changed again.

"Exactly! And that is because many people don't like the idea of a gay relationship being called a "marriage". Say the world adopted a new word for "gay marriage". Say they called it a "Garriage". No one can be justifiably insulted and the Government would enforce new policies for garriages and make it an official thing so that they have the same rights as marriages and also get those benefits you mentioned"

"Yet there are. I just made them. This is yet another unsupported claim. All your arguments so far support my stance"

I've already said that I would explain them better in the next round, it's more like the title of the argument rather than the actual contention. None of. My arguments support his stance.

Thanks.

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

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.pbs.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Defro

Con

Counter-Rebuttal:

"I am not in fact making this up. Take a glance at the screen shot provided by Con. At the bottom of the picture, you should see a large, light gray arrow. By clicking on that arrow, we receive more information on the definition of marriage. I don't actually know how to put screenshots on DDO but it's there once you click on the light gray arrow."

-It seems to me that this was a huge misunderstanding. I don't know why, but on both my computer and my laptop, when I open the link and click on the grey arrow, it doesn't say what Pro claimed it says. Here's a screenshot of the definition with the grey arrow clicked.

-However, I tried this at a friend's computer and it did have that last bit that Pro talked about. I have no explanation of why this is or how this works. But I acknowledge that Pro has not lied and withdraw charges of conduct violation. I apologize. However, this is not my fault, as what I see on my screen does not have it so I didn't know.

-Nevertheless, the definition I provided did not include that last bit, so Pro must comply to that part only.


"Con has *falsely accused* me. His claim that he deserves conduct is obviously rebutted at this point, voters may consider reversing the automatic conduct point due to the false accusation."

-I acknowledge the validity of your claim. But I honestly didn't know about that second part as it doesn't even appear on my google search. I did not falsely accused you. It was a misunderstanding.


"Yet again, it's not like it's a bad thing to oppose religious views. It doesn't directly affect the religious communities lives. They can co-exist."

-In this case it is certainly a bad thing to be disrespectful towards religious views. And it does directly affect their religious communigy. It defies the very definition of a sacred ritual they hold.

-They can co-exist, but they must be labeled and called different names, or else it would be disrespectful. Islam and Christianity co-exist and are very similar, but they each call their god different names. Christianity calls their god "God" and Islam calls him "Allah". It would be disrespectful for one to refer to Christianity's god as "Allah" and vice-versa.


"This would support my argument, gay people don't directly interfere with others lives by getting married. It's more like a Jewish man trying to pray at his house when a Christian claims he can't."

-But Christians don't claim he can't. The Jewish man is free to pray at his house. But if the Jewish were eating with Christians and they make prayer before their meal, it would be disrespectful for the Jewish man to interupt their prayer with his own Jewish prayer.


"My stance would support that it's a basic right."

-Very well. Pro has yet to meet his BOP as to how this is a "basic right".


"Marriage laws in both the U.S.A. and in countries across the globe have been *changed/modified many times* in response to our changing culture and standards."

-Exactly! But they haven't completely been changed or modified yet to fit homosexual marriages! Therefore, as of now, there can be no homosexual marriages.


"I've already said that I would explain them better in the next round, it's more like the title of the argument rather than the actual contention. None of. My arguments support his stance."

-I look forward to Pro's response :D


Fanath

Pro

Nicely done Con. :)

"Nevertheless, the definition I provided did not include that last bit, so Pro must comply to that part only"

Not sure why this is an argument... It's literally a fact that on some jurisdictions homosexual marriage is allowed. We can't agree to ignore that fact. Also, you put the definition in the second round, which means I hadn't yet agreed to it yet. I had the right to point that out.

"I acknowledge the validity of your claim. But I honestly didn't know about that second part as it doesn't even appear on my google search. I did not falsely accused you. It was a misunderstanding"

It was a misunderstanding that we can forget about, but the original accusation made was proved wrong making it a false accusation.

"In this case it is certainly a bad thing to be disrespectful towards religious views. And it does directly affect their religious community. It defies the very definition of a sacred ritual they hold"

Like I had said before, the definition has been changed and modified many times. No one is obligated to follow another persons religion. The second amendment even says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [1]

Religion can have *nothing* to do with law. If your reasoning is because it isn't respectful to religion then it is directly rebutted by the law. The religious are free to keep having traditional marriage, but not everyone is obligated to do so as well.

"They can co-exist, but they must be labeled and called different names, or else it would be disrespectful. Islam and Christianity co-exist and are very similar, but they each call their god different names. Christianity calls their god "God" and Islam calls him "Allah". It would be disrespectful for one to refer to Christianity's god as "Allah" and vice-versa"

The definition can be changed to include more groups of people:

There's different forms of religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) just like there's different forms of marriage, (Multiracial, homosexual, heterosexual etc) We can just make it a broad term then put specifics in each term. It's fine to use a broad term to include everything then put specifics in when needed.

"But Christians don't claim he can't. The Jewish man is free to pray at his house. But if the Jewish were eating with Christians and they make prayer before their meal, it would be disrespectful for the Jewish man to interupt their prayer with his own Jewish prayer"

Yet again, this is support for me. The Jewish man (gay person) is trying to pray (get married) and the Christians (People against gay marriage) are telling him he can't. If the Jewish man is free to keep it with himself, and not disrupting the Christians, then it's fine.

My arguments about how gay people should be given the same benefits still stand:

Con has even admitted that they should get the same benefits. He went on to say that it should be called a different name though, and I've shown why we don't have to do that.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
Defro

Con





Rebuttals:



"It was a misunderstanding that we can forget about, but the original accusation made was proved wrong making it a false accusation."

-You're right.


"Like I had said before, the definition has been changed and modified many times."

-Yes. That has been established since my round 1 arguments. Definitions of terms change over time. But as of now, the main definition still specifies that it must be between man and woman.


"The second amendment even says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion""

-The second amendment is irrelevant. It accounts for only one nation. This is not primarily about religion, it's mostly about semantics. The amendments do not cover this issue of the definition of terms.


"Religion can have *nothing* to do with law."

-And law has close to nothing to do with the dictionary. But it wouldn't be right for me to call a "cat" a "dog" would it?


"If your reasoning is because it isn't respectful to religion"

-Religion is only an example. My reasoning is that the definition of "marriage" clarifies that it is between a man and womn.


"But not everyone is obligated to do so as well."

-I'm pretty sure everyone is obligated to follow the definitions of the words they speak; otherwise, the world would be in disorder and confusion as to what everyone is saying.


"The definition can be changed to include more groups of people"

-Yes, it can. I've stated that in round 1. But it hasn't been completely changed yet. So as of now, we must follow the proper definition until it is completely changed.


"Con has even admitted that they should get the same benefits. He went on to say that it should be called a different name though, and I've shown why we don't have to do that."

-This topic for this debate was inspired by one of the Model United Nations conferences I participated in. In my committee, the topic was "Homosexual Marriage". I was the delegate for Canada, so I was arguing Pro homosexual marriage. And there was a bunch of other delegates who represented countries in which they must argue Con homosexual marriage. They used semantics to argue. They argued that the definition specifically states that marriage must be between man and woman. Then they argued how homosexual couples will still get the same benefits and be equal to straight couples, but they cannot call their relationships a "marriage". I thought that this was absurd and stupid. I argued that if they cannot call their relationships a "marriage" then they certainly are not equal and do not share the same benefits as straight couples. The principles of America state that all men are equal. Yet there was a period of time when blacks and whites had to go to different schools and use different restrooms. And while it was claimed that both blacks and whites had the same benefits despite the fact that they were isolated, they really didn't. The claim "Homosexuals cannot call their relationships "marriages" but still get the same benefits as straight marriages" contradicts itself. I pointed this out and together with my allied delegates, we formed a resolution that included completely changing the definition of the term "marriage" worldwide. My partner and I won an award that day, and I was very proud.

I instigated this debate, trying to replicate and imitate the absurdity of my contenders in MUN. I told to myself that if my opponent made at least one statement similar to mine, I would forfeit the debate to him. I tried to throw him off by bringing up religion. This statement above was what I was looking for.

Without further a due, I concede my loss and present the winner of this debate and the first ever trainer to be eligible to challenge the badge holders, Fanath. I was very pleased with his arguments and how he was a good sport and polite, despite how rude I was too him, calling him a liar. Good luck on your journey to the top! Voters vote for Pro!


*In the game Pokemon, sometimes if you defeat an opponent, they will give you a useful item. I give Fanath an Antidote: In any debate, he can call on me and I will give him two free points, provided with a valid RFD so that mods can't get me in trouble.

Fanath

Pro

I graciously accept my opponents concession. Thanks for the debate Con, I enjoyed it.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Fanath 3 years ago
Fanath
I thought the picture was pretty funny.
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Yeah. I fixed it.
Posted by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
its showing on my computer. nice
Posted by Defro 3 years ago
Defro
Damn it! Why won't the picture show???
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
DefroFanath
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: con concedes. Fanath had this in the bag.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DefroFanath
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Much as I am for homosexual marriage, I've seen reasonable arguments against it that don't focus on the definition or religious conviction, might be worth looking into.
Vote Placed by Dennybug 3 years ago
Dennybug
DefroFanath
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: con conceded!
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
DefroFanath
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
DefroFanath
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.