The Instigator
mikaelthemycologist
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Homosexual marriage

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...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,807 times Debate No: 5459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (10)

 

mikaelthemycologist

Pro

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen, today I will share with you and my opponent the reasons why I believe homosexual marriage (and all homosexual rights alike) should be allowed. My opponent brian_eggleston , is a good debater whom I respect.
Now Ladies and Gentlemen, I will begin debating.

1. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexual (straight) Men and women. As the 9th amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
So basically although the rights are not stated in the constitution, they still exist, that also means that all traditional rights exist, such as ones stated in the beginning of the Deceleration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
As the declaration states "All men are created equal" so Homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else.

But, Ladies and Gentleman, I am aware of a flaw in that argument. When they wrote that section of the Deceleration of Independence, they stated "all men are created equal". Some believe that the meant only European white men. I will not make a comeback to that belief as I do not know that it wasn't meant that way.

2. Section I of the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, basically all U.S. citizens including homosexuals are protected by the same laws as other U.S. citizens. Those laws would include marriage laws

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen.

My sources:
http://www.ushistory.org...
http://www.law.cornell.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
brian_eggleston

Con

With sincere apologies for the delay in responding to this debate and with many thanks to my opponent for kindly inviting me to participate, I should like to respond as follows:

1 – The "rights" my opponent referred to are not, as he has conceded, defined in the 9th Amendment, so they therefore need to be defined by legislation. There is no Federal consensus that having a wedding ceremony officially recognised is a "right", either for straight or homosexual people.

2 – As a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, each State is entitled to refuse to recognise same-sex "marriages". This bill has not been found to be unconstitutional, and, therefore, homosexuals have no legal entitlement to nationwide recognition of their "marriage". (1)

In addition to the legal points, there are also moral questions surrounding same-sex "marriages".

Now, whilst I abhor discrimination and bigotry with a passion, I do not believe that preserving the fundamental concept of marriage as being the legally recognised union of a man and a woman amounts to homophobia. Furthermore, opposition to gay "marriages" cannot be condemned as one of the totems conservative Christians – all major religions worldwide have a tradition of marriage and all of them exclusively between men and women. (2)

In certain traditions however, men are allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls or close relatives. Would people from these belief systems be entitled to have their "marriages" legally recognised in the US? If homosexual "marriages" are to receive official recognition, the United Sates must by the same token extend the same "right" to first cousins and paedophiles who wish to have their "wedding ceremonies" legally recognised.

For these reasons I would submit that homosexual couples have no legal or moral right to have their "marriages" officially recognised.

(1) http://www.allacademic.com...

(2) http://www.topics-mag.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mikaelthemycologist

Pro

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge. He is actually the seventh person that I have challenged.

1.He said: "The "rights" my opponent referred to are not, as he has conceded, defined in the 9th Amendment, so they therefore need to be defined by legislation. There is no Federal consensus that having a wedding ceremony officially recognised is a "right", either for straight or homosexual people."

First, let me dispute my opponents interpretation of the Ninth Amendment independent of the topic. Legislation is not required for interpretation of the Ninth Amendment. The constitution is above legislation, not subject to it.

A wedding ceremony is not required for a marriage. It is only a public declaration. Even in the Catholic Church, the priest blesses the marriage, but the sacrament is between the couple and God. A common law marriage is valid, and requires cohabitation.

The United States has a long history of discrimination, anti-miscegenation laws prohibited marriage and sexual relationships between Whites, and other races. Many religious conservatives supported these laws. One silly argument said that God placed Blacks and Whites on different continents and thus it was God's intention for them never to marry. Other arguments were based on racist interpretations of the Bible.

In 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional. Isn't banning gay marriage just more discrimination?

2. The existence of anti-miscegenation laws for three hundred years does not prove that they were right, it only proves the depth of discrimination present in America. Preventing marriage of homosexuals is very similar.

3. My opponent said: "In certain traditions however, men are allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls or close relatives. Would people from these belief systems be entitled to have their "marriages" legally recognised in the US? If homosexual "marriages" are to receive official recognition, the United Sates must by the same token extend the same "right" to first cousins and paedophiles who wish to have their "wedding ceremonies" legally recognised."

Marriage is a legal contract. In the U.S. you must be an adult to enter into a legally binding contract, thus the above argument is invalid.

When close relatives reproduce, it causes high rate of genetic defects, thus it is bad the offspring and bad for society. If homosexuals marry, no one suffers.

4. To a Homosexual man, marrying a woman, is probably as distasteful to them as is is for a heterosexual man marrying a man. But that is what opponents to gay marriage support. Many homosexuals in heterosexual marriages go out and have sexual relationship with other men, and then bring diseases home to there wives.This is does not help any one. Further homosexuality is likely to be genetic. Forcing them into heterosexual relationships increases prevalence of this condition.

Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen.

My sources:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.narth.com...
brian_eggleston

Con

With many thanks to "I-am-a-panda" for his considered and informed response, I would like to reply to his comments as follows:

China's record on human rights and freedom of expression has been rightly criticised in the past. However, these days, Chinese citizens are free to practice religion and express their views, within certain parameters. However, these parameters are a lot less draconian than those found in sub-Saharan Africa.

An invasion without the sanction of the UN would be controversial, I agree, but it wouldn't be unprecedented – the US and the UK invaded Iraq without any resolution from the UN.

With regard to a second cold war, given the economic dire straits America and Europe are currently in and their pre-existing military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the growing tensions between the West and Iran and Russia, it is highly questionable that developed nations would have the resources or inclination to ratchet up the pressure on China to withdraw from Africa – particularly if they could see tangible benefits accruing to the native populations.

I relation to my opponent's point about rebels, rather than the national governments, controlling the natural resources: I concur this is often the case. However, I disagree that these bandits have anyone's best interest other than their own at heart – it really is all about the money. Yes, China has its own problems with corruption, but when cases are uncovered, the culprits are executed. In Africa, the crooks just pay the government off.

Also, while I accept it is true that there is a divide in prosperity between the wealthy cities and the impoverished rural areas of China, which results in an overall low GDP per capita statistic, this problem is now being seriously addressed.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...

In any case, China is the world's second largest economy, has the world's largest foreign currency and gold reserves and has lent the US and Europe most of the money required to bail out their faltering economies. This is yet another reason why the West wouldn't challenge China's intervention in Africa – China would react by pulling the plug on foreign lending and their economies would go into freefall.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org...

http://www.bloomberg.com...

My opponent's final point about the environment was a valid one, but needs to be put in context. Chinese people produce far lower CO2 emissions than Americans, who with only 5% of the world's population, nevertheless, produce 25% of the world's pollution.

All considered, I believe that the Chinese colonisation of Africa is a long overdue solution to the world's greatest humanitarian problem.

Many thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
mikaelthemycologist

Pro

Thank you for clarifying my argument.

1. Traditionally, an elusive sexual relationship between two people is intrinsic to marriage. We generally hope that this relationship is satisfying to both partners, although this obviously is not a requirement of marriage, and throughout history women have often been chattel, or property. Thus the woman' pleasure was often of little importance. In modern America however women have equal rights to men in marriage.

Rights are not intrinsic, but progressively developed freedoms that members of a society have chosen to mutually afford each other. Thus women, Natives and others are afforded the same rights as white men, which was not true in the country 200 years ago. It is reasonable to extend rights when the society has a whole benefits from them. I have not argued the law, but the right of people to be treated equally under the law, which we have afforded each other by the 14th Amendment. Thus it is reasonable for gays to have the right to marry a person of their choosing.

This would benefit society, as it would encourage stable long term relationships, lower disease prevalence, and avoid stealth marriages as those you have mentioned. Answer this - assuming that you have a daughter, would you like her to marry a man who is a closet gay? How will you feel after he infects her with H.I.V, after he fools around on the side? It is the straight community which would benefit the most by gay marriage.

And that's why, Ladies and Gentlemen, why I believe that homosexual mirage should be allowed.

Thank you.
brian_eggleston

Con

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my opponent for continuing this debate in such an intelligent and reasonable manner, and even though I have already conceded, I think this is a fascinating topic and would like to carry on arguing regardless!

Personally, I believe Americans should be proud to live in a country that is in the vanguard of promoting tolerance of people with alternative sexual preferences. This displays a social and moral maturity that is, sadly, not the norm elsewhere in the world. In most countries in the Middle East, Central and South Asia and Africa, for example, gays face either a lengthy prison sentence or execution if convicted of being a homosexual.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Indeed, even here in England, whereas racism is considered absolutely abhorrent, "gay-bashing" remains socially acceptable. For example, when Manchester United's pretty-boy midfielder Christiano Ronaldo is playing, the opposing fans all sing offensive songs about him such as:

He's queer, he's bent,
His arse is up for rent,
Ronaldo, Ronaldo.

…or:

We want you, we want you,
We want you and your boyfriend too.

http://www.freewebs.com...

Similar racist chants would never be tolerated.

In view of this, I believe my opponent is correct when he contends that rights evolve with public opinion. It may well be that one day in the future, the majority of Americans will take the view that marriage as a tradition or a religious ceremony is so devalued and irrelevant that gay weddings should be permitted. However, currently the majority of Americans do not hold that view and democratic principles dictate that the views of the minority, no matter how just or morally correct, should not take precedence over the wishes of the majority.

My opponent made another salient point when he referred to the problem of closet gays getting married to women, then sneaking off to the public lavatories in order to make the acquaintance of some dirty, fat truck driver or a Catholic priest or the lead singer out of Wham! or whatever. Since that man would not be capable of fully satisfying the sexual needs of his wife she would naturally seek the company of real men on the sly, possibly transmitting AIDS to the heterosexual community in the process. In view of this, I believe there is a case for revisiting the notion that male homosexuality should be permitted at all, but that is for another debate.

In the meantime, I affirm that democratic principles should be upheld and that same-sex marriage must not be permitted in states where the majority of citizens oppose it.

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"And they do. Namely, aside from the Fairness doctrine, they wish to implement other limitations on Republican speech, such as "Net neutrality" laws, laws against media purchases, and higher taxes on such key Republican demographics as rich people. They violate the rights of Liberty and Property, with Republicans and their demographics being the explicit target of those violations."

Excellent most excellent couldn't have said it better.

But as far as sex and human sexuality goes, still a no brainer in my opinion.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"Ya human sexuality, It's friken rocket science. Where to do it, when to do it, how to do it, who to do it with, all so increadibly complicated. Your right, better leave these decisions to the experts."

Exactly, now you're getting it. So much more enjoyable if you take the time to develop at least a little expertise.

"It is neither the goal nor the purpose of democracy, to take rights away from the minority and give them to the majority. "

The explicit purpose of democracy is an omnipotent majority. This has as a logical consequence the violation of minority rights. That is why I hate democracy.

It does not, of course, give them to the majority, you cannot "give" rights, you can either violate them or recognize them, a gift is not a right and a right is not a gift :d.

"
That is like saying, that because the republicans lost the race for the White House, that the Democrats can take rights from the republicans."

And they do. Namely, aside from the Fairness doctrine, they wish to implement other limitations on Republican speech, such as "Net neutrality" laws, laws against media purchases, and higher taxes on such key Republican demographics as rich people. They violate the rights of Liberty and Property, with Republicans and their demographics being the explicit target of those violations.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
sadolite - argument from incredulity, textbook example.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Can anyone say "The fairness Doctrine" That will most certainly shut down the conservative voice.
Posted by mikaelthemycologist 8 years ago
mikaelthemycologist
I completely disagree with brian_elggleston. It is neither the goal nor the purpose of democracy, to take rights away from the minority and give them to the majority. So his last argument was wrong.

That is like saying, that because the republicans lost the race for the White House, that the Democrats can take rights from the republicans.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Ya human sexuality, It's friken rocket science. Where to do it, when to do it, how to do it, who to do it with, all so increadibly complicated. Your right, better leave these decisions to the experts.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"It's over in about 10 minutes 90% of the time and the only decision you have to make is where to stick it or what to stick in it."

And with whom, and why, and what you're going to be thinking about at the time, and what kind of environment you wish to do so in, and how you're going to be positioned, and that's not even beginning to cover the thousands of little foreplay decisions, some of which continue to be decisions throughout the act.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
sadolite - If you make an asinine comment, be prepared to take crap for it. I didn't say the act of sex was complicated (although that could be debated)- I said human sexuality was. The mind is your biggest sex organ. (well, now that I look down, ....eh....) ;-)
People are a product of heredity and environment when it comes to sex. To say it is simple is to be ignorant of others. How many bisexuals have you spoken to about this? How much of the psychological studies have you read? The world is SO not black and white - it is very colorful, and every shade of gray, too. To say otherwise, as in your statement about bisexuality, is closed-minded and foolhardy. Wake up - there is a whole other world outside of your head.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
Why is it that people must attack personally. Oh,I know because to have a different point of view is to be an intellectual dolt. You tell me what is so complicated about sex. It's over in about 10 minutes 90% of the time and the only decision you have to make is where to stick it or what to stick in it. Ya sex is so incredibly complicated, I wounder how they got by before Kinsey's insightful research.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
As opposed to you having a medieval degree of variety?

ALL WHICH IS NOT MISSIONARY IS SINFUL!!!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 ItalianStalian7 8 years ago
ItalianStalian7
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 Metz 8 years ago
Metz
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
mikaelthemycologistbrian_egglestonTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50