The Instigator
Phoenix.Wright
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Iamthejuan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Phoenix.Wright
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,636 times Debate No: 21302
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Today SSM is a major issue in our society that must be addressed. I am of the position that homosexual marriages should be not be legalized whatsoever. My opponent must argue that they should be legalized. The first round is for acceptance and this is an open debate for anyone to take.
Iamthejuan

Con

I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

I mixed up the sides of the Debate I am Con and my opponent is Pro. In my introduction I specified exactly what we will be arguing, I mixed up the Pro and Con part.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The Case against the Legalization of same sex marriages

First and foremost we have to take into consideration what is marriage really is and if it is a right or not. We have to realize that if marriage is not a right in this circumstance then no one is being oppressed, deprived of their rights or discriminated. Marriage involves the state or government and includes benefits. In this debate we will also be arguing over what marriage should fundamentally be (what the law should be) so any established law isn't infallible.



What I am Arguing/Not Arguing:

1. I am arguing that the concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage.

2. I am arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit.

3. For these arguments which I will justify, homosexual marriages shouldn't be legalized.

4. I am NOT arguing whether civil unions are just or not.

5. I am NOT arguing whether SSM should be illegal.

6. I am NOT arguing whether homosexuality is wrong in and of itself.


What is marriage and why is the state involved/interested?

Marriage in today's 21st century is commonly defined as a union between two loving people. This is not the case and where we draw the line though. There are economic and legal benefits to marriage and it is asocial institution which means that it is recognized by the state (or society). We have to ask ourselves the question, Why is the state involved in this relationship?


The answer to this fundamental question pertaining to marriage is because it provides huge benefits to the society. The state is involved in marriage for two main reasons for which one of them my opponent should have no objections to (raising children). Yes, the reason why the institution of marriage even began in the first place is because of procreation and the difficult task of raising children. These two core aspects of marriage are crucial to the advancement of society. Marriage makes obligations legally binding to see to the fulfilment of them and bringing children up in a good environment.

Procreation in particular is the foundation and basis for the existence and strength of society itself, we cannot forget this. It is thus in the society's interest to protect and solidify this union between these relationships which provides a major benefit to society. This is what marriage is.



For these reasons, homosexual marriages should be not be legalized for they ignore and don't comply with the reasons why marriage is institutionalized and don't provide special benefits to society like heterosexual marriages do. It seems impossible to prove that marriage is of equal standing to that of heterosexual marriages. If this was simply an emotional union than the state wouldn't have interest in it. By this same thread of logic any relationship between anybody or anything and any number of people or things could occur.

As Adam Kolansinski states in his article “The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?” [2]

Marriage is not simply about love (love is an important component) but the core of the reason for the institutionalization of marriage is for child rearing and procreation.



Conclusion

Marriage isn't a right for homosexual couples because of a lack of compelling reasons to institutionalize it whereas there are strong reasons to institutionalize heterosexual marriages due to their procreative type. To place homosexual marriages on equal standing with that of heterosexual marriages in ignoring that key benefit.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opponent must address two important questions if he disagrees with my arguments

1.What is Marriage?

2. Why should the state put homosexual marriages on equal standing with that of heterosexual marriages?


The infertility objection

Since infertile couples are unable to procreate, does this phaze the procreation argument? No, because this fails to understand the argument which argues the general case of heterosexual marriages. The entire institution of marriage isn't based on individual couples being unable to procreate, but in principality. In principle, a heterosexual marriage will result in procreation. There is a very strong possibility that a heterosexual marriage will result in children whereas in a homosexual marriage it is impossible.





Sources

The case against “same sex marriage” Margaret A Somerville [1]

http://tech.mit.edu... [2]


Iamthejuan

Con

Ok, so I must admit that it is interesting for me to be debating this topic based purely on the social implications and not on religion or morality. This also means my argument can be alot shorter. I will begin by addressing your two main points.

"homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit"
-Neither does candy; in fact, it rots your teeth and makes children misbehave. but we still make it and sell it."

" The concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage."
-It was Chris Rick who pointed out in his last HBO special that we certainly do not hold marriage in high regards as we once did. Our country makes "reality" shows out of marriage, and our divorce rate is over 50%. And while your argument may have been valid 50 years ago when homosexuality was still completely taboo, the fact is that most people in our country today have accepted that it is here whether we agree with it or not, and that it really does not affect our own lives unless we let it. To say it does not conform with societies interest in marriage is no longer true, because we no longer view homosexuality as taboo for one, and also because as I have pointed out we no longer revere marriage as a covenant between man and woman before God. Although some of us personally do, like myself, it is not for us to force our own beliefs on someone else.

And your understanding of how marriage originated is also incorrect. We have marriage records from early Mesopotamia, so we know it has been around since the times when women and children were like property to men. People did not see the family unit the same as we do; men would take and discard wives at will, and often had very little direct involvement in their children's lives. Marriage was a contract of ownership saying "this woman belongs to me until I decide otherwise". I understand that many religions have incorporated a spiritual aspect into their marriage traditions, but marriage did not begin to create "economic and legal benefits", we added that part in our modern world of tax credits and community property. While I understand that homosexuals can not procreate (and no, I am not arguing that they should be able to adopt), the fact is that the world will not be any worse off if some of them get married so they can have company benefits or share insurance policies, whatever.

Also, your argument is flawed because there are many people who procreate outside of marriage, and also many married people who are unable or chose not to have children. Should people have to be biologically "fit" for bearing children and also sign a contract to produce at least one child before being granted a marriage license? You could make the same argument using the same flawed principle. I see that you try to get around this argument by saying it's a matter of principle, not limitation (if the hetero couple is unable to have kids but would if they could, then they get the sympathy factor). That doesn't really address the point though; it just kind of says "ehhh I'm gonna pretend this doesn't make sense". I understand what you are trying to say, that two homosexuals can't really create the American dream (2 kids, a dog and a white picket fence, etc.), and I agree with you, I am just saying it is not a matter of national concern, and therefore there is no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage.

"The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?"

Polygamy is illegal mostly because it would create many complications and abuses with regards to spouses sharing benefits, insurance and etc. If you want to take on multiple wives, change your religion and support them yourself. Incest is illegal because of the obvious health problems it causes to potential offspring, and also because it usually begins with an adult raping children first; brothers and sisters don't just wake up and decide to have sex one day. There is usually mental trauma there.

Your main point (which I have already addressed) really seems to be:
"Marriage is not simply about love (love is an important component) but the core of the reason for the institutionalization of marriage is for child rearing and procreation"

So people should only get married to have children and it is completely irrelevant whether they love each other and are committed to each other emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.? I think most people would disagree with this regardless of their stance on homosexual marriage.

I believe I have already addresses your two questions, but I want to directly answer your first question, "what is marriage". Since we live in the 21st century, we need a 21st century definition of marriage:

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

not only does Webster's dictionary specifically include same sex marriage, it also makes absolutely no reference to bearing children.

Our country was built upon mans right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government has passed many laws throughout our history that have trampled upon this ideal. We should be fighting against that, not for it...
Debate Round No. 2
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Rebuttals

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opponent's points

1. My opponent compares homosexual marriages to candy. He is saying that though homosexual marriages do not benefit the society, should we not allow candy too because they do not benefit society? He also says that because we do not value marriage as much anymore and accept homosexuals that the concept of marriage doesn't really matter anymore and can apply to homosexuals.

"homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit"
-Neither does candy; in fact, it rots your teeth and makes children misbehave. but we still make it and sell it.
"”

" The concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage."
-It was Chris Rick who pointed out in his last HBO special that we certainly do not hold marriage in high regards as we once did.”



2. My opponent says that my understanding of the origins of marriage are flawed. According to him for which he has provided no sources for his claims, marriage originated to control and subject women. He also says that due to an example he gives of Mesopotamia.

And your understanding of how marriage originated is also incorrect. We have marriage records from early Mesopotamia, so we know it has been around since the times when women and children were like property to men. People did not see the family unit the same as we do; men would take and discard wives at will, and often had very little direct involvement in their children's lives.



3.My opponent says that because people procreate outside of marriage it destroys my argument. He says that many married couples choose not to marry. I have already addressed most of the rest of the first quotation in the infertility objection. He then says that I have no reason to outlaw homosexual marriages.

Also, your argument is flawed because there are many people who procreate outside of marriage, and also many married people who are unable or chose not to have children. Should people have to be biologically "fit" for bearing children and also sign a contract to produce at least one child before being granted a marriage license? You could make the same argument using the same flawed principle.”

I understand what you are trying to say, that two homosexuals can't really create the American dream (2 kids, a dog and a white picket fence, etc.), and I agree with you, I am just saying it is not a matter of national concern, and therefore there is no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Rebuttal to point 1

It seems from this we can agree that my opponent has conceded that homosexual marriages do not benefit the society whatsoever! I'd like to fix up my opponent's analogy which doesn't relate and address my argument at all. Candy is far from comparable to the argument and situation at hand. Nobody recognizes and provides benefits to people who eat candy whereas with marriage they do. Marriages are recognized today and supported with benefits in forms which are both economical and legal. An ancient benefit conjured onto a married couple and is said to predate evidence of it existing is the dowry [1] and bride price [2]. The government and/or ancient civilizations sought to soldify heterosexual unions because marriage provides the environment for which to produce and raise children, the reason for the existence and continuation of society itself. "Recognizing that a fundamental purpose of marriage is to engender respect for the transmission of human life provides a corollary insight"[3].Thus the state's/government's/civilization's interest in marriage is procreation and child rearing. The couple's interest could indeed be love but the state's interest is not that.

My opponent then says that marriage can apply to homosexuals because the value of it has dropped due to high divorce rates etc. I agree that the value of marriage has dropped, but the concept of marriage which I have gave and stated earlier will never fade unless marriage itself is eradicated. I have stated solid reasoning and evidence in the first round, the reason why marriage even exists which is due to state's interest to protect unions which are procreative. The concept of marriage began with this fundamental idea. If a union such as a homosexual union does not conform with the concept of marriage, then it should not be recognized.



Rebuttal to point 2

My opponent doesn't give sufficient justification for his claim that marriage originated to subjugate women.Even if his example of ancient Mesopotamia were true, this doesn't phaze my argument in the least. There is strong evidence to suggest that the fundamental idea pertaining to marriage is a union which is procreative rather than the subjection of women. Yes, as Margaret A. Somerville states:

Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the

cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the

values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of

that life in the basic societal unit, the family.” [3]

Disregarding all the cultural and societal differences such as a patriarchy (as stated in your example), what relates all marriages is the union of pairs which are procreative in type. Homosexual unions disregards this and should not be acknowledged.



Rebuttal to point 3

Regarding procreation outside of marriage, this is very possible but it is mostly due to love and sexual pleasure and is inherently different from marriage. The state doesn't regulate non-marital relationships and friendships because they have no reason to. With marriage we see a number of non romantic obligations involved such as the raising of a family (almost always) and co-operation of spouses. My opponent says many married couples choose not to have children but hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever. A study in Canada on the types of households show most are family households (aka marriage) [4] which supports me.

My opponent then claims at the end of the quote that I have no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage. I have provided reasons for why homosexual marriages should be banned but however, in the beginning of the debate, I said that 5. I am NOT arguing whether SSM should be illegal.” so what my opponent says is irrelevant. I am arguing:

1. I am arguing that the concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage.

2. I am arguing that homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit.

3.For these arguments which I will justify, homosexual marriages shouldn't be legalized.

My opponent then brings in a definition of marriage which is irrelevant because I am also debating on the concept of marriage so any definition/laws are not infallible. I stated this in the very beginning. He also says that homosexual marriage is a right which I have argued there isn't.


Conclusions
My opponent doesn't bring forth any arguments on why homosexual marriages should be legalized whereas I have provided a case for why homosexuality should not be legalized. Verily my opponent is that he is pro on the debate, legalization of SSM so he should have provided reasons to legalize SSM but there has so far been none. He has just given rebuttals which I responded to. I have given reasonings and supporting evidence for my contentions and as such my position stands.

Sources

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

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

Margaret A. Somerville The case against “same sex marriage” [3]

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca...-----> go to canadians in context then ------->households and families [4]

Iamthejuan

Con

Actually ignore my comment, I changed my mind. I'll go on and knock this out.

First of all, if we keep copy and paste quoting each other, then our arguments are going to get progressively and painfully longer. I will simply reply to what you have said, and our readers can simply scroll up if they don't remember (or didn't really read) what I was referencing. I would advise you do the same, but that's up to you.

1. I did not say marriage has no value, I said that our society as a whole does not place the SAME value in it. I personally am a Christian, so I believe in the sanctity of marriage. What I said was to be taken at face value: that a lack of special value does not equal a good reason to prohibit. I also realize that we were both wrong. Homosexual marriage does have value to homosexuals, which are a part of our society, and hence, homosexual marriage does offer special societal value.

2. Marriage records predate reliable recorded history. It originated as a contract, usually arranged between families and to achieve economic goals (two rich families become unGodly wealthy and powerful through the marriage of their offspring). Are you suggesting that we return to this idea of marriage?

http://www2.hu-berlin.de...

This source does note that early governments expressed a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of procreation. Good, I have established for you that the government has a reason to like heterosexual marriage. Congratulations.
This source also notes that early governments encouraged marriage and procreation, but that these same governments also encouraged homosexuality. They encouraged sexual expression period, and furthermore they recognized that people were going to be gay like it or not. Also, I don't think I have to prove that men subjugated women (that is in my source also) because most people know this is true. This is why we had a feminism movement to begin with.

Now we can agree that the government has a vested interest in heterosexual marriages. However, this is irrelevant to the topic of gay marriage because:

1. Legalization/prohibition of homosexual marriages will have 0 effect on population.

and 2. It would be unconstitutional. It is called discrimination. Discrimination is illegal in the workplace because it is unconstitutional. It would be illogical to say that discrimination is not relevant here.

"Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the
cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. That is, it establishes the
values that govern the transmission of human life to the next generation and the nurturing of
that life in the basic societal unit, the family."

Cultural and social values change. They have changed drastically in America just in the past 30 years. Humans have always procreated outside of marriage. They will continue to do so. It would be hard to prove or disprove that the institution of marriage it's-self has had any real impact on the overall population of the earth, but it is a fact that marriage is not necessary for sex, nor does procreation always develop into marriage.

What do you mean the "concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals".

I already quoted Webster's for you, there are Gay marriages happening today, so your theory then is proved false by the facts. Also, you are saying that your concept of marriage is the one everyone has to accept. Furthermore, who's concept of marriage are you using? Marriage is not the same today as it was 200 years ago, and you are trying to use the concept of marriage from 200 years ago to make an argument against homosexual marriage today. Furthermore, my source shows that even the governments that did share your concept of marriage still were far less hostile to homosexuality, (I would guess because even they realized that prohibition only increases rebellion and the occurrence of the act which the government is trying to prohibit). We have proven that prohibition has these adverse effects on the human psyche, so from your point of view, it makes more sense to NOT prohibit homosexual marriage so we don't get more flaming homosexuals (please realize I am using logical reasoning not stating my opinion).

You are basically saying we should oppress homosexuals by discriminating against them because we should all accept your view that marriage exists solely for procreation. You have shown (actually, I have shown) that governments have a vested in procreation, for which marriage is not necessary; nor does marriage guarantee procreation. Now do I need to post a copy of our constitution as a source, or do you realize that discrimination IS illegal because it IS wrong and to prohibit homosexuals from getting married IS discrimination just like if I refused to hire a completely qualified person strictly because they were homosexual?

Also, to say that I must prove that homosexual marriage should be legalized does not make sense. it first had to be prohibited before we could talk about it being legalized, and the prohibition it's-self if unconstitutional, which is why many states are repealing their stance on the issue. If anything, you should be trying to prove why we should keep it illegal, and saying that only heterosexuals can bear children is kind-of just stating the obvious though irrelevant.
Debate Round No. 3
Phoenix.Wright

Pro

Rebuttals and Conclusions

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the my last response to the debate and this has been a good dialogue by the way because it allowed me to strengthen my position on this issue. I want to address my opponent's points and restate my central arguments and form conclusions from this.

I think it is a better idea for me to provide quotations from your previous response so that my summary of your arguments isn't made up, twisted, or taken out of context etc. Summarizing your arguments also allows to respond better.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My opponent's points


1. In my opponent's first two points at the beginning, he said that homosexual marriages provide special societal benefit because it benefits themselves. He then insists that marriage originated as a contract to further economic goals and provides a source. He says because marriage originated from this, we shouldn't return to it.

1. Homosexual marriage does have value to homosexuals, which are a part of our society, and hence, homosexual marriage does offer special societal value.
2. Marriage records predate reliable recorded history. It originated as a contract, usually arranged between families and to achieve economic goals (two rich families become unGodly wealthy and powerful through the marriage of their offspring). Are you suggesting that we return to this idea of marriage?
http://www2.hu-berlin.de......


2. My opponent says that the source he provided shows that procreation was the interest of the marriages for the government. He then says that these same governments promoted homosexuality and as a result of this, they encourage sexual expression (supposedly weakens my argument). My opponent then said that social and cultural values change and that marriage is not necessary for sex.

This source does note that early governments expressed a vested interest in marriage for the purpose of procreation. Good, I have established for you that the government has a reason to like heterosexual marriage. Congratulations.
This source also notes that early governments encouraged marriage and procreation, but that these same governments also encouraged homosexuality. They encouraged sexual expression period,

but it is a fact that marriage is not necessary for sex, nor does procreation always develop into marriage.”


3.My opponent says that to deny homosexuals marriage would be unconstitutional, very oppressive and discriminatory to the homosexuals. He also says that because of established laws that say that homosexual marriages are alright then my arguments/theory is useless. My opponent then says I should be proving SSM should be illegal etc.

and 2. It would be unconstitutional. It is called discrimination. Discrimination is illegal in the workplace because it is unconstitutional. It would be illogical to say that discrimination is not relevant here. ....I already quoted Webster's for you, there are Gay marriages happening today, so your theory then is proved false by the facts.....You are basically saying we should oppress homosexuals by discriminating against them because we should all accept your view that marriage exists solely for procreation....do you realize that discrimination IS illegal because it IS wrong and to prohibit homosexuals from getting married IS discrimination just like if I refused to hire a completely qualified person strictly because they were homosexual?”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I would like to first point out that the very source my opponent gave in his last response will be helping me a lot with regards to my rebuttals.


Rebuttal to point 1

My opponent's first statement doesn't make sense. Since same sex marriage would benefit homosexuals , it doesn't mean it benefits the society as a whole. This is fallacious reasoning. The only people that would benefit from SSM are the homosexuals themselves and this is parasitic on the state. Heterosexual unions on the other hand contribute to society in the form of the continuation of society and bringing up of children. Regarding the origin for the institutionalization of marriage, my opponent's own source proves that it is due to procreation. While economic transactions were part part of the marriage, my opponent's source says it is mainly due to procreation. It says:

Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.(bold emphasis mine) [1]. My opponent's own source proves him wrong.


Rebuttal to point 2

While my opponent is true that in ancient Greece according to his source Sparta encouraged homosexual relationships, they never ever encouraged homosexual marriages. In fact, homosexual marriages were despised and hated because childless men were hated. My opponent's source proves this. It says:

Sparta, while encouraging sexual relationships between men, nevertheless insisted on their marrying and producing children. Single and childless men were treated with scorn.”[1]

Homosexual marriages cannot produce children and as such are despised. The institution of marriage indeed because its main purpose which I have proven was procreation (sex) to produce and raise lawful citizens. This proves detrimental to my opponent's case. This was true even in ancient times. In my opponent's source it says:

Their main function as wives was to produce children and to manage the household while their husbands tended to public affairs.”[1]


Rebuttal to point 3

My opponent once again brings up the constitution and discrimination near the ending of his response. I stated at the very beginning of the debate that we would also be arguing what marriage should fundamentally be so any established laws aren't infallible and are up for argumentation. You say that it would be discrimination (deprivation of rights), once again in the beginning I said that if marriage does not include homosexuals and doesn't apply to them, then there are no rights being violated. To say you are being discriminated is to assume there is such a right which I have argued there is not. With regards to proving if homosexual marriages should be illegal, yes I have proven that it should be illegal even though I'm mostly arguing what I stated in the beginning. Please refer to my the beginning of my opening arguements in R2.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Final Conclusions


My opponent's reasoning eventually will say that everyone deserves marriage because it is based on sexual love and that they should receive the numerous benefits married couples receive today [2]. I have said that the main interest the state has in marriage is to facilitate and provide a good environment for the production and rearing of children. My opponent still has not given answers to these two major questions regarding SSM:

1. Exactly how do same sex marriages benefit the entire society and provide special societal value?

2. Why should the state be interested in unions which are based simply on emotions?

If the state would be interested in marriages based on emotion what is stopping them from regulating friendships and extra marital affairs? My opponent also still has not brought forth any arguments for why same sex marriages should be legalized. I on the other hand have given arguments against the legalization of SSM and even the prohibition of it. Please VOTE FOR MY SIDE!!!


Sources

http://www2.hu-berlin.de... [1]

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

Iamthejuan

Con

Iamthejuan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
Do you really attribute tornado's tearing through the Midwest of the US with all the victims and damages to bad luck! I see it otherwise…
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
I am surprised that not one single word was dropped about the ONE Who PROGRAMMED cells to make males and females and ordered them in His politics (call it religion if you like) to have sexual relations only with opposite sex and reproduce.
Let's first do one disguised mathematical experiment, push the arguments to the extreme by supposing that we can inject ‘homosexuality' to group A of a mixture of males and females of rats in Area (1). In Area (2) we do the same but inject to the rats heterosexuality and allow them to live together with all necessary food etc. After few years we go back and discover that Area (1) is a desert, no Rats at all, all life is gone… and area (2) is full of life, why this happened? Let's see, is the cause clearly ‘homosexuality', or maybe something else?
To be homosexual or defend it is not only against God's politics but betrays a very deep mental defect and addled character, so deep that the individual is UNABLE to experience true love and make a correct definition of himself/herself, he/she is unable to recognise himself/herself as a man or women and behave in a healthy way that can have a POSITIVE EFFECT on society. It is not logical to present an argument whose purpose is to legally recognize sick people as healthy! This disease is PURE POISON for society and should be corrected with punishment applied to murders if we apply the result of area (1).
Anyone who is homosexual or defending homosexuals is LOGICALLY against nature and against a healthy society that our Creator wants. People with limited horizon tend to see that sex is something private. It is not! you are having a sexual intercourse with somebody from the society, and the effects are social as Phoenix.Wright has clearly shown.
Sodom and Gomorrah accepted homosexuality and were irradiated from the surface of earth. Anybody accepting it too, will have the same fate…
Posted by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
It's Phoenix Wrighttttttttttttttttttttt
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
@ iamthejuan

You claim our arguments lack logic, if anything he and I have preferable arguments. Your case is everyone deserves marriage. Well here's the thing: the state makes laws based on interests, and the benifits of martiage are costly. This means they give these benifits to attempt to promote some interest, and in this case it is procreation. Your argument is marriage has benifits so they should get them. Answer this:
1. Why does the state want to legalize SSM and give benifits?
2. How does it benifit the state?

I. They have no reason to give them the benifits as they cannot procreate adding to the workforce.
II. It doesn't really.
The state has no good reason to legalize it. In many court cases the courts rule procreation as the state reason to ban SSM, homosexuals cannot procreate therefore why legalize it?

Case closed.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
You mixed up pro/con.
Posted by Iamthejuan 5 years ago
Iamthejuan
This is my long day of classes out of the week, so I will post my 3rd round this evening! I hope this is not too much of a delay!
Posted by Iamthejuan 5 years ago
Iamthejuan
Yes, because con here is actually pro. So which con are you referring?

16k, while I admit that you worded your argument much better, I still see the use of assumptions in bridging the gaps in logic between your deductions. You also fail to realize that I am not arguing that the government SHOULD legalize gay marriage, I am saying there is no reason for them to outlaw it, and that it would also be unconstitutional. Whether the gay people are married or not, either way they are not procreating, and so banning gay marriage has no effect on population, unless you assume for some reason that legalizing gay marriage would make some straight people decide to enter a homosexual marriage. Even if this were the case (which it isn't), this still is not a good argument because what is in the government's best financial interest is not necessarily right...or constitutional. As a matter of fact, greed in our government has left our nation in a rather uncomfortable position at this point in history.
Posted by Phoenix.Wright 5 years ago
Phoenix.Wright
Are you talking about me 16kadams?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
See this con: http://www.debate.org...

Also last comment = con misenterpreted it. I said it weird the first sentence.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Procreation argument con is false. The argument states the interests of the goverment in marriage is procreation, socially it is only love. The states interests however is procreation and as the states interest is procreation then they have no reason to allow it. The goverments benifits in marriage basically imply they want more in return. What they want is larger workforce and continuation of the human race.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kyro90 4 years ago
kyro90
Phoenix.WrightIamthejuanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF conduct, but other than that excellent job.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Phoenix.WrightIamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF. I'll come back for args possibly later.