The Instigator
kenballer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bbowhan
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

My argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

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 1 vote the winner is...
bbowhan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,396 times Debate No: 25455
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

kenballer

Pro

FIRST ROUND ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY

Update: Alright, I will give some insights as to what the argument entails.

Its an argument about the actual true purpose of civil marriage which involves procreation and how redefining marriage (or gay marriage) will produce immeasurable consequences onto society. However, its NOT the mainstream procreation argument heard time and time again. Some people may have already seen it in other debates I have been in.

In this debate, My opponent will have to find a problem with the logic behind my argument against gay marriage and successfully explain why its not a compelling argument involving the premise and conclusion.

how compelling the argument will depend on how much practical significance it has. my opponent will have to explain how my argument will have little to no practical significance.

lastly, the burden of proof will be on me but this debate will not be about civil rights and the constitution or arguments for gay marriage.
bbowhan

Con

Hello kenballer,

I am a relatively new debater, and after reading the comments, I have decided to test my ability to deal with your unknown argument and its logic. I would hope that the commenters and voters can place advice and helpfull instructions as we proceed.

I await your argument, and I wish you good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
kenballer

Pro

THE PURPOSE OF CIVIL MARRIAGE

The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes in order to make sure they don't raise children in a unstable environment.

The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issuance of marriage licenses reinforces this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships.

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Now, when I say the word "encourage", I mean it in a indirect sense. For example, The mere appearance or existence of a green/ red traffic signal helps us know when is the right time to drive. Our understanding that green light means "go" encourages us to drive and red light means "stop" to discourages us from driving. Our understanding of the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman would be the green light that encourages us to procreate inside a marriage while cohabitation would naturally be the red light to not procreate inside.

In both situations, this is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life. However, the difference between the two is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. In other words, You have the freedom to marry and procreate or not.

Thus, the law does not forcibly make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice.

REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE

Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman.

This means if the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way.

In summary, my argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage.

THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT

Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well.

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and accepting this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED VIEW OF MARRIAGE

In terms of the selection process, studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation [1]. As I explained above, marriage between two people regardless of gender is considered non-traditional and traditional views of marriage would be considered a form of hate and discrimination.

Immediate Effects

This new law impinges on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children. Americans will either be forced to accept something like this, reject their own beliefs that reflect objective (as shown above) reality or both in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children CON's corrosive view of marriage. Here are some examples of this:

Schools:

In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

In California, Gay history is a required curriculum, which will eventually teach the issue of civil rights/gay marriage and try to claim there's a connection.

Media:

"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples and the newspaper advice column now deals with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."

Businesses:

The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.

The Long-Term Effects

Social ramifications:

In connection with the immediate effects and the studies, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society in general as a result.

Legal ramifications:

The problems with redefining marriage also arise in same-sex divorce and parental consent laws. Just as there are a set of entry conditions for marriage there would be a set of exit provisions as well. I will give a couple of legal situations next round but Douglas Allen can better discuss the potential impact of same sex divorce on straight relationships and parental consent laws in his book called "An economic assessment of same-sex marriage laws". [2] 960-964

[1] http://eprints.qut.edu.au... .. p.2
[2] http://www.law.harvard.edu...
bbowhan

Con


I will start my argument with my own introduction and give a summary of difficulties in kenballers discussion. I remember my first reaction to the question of homosexual marriage- that as a confirmed straight bachelor, it is really not my issue. I also believed at the time that this issue was premature and that the gay -actually the whole LGBT- community was reaching beyond its political grasp. However, I was surprised by the speed by which this issue took fire, and that forced me to actually consider the issue. I decided that I was against marriage. Not gay marriage, just marriage. After all, civil relationships that have to be codified to be 'real' was a fairly silly notion even before my exposure to civil court showed how emotionally wrenching the ending of those legal bonds can get.


On the other hand, if a gay couple want to marry, I could not come up with a sound, rational reason why they shouldn't have the same privilege. I was hoping that this debate would provide one, but alas so far it hasn't.


Beginning:


PURPOSE OF CIVIL MARRIAGE


Premise 1. Civil marriage has had several motivations throughout history and in modern times, and I think that "regulate[ing]... procreation" is not even 'a' let alone 'the' purpose, family planning and especially birth control are used for that, but only in very modern times. Marriage had been used to regulate heredity for inheritance and political purposes, which is likely the source of Pros mistake, but also to seal political alliances, to provide property rights, to establish harem seniority and so on. I will be expanding later on the overwhelming ECONOMIC reasons for marriage throughout history.


Premise 2. Pro advances his next premise beginning with "The traditional view of marriage" which is another fail on the same lines as the first, only much greater. Pro has described adequately his preferred tradition for marriage (one man, one woman until sweet sweet death releases you), but made no mention of any other traditions that have been and are still practiced around the world. He also describes the 'teleological requirement that two' persons make babies- true enough, but he errs by adding that two and not three is the only correct number to raise the child (also five is right out?). Perhaps you should ask your grandparents, or uncles, or cousins, or teachers, social workers doctors and dentists about that?


Conclusion. Pro now says the State uses the (flawed) premises to "encourage the heterosexual couple to create the next generation in the right context"- by which he excludes unmarried and fatherless homes as being too unstable. Even as a stand alone statement, it is absurd that hetero marriages are necessarily stable, and therefore homosexual marriages and ALSO unmarried parents, divorced parents, single mothers, widowed mothers, and so forth are overwhelmingly unstable. Further he states the legal and social (and financial) support that marriage receives, but without the context of gay couples who can’t marry not receiving the same benefits, which is necessarily discriminatory.


FURTHER UNDERSTANDING INTO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE


This argument is an equivocation fallacy. Traffic lights have an obvious purpose for the public good, and are enforced by consequences of every one who is driving having obvious risks for one person not following the rules. Marriage is a complicated series of values and traditions whose affect on other members of society is very indirect and definitely not immediately injurious or lethal.


REDEFINING MARRIAGE INTERFERES WITH THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE


Again child rearing is not the only or even a particularly major purpose of marriage, and the state really has no need to encourage more heterosexual activity. Trust me, we straights are on top of that issue. Or on the bottom, whatever.


Pros eventual 'nutshell' summary is to claim that where the natural children is nil, then the “meaning of marriage is nil”. And further, he states that “then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other”. Which is GREAT. I note that if that is Pros idea of a 'non traditional' marriage, then its a modern form that arose with the Enlightenment, and one that should be heartily applauded.


Worse, Pro never discussed the heavy controversy around the rights and benefits of marriage. I await any mention of this blatant discrimination in his next round..


THE CLAIM THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL RIGHT


Pro stated in his opening that this issue was not to be addressed, so I will confine myself to his second paragraph. Whether the state enforces Pros tradition or not, the idea of even today's youth accepting what in fact is “a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia” is already “virtually impossible”. Which is also GREAT. Let freedom ring.


THE CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE REVISED VIEW OF MARRIAGE


In his introductory sentence, Pro essentially states people who cohabit do not in fact agree with a value of not cohabitation, a tautology. In the rest of paragraph, Pro sites a source that proves to disagree with his statement- reading the paper shows that older couples tend to divorce more, but younger couples are as successful as traditional marriages.


In “Immediate Effects” Pro commits an inadvertent fraud. I cannot be kind about this, because it flat out states that this “new law” will impinge on freedom and the “capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children.” This is the expansion of an existing franchise to another group and that is all. Anyone can disagree, and they can teach there children how and why they disagree. Rather than go through the highly speculative remainder of Pros argument, I will make this final correction:



Gay Marriage does NOT -in even the smallest possible way- outlaw heterosexual marriages, and it CANNOT prevent pregnancy in a different household down the street. This entire discussion is fatally flawed do to the false premise that marriage itself has significance in regulating childbirth. It is therefore not compelling and has no significance at all. I'm sorry, kenballer, but this argument is a fail.


Debate Round No. 2
kenballer

Pro

kenballer forfeited this round.
bbowhan

Con

Kenballer has forfieted his previous round. As there was no limit on final round arguments, I will await any further discussion in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
kenballer

Pro

kenballer forfeited this round.
bbowhan

Con

Hello all voters,

My opponent, kenballer, has forfeited this debate. A brief discussion about that is to be found on the comments section, and need not trouble any voters. However, I will request that someone place a vote my way, so this debate will not go down as a tie (it would help my stats, and I really feel that I made a better case. Due to technical difficulties I had to rewrite the entire thing, and I don't want that effort wasted).

I thank the readers and would welcome future discussion on my style and improvements I could make.

bbowhan
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kenballer 5 years ago
kenballer
if you are that bothered about what I said, then you can take it out on me when I do this topic again. I will take your advice and try to structure it as a deductive argument next time. Lastly, I will do another topic where I am actually attempting to convince people to take my position. It will be an informal debate where I will go all out and you will be either convinced or not convince.
Posted by kenballer 5 years ago
kenballer
if you are that bothered about what I said, then you can take it out on me when I do this topic again. I will take your advice and try to structure it as a deductive argument next time. Lastly, I will do another topic where I am actually attempting to convince people to take my position. It will be an informal debate where I will go all out and you will be either convinced or not convince.
Posted by bbowhan 5 years ago
bbowhan
Your passive aggressive 'apology' is not accepted, kenballer. You initially descried your argument as a purely logical one that I was expected to " find a problem with the logic behind... involving the premise and conclusion". I had to reformulate your poorly organized, meandering, vapid statement into a formal logic, which I then had to take out back and shoot like a sick dog. I was hoping you could at least come up with a new argument, but instead you fled behind my relative lack of previous debates. Maybe you can console yourself, but you will not trick anyone by claiming you have made point that I could not address.
Your argument failed, kenballer. Now, so has your integrity. You have my permission to slink away.
Posted by kenballer 5 years ago
kenballer
I Apologize to the voters here for purposefully forfeiting. I just did not feel my opponent was experience enough in debate to properly in a formal way handle my argument, which he actually did not address. In addition, I did not feel he was engaged enough in the debate to make me engaged in the debate. This is a debate not a discussion or me trying to convince him to take my position. I will do this debate topic again but hopefully someone more engaged and experienced. No offense to my opponent.
Posted by kenballer 5 years ago
kenballer
I Apologize to the voters here for purposefully forfeiting. I just did not feel my opponent was experience enough in debate to properly in a formal way handle my argument, which he actually did not address. In addition, I did not feel he was engaged enough in the debate to make me engaged in the debate. This is a debate not a discussion or me trying to convince him to take my position. I will do this debate topic again but hopefully someone more engaged and experienced. No offense to my opponent.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I know his argunment
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
And you know all about "tricking" people on debates, don't you?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
"If you accept the terms of my debate, you will find out what my argument against gay marriage will be"

I accept your terms. What is the argument?
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
This debate is pretty much trying to trick someone who supports gay marriage. For one thing, the instigator is not posting what the argument is (oooh big secret). If he really thinks it's sound, then he should have no problem stating what it is up front since presumably he believes it to be true regardless of whether everyone sees it and critiques it or not. Also, even if it's a sound argument, it doesn't mean that gay marriage is wrong, immoral or should be prohibited. For instance, many people rely on the argument that gay couples cannot naturally have children and blah blah blah. While that's true, it's kind of irrelevant considering a plethora of other factors surrounding the issue (eg. procreation is not a requirement of marriage). So again, this is basically tricking someone who is pro- gay marriage into trying to find a flaw in a syllogism that probably doesn't exist. Big deal.
Posted by kenballer 5 years ago
kenballer
@EricPrice

If you accept the terms of my debate, you will find out what my argument against gay marriage will be
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
kenballerbbowhanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Lolfail forfeit. Con refutes pro case effectively. What else is there to say?