The Instigator
dobsondebator
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
diety
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points

Places where homosexual couples can marry must represent other forms of marriage.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 866 times Debate No: 8053
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

dobsondebator

Pro

Let's use this first round to set up some ground rules.

First, to explain (without giving away arguments, haha). What this resolution is asking is this: since the most common argument for allowing gay (homosexual) and same-sex marriage is "love is love" and that same-sex couples ought to at least have the opportunity, we should do the same for other types of marriage.

For example, polygamists who want to marry more than one person at any given time. Also, any sort of marriage defined by states as the joining of two (or, if affirming, more) parties. This can also be, and not limited to, incestuous relationships or animal relationships.

Now, since I'm going pro, it's my job to prove that yes, we should represent these other parties too. As con, it's your job to disprove this.

It'd be in our best interest to retain the debate to United States specific. Also, to keep civility, refraining from anything that may be offensive is key, so let's keep that in mind too.

Thank you for viewing this debate, and the best of luck to whoever accepts it. Use the comments to help decide things if necessary.
diety

Con

Though I don't particularly like any of these types of marriages, this proves to be an interesting topic.

Since I'm con, I will prove that in places where homosexuality IS permitted, other types of marriage should NOT be permitted (besides man woman marriage of course. Don't try to pull a fast one and get semantical)

Anyway, time for my arguments.

Even though throughout history, homosexuality has been very.... "unrecommended," it doesn't necessarily hold any empirical negative effects besides ones from society.

Now to talk about other types of marriages.

You talk about animal relationships. The reason why this shouldn't be permitted is rather obvious: we are unable to obtain proper conscent from these animals. What if the animal doesn't want to be married? You wouldn't really know now would you? However homosexual marriage is perfectly consentual.

:)

Also, you talk about incestuous relationships..... Well, it's just the fact that when people who are immediately related have offspring, their offspring are VERY likely to have cognitive birth defects. We don't want our population to have too many people with cognitive birth defects... However when homosexuals marry logically it is impossible for them to have offspring, so they won't even come across this problem.

:)

I humbly await my opponents arguments
Debate Round No. 1
dobsondebator

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate, and I appreciate your civility :].

Now, on to address my opponent's points, and then to create my own (since I intended to start building the debate rather than actually present arguments.)

My opponent starts by talking about my point of animal relationships. When he speaks of the point "we can't obtain proper consent", this is actually a falsehood. The most obvious and most recognized forms of an animals desires or emotions is how they act, considering that we can't talk to them. So if an animal is displeased with something, it'd do one of two things. The first, is acting in defense. Dogs, for example, will run away with their tail between their legs, an obvious sign of cowarding. The second is to act in offense. This would be, and is more important to the debate, acts such as barking, biting, scratching, etc. These are pretty clear signs of consent; if they're not present, then you can generally agree that the animal has no real problem with it.

Now on to incestuous relationships. My opponent brings up the point that incest can lead to bad birth defects. This is the krux of the argument. I have a couple of responses.

1) First, why should this disprove the question of the debate? Yes, this may be a problem, but there are other things like this already in society. For example, the right to bear arms in the United States. This is a right to us, the citizen. But bearing arms obviously leads to more guns on the streets, which leads to violence or the possibility of violence. Yet, these laws still exist. So no real harm there.

2) My opponent offers no real statistical evidence as to how, when, how often, why, or with who does this happen. No matter how obvious the answer, how do I know this even happens? With no evidence/studies to back it up, I can't look at it as true in this round. It'd be unfair for my opponent to come back in his next speech with evidence, so you must disprove this argument on the spot.

3) Why don't we spend money educating these families while making it legal? You save money on hospital bills, law enforcement, etc, along with improving the confidence of the American citizen by making him or her feel educated on the topic. This is the biggest point I'm going to make; when a person has been educated and yet still carries out that act (which isn't wrong at all), they are ACCEPTING THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES. Like having sex, or committing a crime, people know the possible outcomes, yet when they do them anyways, they're automatically consenting to the outcomes. Otherwise, they would never commit the action in the first place.

Now, on to my own arguments.

1) It's An American Ideal To Represent All Beliefs
From the moment the country was founded, it's always been an American ideal to represent anything you may believe in. Heck, the pilgrims sailing over here wanted to escape religious persecution and allow for any religion.

In modern society today, that still reflects. States country-wide have passed or are trying to pass same-sex marriage laws to allow it. Moreso, religious freedom exists as well, and continues strong to today. The freedom of speech allows everyone to voice their opinions.

In states that have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage, they are recognizing the diversity of America. Likewise, we ought to recognize these other diversities in society as well. Incestuous relationships, polygamy, bestiality, the like. These ideas, maybe small, need the same representation everyone else needs as well, so we're morally required to allow that.

2) "Love is love."
Part of the American ideal to allow for any belief is the idea of "love is love." States that have same-sex marriage believe this to be true; that indeed, there is love and relationships that are mutual outside of a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriages surely can have this. However, this same idea can be true outside of just same-sex couples. It's wrong for us to infringe on people who see the relationship between multiple people (polygamy) right, or any other for that matter. For us to infringe and deny that freedom is immorally unjust; we can't be doing that to people.

Again, thank you for accepting the debate, and I await your response :].
diety

Con

Alright then.

"These are pretty clear signs of consent; if they're not present, then you can generally agree that the animal has no real problem with it."

Consent implies approval. Just because you don't have an opinion on something doesn't mean you approve of something.

Shoot I'm out of time. I'll finish off my arguments next round since this debate is five rounds. Better to post something than nothing at all you know.

:)
Debate Round No. 2
dobsondebator

Pro

No problem. I'll let you expand that argument and I'll attack the next time you post.
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dobsondebator

Pro

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the round, you must only vote for the PRO side of this debate. This is twice in which my opponent could not meet the time requirement; once, is acceptable. Twice just inhibits from an educational debate. Thank you.
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
dobsondebator

Pro

Again, my opponent has forfeited his round. You have no option other than voting for the PRO side of this debate. Thank you for your time.
diety

Con

diety forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Kefka 7 years ago
Kefka
Slippery Slopes....YAY!
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
Kind of a hybrid of the two. Legally, should other parties be allowed the same representation as same-sex couples get? The argument as a whole stems from "love is love."
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
Hmmm, interesting debate, but will the argument be based on law, or one that argument 'love is love'?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
dobsondebatordietyTied
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 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 vorxxox 7 years ago
vorxxox
dobsondebatordietyTied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
dobsondebatordietyTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
dobsondebatordietyTied
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:70