The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Play Devil's Advocate--Once more!

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,079 times Debate No: 60199
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Last time the rules weren't read by my opponent. Hopefully 3rd time's a charm.

RULES
-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)
-The debate cannot be a one-round debate
-The debate my opponent chose cannot be against diarygirl4u2c, neither may it be against izbo10
-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued
-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, or other "Debates" that involve skills other than debating (with the exception of troll debates)
-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules or contradictions made by either debater (in other words, debates named "my opponent will contradict himself")
-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 2 votes on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less
-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable
-My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments
-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :D
-My opponent can't choose any debate concerning God/an omnipotent being's existence. I already did that.

Please read and follow the rules carefully, otherwise you'll get a full 7-point forfeit.

Good luck and have fun!
Fanath

Con

Topic: Should same sex couples be allowed to marry?

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

I was con in that debate, so in this debate I'll be pro and my opponent will be con. Please be careful not to mix us up. (Because the frame around our pictures recognizes me as con and the actual con as pro)

"Homosexual" will be defined as "sexually attracted to people of the same sex" [1]. Please don't play semantics with the definition. I'd also like to request keeping this debate specific to the United States so that it's more focused.

On a final note, I just have to point out that I have been super clever in making him play the devils advocate for this debate.

Good luck.

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro





Okay, now, onto the arguments.
1. It's not normal
I mean, even in a Supreme court case ruling Baker v. Nelson it was decided that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [1] Moreover, in a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…” [10] It is because of such non-belief that many churches dislike the idea of gay marriage. It would be tough to convince so many churches to change their beliefs, especially since they now have to teach that gay people are equal to heterosexuals, which completely goes against the bible. [10]

2. Other weird marriages
It could give potential bestial, polygamous, or even incestuous relationships to the right of marriage. In April 2013, Slate published a plea for legal polygamy stating: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults." [2] Furthremore, some senior counsel named Glen Lavy said in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [3]

3. People believe gay is wrong, why force them to pay taxes to support gay people?
Gay marriage gives gay couples many marriage benefits which are mostly paid by the tax the government recieves. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as inheritance taxes or Social Security) would cost up to $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending in just 9 years. [4]

4. Gay parents can't take care of their children
Children are deprived of the good advice and emotional security without a mother. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with gay or lesbian parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. [5] In addition, girls who don't have the help of their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for as well as early sexual activity. [6] Not only that, in the book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development by Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, it was observed that compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers, 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship. [7]

5. It's destroying normal marriage as we know it
A few examples are Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which all legalized marriage in the 1990's. According to a report by Stanley Kurtz, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's birthrate from people whom were not married to each other went from 39% to 50% and Sweden's from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and almost 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents. As Kurtz states himself, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia." [8]

6. Shifting normal "goal" for marriage
Marriage is supposed to mean about producing and raising child. But if gay people marry they can't produce children and only encourage to change the purpose of marriage to the other purpose of purely "getting it on" for fun. [9]

7. Civil Unions are better
Seriously. They give the same benefits of marriage without actually marrying. And people are liking it much better than gay marriage...

[11]


[12]


[13]

And with that, I conclude my round. The research has been quite tough, but I now see the other side of gay marriage and why some people don't want it. However, my original opinion remains still sturdily unchanged, which means I'm still playing devil's advocate.
Well, anyhow, onto you, con.

[1] Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson, www.marriagelawfoundation.org
[2] http://v.gd...
[3]
http://www.latimes.com...
[4] Amber G. Marcellino, et al., "Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 2517", www.cbo.gov
[5] Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?," American Sociological Review
[6] Bruce J. Ellis, "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?"
[7] Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects of Child Development, 1997
[8] http://www.weeklystandard.com...
[9] http://v.gd...
[10] Joseph Card. Ratzinger, "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons", www.vatican.va
[11] http://v.gd...
[12] http://www.gallup.com...
[13] http://www.texastribune.org...

Fanath

Con

Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

Fanath had forfeited.
I, extend arguments and intend to focus and prove the hardest thing possible this round: Homosexuality is actually WRONG. That's right. Why not? You may ask.
There is no gay gene. [1] Shows that homo's aren't born gay, they have a choice.
If it is a choice, then why can it be okay? Once again, arguing for other marriages would not turn to be a fallacy but an actual working slippery slope. People could argue that bestial or incestuous relationships are "okay" now that gay is "okay". But this is only because they think they are born gay, while this is not the case. You can choose who to love and who not to love. Now, my opponent will probably say "Well even (other) animals have homosexual acts", this is a Straw Man, since other animals' rights have no relation to our rights. The black widow spider kills its husband after mating[2], and male ducks are known for raping female ducks[3]. Is this alright in our society as well? Of course not. Thus if my opponent tries to say that homosexuality is natural, it is definitely NOT natural.

My opponent will probably examine my argument closely and go "well the government can't limit these people's choices, even if they're only choices". But then, why do we hate bestial or incestuous relationships? Once again, with the slippery slope, either we illegalize everything or legalize everything; they are too closely related and advocates will connect them together, putting pressure on the government to try to legalize what is considered "terrible" and "wrong" by most people.

Gay doesn't harm anyone?? My opponent will probably say "well unlike bestial or incestuous, homos are human beings and won't harm each other like beasts or insects". This is a good comparison and seperates the gay from beasts and insects, however, although homosexuals won't harm physically, many basic ethics such as integrity and modesty would be gone. Similarly, nudity does not harm others psysically, however, you are still considered a whore and it is still immoral by public law, and the same thing applies to necrophilia and bestiality. Every society has these ethics, and even if they are a bit weak, they still exist. Homosexuality is WRONG!!

As our infamous Ajab (Now Ajabi) states so: "...the difference between a sexual relation and a platonic relation: the answer is sex. Sex here means any activity which has a sexual motive: from hugging to engaging in coitus....feelings such as love, acceptance, trust, support are in a relationship of a mother and her offspring..the only proper, rational difference betwixt a platonic and a sexual relationship is the sex we maycontinue. ...there is such a thing as lust. Lust here being the active desire to engage in sexual contact, be it betwixt homosexuals or heterosexuals. ....those who believe in God would be that an infinitely just and good God would not endow humanity with lust unless there was a purpose: the only rational purpose of sex is reproduction, for God would only give humanity lust so it may continue its existence. This goes in perfectly with the evolutionary theory (the second way to look at it). From history we know (if you believe in evolution, if you do not then you must believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design which would justify the first part) that the brain has evolved. ...in the simplest of words evolution ensures that we come from no system to a better one. Such is it that the qualities which are important we keep, those which arent we dispose. Also as the cortex seems to evolve, emotions seem to decrease. As we become more rational individuals we give less precedence to emotions... why would we continue to have lust? If the rational grounding of lust is not in reproduction and in pleasure then why would evolution not make it redundant? It seems to have stayed coherent within us.... lust.... is an instinct. And the instinct has its grounding in reproduction...the grounding is in reproduction then sex is only moral when done for reproduction and not for pleasure, making homosexuality immoral. The only justification for marriage is to make a family. If you look at it in a different less logical way even then you realize that sex makes a person barbaric, far from evolving a person it takes man and woman to their lowest points." [4]
Fanath

Con

Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

I win. Vote me.
Fanath

Con

Fanath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
9space did you plagiarize because I printed out all those arguments before from some site... :<
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
booyah.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
At man. I missed it by a minute, I'm to lazy I guess. I'll take the conduct point loss and post my argument as soon as you say "fanath ff'd, gimme a conduct point)
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
It's what I do.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
I had no idea gay marriage had so much bad sides to it! And the argument about civil unions, didn't see it before this debate! Wow, you're really opening my mind, Fanath!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
9spacekingFanathTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Robert_Weiler 2 years ago
Robert_Weiler
9spacekingFanathTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
9spacekingFanathTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF