The Instigator
Sterasmas
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Stephen_Hawkins
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States of America.

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 7 votes the winner is...
Stephen_Hawkins
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,812 times Debate No: 19199
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

Sterasmas

Con

I would like to debate this issue with someone.

BOP is on the Affirmative. Please only respond if serious.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I will start my argument as I am pro and against the status quo, therefore holding the BoP. I shall start with some basics:

Gay Marriage is not a legal term, therefore has no place in the debate. If the topic was "Gay marriage should be recognised by the Church" or similar, then the term has reference, but we are talking about law. Law takes precedence, and a Gay Marraige is, in the definition of law, a civil union.

civil union - civil union (a voluntary union for life (or until divorce) of adult parties of the same sex) "parties to a civil union have all the same benefits, protections, and responsibilities under Vermont law as spouses in a marriage"
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)

Civil Marriage - civil marriage (a marriage performed by a government official rather than by a clergyman)

Legalised - Of or concerning to the law.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

My argument is very simple. Firstly, a marriage requires a marriage licence to be legally recognised. This has to be picked up in any town or city clerk[1]. It can be done by any legally recognised statesman[2] and is not required to be done in a church, only done with witnesses[3]. Therefore, there is no religious argument that actually has any relevance to this issue. As long as the statesman consents, then there is no reason to ban marriage. And even in this case, I might add, the motive is irrelevant; if a person does not want to do something, you cannot force them to. This is indiscriminant. I cannot force someone to marriage a homosexual couple yet allow them not to marry a heterosexual couple, nor the other way around.

Secondly, my opponent should reconcile my ignorance on this issue, but I thought that the point of living in a country with a seperation of church and state, a laicité government, meant that religion should not be able to impede decisions involved with the government, as well as the reverse. Therefore, surely it must logically follow, that the church cannot impede on issues involving the law? If so, then, unless events that occur independently of the church are dependent on the church (which makes little sense), then there is no requirement for religion to impede state decision.

Thirdly, and finally, the fact of the matter is stopping gay marriage is homophobic discrimination at its core. There is little way of stopping this, I see. Homophobic people, that is, people prejudice against homosexual people[4], are those who atively prejudise, meaning "dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions". So, my main aim is to show that my opponent's either dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour derive from preconcieved or unfounded opinions. If my opponent is shown to be purely discriminatory, then I think that the debate has to be conceded. Unless, of course, we know accept disrcimination in our society.

http://www.health.ny.gov...;
Ibid
Ibid
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sterasmas

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate today.
My case will based on the fact that Gay marriage is not the correct policy for the United States of America. I will defend this threw 3 arguments: 1. Same Sex marriage decays families 2. Homosexual relationships are biologically incorrect 3. Sexual love ought to have no bearing whether people should get to marry each other.
I will concede opponents definition of civil union though I do contend the word Civil Union as a replacement to Gay Marriage due mostly to the commonplace of the term Gay Marriage and the fact that if Civil Unions were made the policy of the USA then most common American people would refer to this as Gay Marriage. My opponent doesn't correctly define "homophobia" because homophobia as listed in the Encarta World English Dictionary is "an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture". While my opponents 3rd contention address this I will refute this after lying out my case.
1st Contention.
My first contention is rather simple it says that Same-sex Marriage decays families. My first contention is justified logically as well as statistically. Here are my statistics: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. A recent article in the Weekly Standard described how the advent of legally sanctioned gay unions in Scandinavian countries has already destroyed the institution of marriage, where half of today's children are born out of wedlock. Also, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the "seedbed" of society. This is a good example of Authoritative evidence. We can judge whether we should do this action is judging the principle of universality, So if everyone was married to the same-sex would this be a good thing? We can see that no it would not be. The population would be completely and utterly gone after a generation, my information of this source comes from the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant.
2nd Contention.
This argument is based on the fact that Same-sex relationships our biologically incorrect. I will show this by using logic and a basic knowledge of biology. Genes are traits that we pass down generation threw generation. Basically speaking a gene will be passed down for sure if it is something both parents retain. It has a fifty percent shot of appearing if not and also has a opportunity to exist in the future. Bearing this in mind if being biologically gay was possible then we would have to assume this is a recessive gene or a gene that appears in a mutation only. If it were the latter the number of people who would have it would be much fewer so we can conclude that it is a recessive gene. Since we know this, we know that a recessive gene introduced to the population will eventually be completely gone. But statistically speaking the number of homosexuals has not increased nor decreased throughout the years therefore it contradicts normal behavior for a gene so there are two possible conclusions, 1.
being Gay isn't a biological gene or 2. Biologically speaking this is a sexual disease similar to ALD. What I mean to similar is that it is the way it occurs rather than the way it affects. If my opponent supports Civil union between Gay people he must admit one the two conclusions: 1. Being Gay is a preference rather than a biological 2. That we should allow all people with Sexual diseases to marry and reproduce in some cases.
3rd Contention.
"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? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. " Adam Kolasinski
This point is strongly tied to my second point. It simply states that if homosexual couples are allowed to marry on the basis that they have sexual love what basis do we have for restricting polygamy. Some might ask "What basis do we have for permitting marriage of heterosexual couples?" There two ways to respond to this, one could claim that as in the second point suggests that marriage most be between a man in a woman because pro-creation can only happen between a man and a woman, another point to be made is that as the first point suggests that a homosexual relationship is far shorter and decaying to the family. Either way we have a strong argument for both.

All three of my opponents contentions claim that I will justify my arguments by claiming that the Church determines what should be marriage and this is contrary to truth in a argument such as this one. Granted. I have not used religion to justify any claims on whether or not Gay marriage ought not be the policy of the United States of America. His third claim is rather morbid. It suggests that I am against Gay people by my own biased not true I shown absolutely no opinions and shown no hostility in this debate.

For these reason I can see no other vote but the Negative today.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

Firstly, I feel happier knowing that my opponent is taking a rational standpoint, and using reasonable and objective reasons to halt homosexual unions. I shall firstly address my opponent's 3 points of contention:

Firstly, the idea that same sex marriage decays families. My opponent has not defined a family, and I wish to know why. By the oxford dictionary, and almost all other standards[1], a family consists of children and adults. Now, let me tell you something quite shocking: Homosexuality does not affect the family! I know! Studies have been done testing self-esteem, intelligence, and other such traits on children of homosexual parents (compared to heterosexual parents) and has came up that there is no effect that is noticable or even negative[2]. Also, we can see that Vico is a "professor of rhetoric. His degree is in rhetoric. He firstly has no credential in sociology nor history nor any other degree. Therefore, I would like a link to his study, to be able to judge the conclusion. May I have a direct link to his work?
Also, I completely deny Kantianism under the grounds of universalisation, so it is wasted on me. If everyone was same-sex marriage is an irrelevant statement: I am not saying that everyone should be. Simply everyone has the right to choose. Is that not what democracy is founded on? The ability that every person can decide?

(To all those experienced debaters out there, surely you notice the appeal to authority? He even says it himself: "This is a good example of Authoritative evidence.")


The statement that it is biologically "incorrect" is ridiculous. You cannot have right or wrong in biological occurrences. That is the equivalent of saying that because there are more asian ethnicities than caucasian ethinicites, being caucasian is morally incorrect. He goes on to say that homosexuality is "a sexual disease similar to ALD". Biologically speaking or not, this is deeply ignorant. You don't 'catch the gay' as if it were a horrible disease from having sex. You don't 'cure' homosexuality. You can't 'alleviate' the 'sickness' of sexual preference. And the idea that it is a disease is sickening awful. This point essentially proves my third premise: My opponent is advocating a hostility or injustice towards homosexuality due to the idea that it is a "disease". My opponent surely must use a different term, or better yet, abandon this argument altogether to regain some humanity in this debate.

I would also like to point out that the second contention has no relevence to any argument. Whether it is biological or not is completely irrelevant, and when we DO link it to a premise, and we create the argument from where it left off to link to the argument at hand, we see the utter horror of the statement.

1 - Being Gay is a preference rather than a biological. Therefore, we must restrict this preference, and keep homosexual unions illegal.
2 - Because we cannot allow people with diseases to reproduce, we should not allow homosexuals to reproduce (universalising by Kantianism), therefore we should keep homosexuals unavailable to marry.

The first statement is the quickest link I can find between the motion and premise/conclusion of my opponent, and is self-explanatory. The second, however, requires a little explanation to make sure we truly understand the horror of the advocation. We are saying that those with disease may not reproduce. I cannot even comprehend the outrage of the masses when we start nullifying marriages and banning unions simply due to disease. Simply because someone has a disease which both people know about, they cannot get married in front of the state and pledge themselves to one another? I see an improvement to this on a strictly productive front, not a weakness. Please, reconcile this: Marriage pledges people to each other, stopping people reproducing "a sexual disease" (using your terminology as a disease).

Finally, the third contention means nothing. It is simply a slippery slope: We have good reason to ban incest, it causes mental retardation and other REAL and LARGE problems. All he is arguing is the "sanctity of marriage" which holds no wieght: We are not talking about a religious marriage, we are talking about legality.

I would also like to say my first argument was to remove religion from the equation. Now, I will remove socio-economic reasons from the equation, and next I shall finally address the ethics of the equation. Speaking of economics, your largest quote by Kolasinski, you realise he is a finance and economics professor, not a sociological or even philosophical professor, yes?

Alright, the first person I wish to talk about is the American President, Clinton. "Throughout my life, I have opposed discrimination of any kind. When the Defence of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed," he said, stateming support of the Respect for Marriage Act, which would overturn DOMA. Clinton explained his change of heart: "I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong … I think it's a good thing not a bad thing. And I just realised that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I've grown up, I was wrong about that. I just had too many gay friends. I saw their relationships. I just decided I couldn't, I had an untenable position."

Clinton was not alone in this journey. Many people have done this: In California, prop 8 showed that 47.5% of people were for allowing homosexual marriage. Americans are seeing that there is no good reason to continue excluding committed couples from marriage. In the federal trial earlier this year, the anti-homoexual league of terror behind California's Proposition 8 failed to come up with any evidence or logic to justify homophobic discrimination. When the Prop 8 lead lawyer Charles Cooper was asked by Chief Judge Vaughn Walker, "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?", Cooper replied, "Your Honour, my answer is: I don't know … I don't know", and, in desperation, argued that they "don't have no evidence[4]". The flimsiness of the evidence and absence of logical reasons to discriminate in marriage led Judge Walker to rule that:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples … Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

In conclusion, there is no socio-economic reason: Many people are realising that it is unfair to discriminate against them, and the economic discrimination of marraige being barred from joining the register is obvious. Thank you for reading.


Standards of oxford, princeton, encarta (even though it doesn't class as a "real" dictionary, due to lack of credentials in comparison to other university dictionaries, and I would prefer we use more highly thought of dictionries, or at least ones that mention etymology such as oxford)
http://www.medscape.com...;
http://www.aolnews.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Sterasmas

Con

My opponent addresses my first contention and dismisses it if it were a joke. I have not defined families because families have no value inside the Resolution in of itself only truely inside of my own contention only needing support if my opponents address it. So I will concede to my opponents definition. One he has not shown that homosexual relationships are not determental to familys while I have show that they are in fact harmful to families as my contention proposes, so either my opponent agrees with me or he is planning on posting new evidence to bring this to light. But while his studies(that we have yet to see) claim that children are not affected my contention was that they were they decay families in essence the idea of family beyond the mere face objective summary of specific families rather a countries base of families( and we are talking a country after all) another point my opponents fails to mention that one of the most credible sources the US National Library of Medicine has a intresting article on " Homosexual parents: a comparative forensic study of character and harms to children." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
My opponent makes several appeals to democracy. Lets define democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state.(Oxford) Show me the majority of Americans agree with this policy(which as established must be in the context of Gay Marriage not Civil Unions because of the commonplace of the terms and because the resolution states Gay Marriage NOT Civil Unions) because by definition since it being the rule by the whole population because considerably so my opponent trys to defend on claims that marriage is guaranteed by Democracy but the US Constitution never mentions marriage, the Declaration of Independance never mentions marriage either. So in order to show that Civil Unions ought to be instated the majority of people ought to agree with it because this Country is founded on the principle of government by the population and the Supreme law of the land never mentions marriage so clearly unless my opponent wishes to contend that marriage is indeed a religious celebration rather than being secular than we have no RIGHT to marry. So if my contentions are true we have justification for not allowing Civil Unions/Gay Marriage. Appeal to Authority my opponents says but the fallacy of appealing to authority only is true if it is not backed by logical evidence because a appeal to authority implies I have no basis for a claim when in fact I have shown that I do.
My opponent has shown clear ignorance in the field of biology. ALD is a genetic condition that is classifed as a sexual disease because of the chromosomes its on. This makes it uncureable(this is the case I making for homosexuality, that either it is a sexual disease or it is a preference which we have no basis to guarentee a right to marry under the court of law). Biologically incorrect isn't a correct statement my opponent contends but by biologically incorrect which is used by many a biologist to this day is meaning has no basis in biology in the sense of that being gay isn't a geneticly inherented or if it is, by definition is a sexual disease. Also it should be mentioned that if it were a sexual disease it can only appear in boys because a sexual disease than XY Chromosome is the only chromosome that can be effected for if it was a XX chromosome(female) it would be a gene that couldn't occur due to the replication of the X chromosome. My opponent has tookin my sexual disease and STD(sexually transmitted disease) as the same term when in fact they are not.
My opponent contends that the second the premise that can be concluded by paragraph 2 is that we cannot allow people with SEXUAL( NOT TRANSMITTED) DISEASE to reproduce. Because my opponent misunderstands the term his argument is nullified due to the fact he assumes people would have no idea of this disease but concluding this is a disease we can determine that we would know are partner has a disease BECAUSE the partner is the same-sex. But from unvirsalizing Kantianism we cannot conclude that we cannot allow people with diseases to marry only if these diseases are sexually based(NOT TRANSMITTED).
I would argue that the 3rd contention means much, I was in no way arguing the sancity of marriage only saying that sexual love is not a basis for granting gay marriage. It means much due to the fact that they cannot pro-create. Therefore the basis of marriage was pro-creation. My opponent will probaly reference infertile couple but we must realize that truely the majority of couples are not infertile certainly if they are married.
My opponents entire argument from the beginining of the debate was that I was prejudiced but then he changed his objective by introducing a new argument in the case because I am evidently not prejudiced and that the original case would not win him the debate. He has not properly address any of my contentions especially my 1st and 3rd contention. Also he has completely shown ignorance on the 2nd contention and nearly dropped it. He attacks my Authoritive Evidence but in return he also commits the fallacy of arguing aganist authority. His own explicit example shows that most people do disagree with Gay Marriage also I have in all three of my contentions shown that beyond moral disapproval there are many reason to not allow Gay Marriage.

My opponent has failed to PROVE anything substantial much less that Gay Marriage should be legalized in the United States. He has bearly scratched by contentions and so they stand. He has done little to show that he meets the BoP esspecially because his third contention falls in the face of that my contentions are not based on prejudiced. We can conclude that only the neg. can win the case today.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro




Firstly I will address some blatant lies by my opponent before deconstucting and ending the debate.

The idea of "argument against authority" being a fallacy is absolutely ludicrous. An argument to authority is fallacious becuase follows this logical reasoning:

Person X says that Y should not happen.
Therefore, Y should not happen.

Or, using names, J.S.Mill believed socialism could work. Therefore, socialism can work. Except, my opponent has used it in an entirely diffrent manner: He has gone along the lines of because Shakespeare believed in socialism, we should enact socialism. He appeals (repeatedly) to authorities in an attempt, and I admit to speculating here, to make himself feel as if he is not alone in the issue, but, realising the lack fo support from scholars and those with actual knowledge in the issue, he ends by appealing to the finance and economics professor Kolaninski, Vico, and equivalent irrelevancies.

My opponent's first premise is still incoherent with the definition of family. This is why we are yet to see any real evidence against it*: His citation of the study is by FRI, well known for their blatant lies and their slanderous behaviour.
In 1986 the ACA passed a resolution condemning the FRI for "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research".[2] This was based on a report from the APA's Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, which summarised FRI's inflammatory statements and commented, "It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of the FRI's writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been 'appalled' at the abuse of their work." In 1996, the Board of Directors of the CPA approved a position statement disassociating the organisation from Cameron's work on sexuality, stating that he had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism".[3]

The idea that we live in a constitutional democracy stands.[4] I stated our democracy, not democracy, although I may have needed to make myself clearer on this, here you go. And the idea that "we have no RIGHT to marry" regarding law is false: Article 16 of the Human Rights states this specifically.[5]

"appealing to authority only is true[guessing he means fallacious/false] if it is not backed by logical evidence". Agreed. Let's review the third contention: Kolanski says this (P1). I agree (P2). Therefore, everyone agrees and it is FACT. (C1). Hmm... no.

"My opponent has shown clear ignorance in the field of biology". OK then. Enlighten me.
"This makes it uncureable[sic]". ALD is a) a disorder, not a disease (which is a major difference in medicine[6] b) requires, similar to syndromes, to be morbid, meaning unwholesome or psycologically unhealthy. This requires a proof, not subjective conjecture and hypotheticals. Also, as homosexuality's only symptom is homosexuality, which is neutral in most cases, or bad in a homophobic society at worst, it is the equivalent of saying pregnany is a disease because it causes...pregnancy. Also, because you don't "cure" pregnancy, simply prevent the symptom of... pregnancy, it is "uncureable". Also, regarding the claim I took Sexual disease meaning STDs, please cite. I even specifically stated using your terminology.

But more importantly, my opponent seems to have an incredibly queer idea how homosexuality is not natural, or biologically incorrect. What does my opponent mean by this, though? If he means abnormal, then he must also realise that left-handed people are abnormal, and are morally wrong. Does he mean it is not practiced by other animals? If so, he is deeply ignorant[7]. Does he mean violate principle purpose? Sexual organs seem very well suited for expressing love, for giving and receiving pleasure, and for celebrating, replenishing, and enhancing a relationship- even when procreation is not a factor. Or does he mean it is offensive, or unnatural? If so, then he is a homophobe, conceding the debate.

Finally, as already mentioned, my opponent's third contention is baseless, unproven, and logically fallacious. In fact, I claim that the idea that marriage is simply based upon a carnal desire to mate is simply ridiculous, and completely defeats what a marriage is altogether. Marriage has to be based on love.
But even this is irrelevant: what a personal opinion on marriage is is fine, but imposing it on others is just wrong, and requires reconciliation if the entire contention is not dropped, and an acceptance that this grew from a homophobic root.

Now, as promised, I will bring up my final arguments referring to ethics:

One of the main arguments against gay marriage which my opponent lightly touched upon is that it would further erode family values; however, the opposite is true. The problems related to sexuality in our society such as STD's stem from carefree, frivolous lifestyles; in other words, having frequent, unprotected sex with many partners, as do most people, heterosexual or no. Marriage encourages people to settle down and to give up that lifestyle. Married people commit themselves to one partner and work to build a life together. Isn't that the type of behavior we want to encourage?

Ethically, it is fundamentally wrong to remove someone's rights for no . I agree, many political philosophers agree, and the US constitution and Bill of Rights agrees.

Then, my opponent promotes the Kantian theory of ethics. I disagree with it, and he needs to promote it, prove its viability, and then impose it on the current situation. Also regarding a simple statement he makes which needs to be addressed, and I will make it now (character limit catching up with me) is that if everyone did it, the human race would be extinct. James Gray says it best:

"This kind of question abstracts away all relevant information of the situation. You could ask a doctor performing a surgery and cutting someone open, “What if everyone did that?” Obviously cutting people open is usually wrong and the situation at hand is relevant to our moral reasoning.

I suppose someone could worry that everyone could become homosexuals because it’s so exciting and enjoyable, but many people aren’t attracted to people of the same sex.

Two, even if everyone was a homosexual, they could still engage in occasional heterosexual sex to continue procreation, or they could use other methods, such as in vitro fertilization.

Three, if being a homosexual is wrong insofar as they are abstinent from procreative behavior, then being celibate is also wrong for the same reason, but that is absurd."

In summary:

My original framework is unchallenged
My opponent's first argument is false, second argument is false, ignorant and homphobic, and third argument is a subjective quotemine.
There is no societal requirement to ban homosexuality, societal requirements to allow it exists, and ethical reasoning to do the right thing, and allow homosexuals the right to marry.

* My citations seemed to have failed to link correctly, I shall post them again in the comments in order to make sure that they come across.
http://www.time.com...;, and my favourite, http://www.williamapercy.com.... Focus on the conclusion.
2 http://www.asanet.org...
3 http://www.cpa.ca...
4http://www.answers.com...
5 http://www.un.org...
6http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...; disease & syndrome & morbid.
7http://en.wikipedia.org...;, including dogs, elephants, foxes, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
Sterasmas

Con

Let me address first the most misleading comment my opponents made. He claims that because Article 16 of Human Rights says we have the right to marry, and because this is true we do. But this is a United Nations article and inspecific to USA, also we must remember that if this were applicable to all humans and "self-evident" ,as the document states, then we couldn't argue about it. Otherwise it wouldn't be self-evident and it is not self evident. Document not specific to the US and not "self-evident" therefore contention falls.
He has also show either a lack to read the contention or more ignorence in the field of biology. He claims that disorder is differant than disease. I disagree considering we are talking about biology not medicine. But even if we are talking about medicine it would still be a disorder considering the overall effect on society and on the individual itself because the purpose of animal is not to find sexual love it is to find a mate and reproduce this makes homosexuality a disorder/disease. He cites pregenecy but what does pregenency do? It allows for new life/pro-creation. My opponent clearly has a lack of understanding of biology. It should be mentioned as my opponent states so kindly for me that pregnancy causes pregnancy. I would ask my opponent if pregnancy a sexually oriented disease or a result of reproduction? "You don't 'catch the gay' as if it were a horrible disease from having sex. You don't 'cure' homosexuality." Clear implication of trying to say STD. If it was not then what ever you were describing has not seen before.
My opponent tries to brush off my third contention again but he has failed to address the matter of polygamy. Also he also claims that it MUST be based off of sexual love. This arguing aganist his own argument because he says that incest is still wrong because it has negative concequences but as he stated he would be required to permit this based alone on sexual love. What about if the boy or girl is sterile? Does this make incest anymore right?

Lets address my opponents responses to my use Kantian Ethics:
1. He uses the classic doctor example but it fails to heed its own premise because the premise is not cutting someone open because that is the concequece of assisting someone and therefore a morally right action
2.This is a assumption.
3. Yes but if I remember correctly the resolution states marriage. So being married and celibate(without medical reason) is wrong.

He trys break my argument by stating that marriage is the commitment to one person that we are encourging normally therefore we must allow homosexuals to marry. This is a intresting but not convicing argument, he is stating that this should be allowed because it promotes ethics, one opponent has not stated an ethical theory to back up his claim or stated his ethics in his theory. Also he claims that we should be promoting this therefore we should promote gay marriage and hence forth being open or(being proven[atleast not contended]) that we should all be homosexuals because it is a preference. Also I should point out that if that we shouldn't allow speratic relationships either and my first contention shows that this is very often true in homosexual relationships.
He also asks what I am saying biologically incorrect. But I already stated this and has yet to be contended. It means no basis in biology. All three of his original contentions fall because they rely on me being religiously motivated. He also claims I have no reason to restrict rights (that are not rights) for no reason. It should be mentioned that all 3 of my contentions are mentioned.
On to voters my opponent doesn't win this debate because he has not meet the BoP he also has addressed my contentions but rather than arguing the argument he trys to argue the evidence another reason he loses is his sheer misunderstanding of basic biology. He clearly has lost this debate today and I can see no other vote than the Neg. today.
Stephen_Hawkins

Pro

I shall address my opponent's statements then reaffirm the motion and the arguments my opponent has dropped:

Firstly, he claims that the UN article is "inspecific" to the US. This is simply not the case; Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the main drafters of the UN treaty, and the US still hold this treaty.

My opponent's second paragraph should not fool the readers, this is an attempt to escape the disturbing truth: You don't catch nor cure gay, nor do you have it impressed upon you. In fact, my opponent simply brushes it away under the idea that I think he is saying it is an STD. However, he has not reconciled my previous desire to see some actual backing to this claim. The fact that ""You don't 'catch the gay' as if it were a horrible disease from having sex. You don't 'cure' homosexuality." " shows that I am actually distancing homosexuality from illness.

Finally, his third premise collapses as he is still only using examples, and the idea that people don't have sex outside of marriage. Now, while the Onion may back up his claim that homosexual marriage has some supernatural power[1], I do think that sources that have less comedic backgrounds would disagree[2]. This debate is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to have sex, yet alone whether incest is permittable. Now, I understand some readers may see this as a "cop-out". Please re-read the motion and read his last paragraph again. "he has failed to address the matter of polygamy" and incest is the basis of that paragraph. My opponent has failed to mention toast, iPods, and Kim Kardashian's sex life in his argument. Judges, keep this in mind.

Regarding the Kantian ethics, I see a different generalisation to be made. I could justify my own, but I shall simply say this: my opponent has argued with my example, not with my point. It's the equivalent of criticising the infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters argument by saying the monkey's wouldn't type. The example is used to illustrate a deeper point, one that is not addressed.

Two is not an assumption, homosexuals, I have been told, have functioning penises and vaginas.

Three is based on his third premise is right. Which it is not: It is based on an assumption which is not backed up except by someone else's quote.

"He also asks what I am saying biologically incorrect." It was a rhetorical question. The basis he lied on was addressed in the possibilities I gave, and I gave other reasons why a different position was false in case he decided to move the goalposts. Instead, in football terms, he just let me score.

He has dropped the fact that it is biologically unhealthy. This was not addressed in the final paragraph, and his only citation was from such a bias source which must be rejected (and he has done so).

He has dropped the argument that a constitutional democracy protects its minorities, as per legal standpoint and numerous declarations including the Declaration of Independence and the UN Human Rights Treaty.

He dropped the argument that "Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Although not dropped, he has failed to mention any reason to ban that which is artificial, or "non-biological".

He has shown purposeful and malicious attempts to shy away from a duty to give equal human rights to all human beings, in the face of unsurmountable evidence, under the guise of pseudoscience. His repetitive naming of homosexuality as a "sexual disease" is insulting to those who are in the homosexual lifestyle, and attempts to evade this criticism by saying I am calling it an STD. This is, as my original definitons stated, shows hostility, and prejudice by its definition and shows an irrational

On a final note, my opponent has used cherry picking selecting sources, choosing to pick an incredibly well known bias source (FRI), yet criticises me for criticising them ("he trys to argue the evidence") even though the APA and CPA both rejected these studies. (American and Canadian Pyschological Association[s]). He also repeatedly has made a plea to authority, although I do not know for certain if they are, because they are not authorities, simply other people. The spelling and grammar on my part has been accurate (although this is bias testimony), whilst my opponent's has been less that satisfactory. Even when I have quoted him to make an argument, I found it hard to pick parts out that were coherent and spelt correctly. Regarding who won, that is obviously for you to decide, and regarding sources, I apologise for my unlinking sources at the beginning, and reposted them, while my opponent has only cited a bias and false testimony by the FRI.

Thank you, and (although this goes without saying) judge fairly on who debated better, not on your own opinion on the matter. Any constructive criticism will be appreciated by both parties, or at least by myself.


http://www.theonion.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Naruto 4 years ago
Naruto
i think they shouldnt get married
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
lol. He used one source, but I would count it as a negative: I actually refuted the validity of the source to begin with, which was another point dropped.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Actually I meant to give you sources, not sure why I didn't I fixed it now. Adams reason is ridiculous. con used 1 source only! I don't care about that quality over quantity crap adam gives. There is no way someone with 1 source should get the points over someone with 17!
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
grammar*
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Can someone explain why I am not getting spelling/grammer & sources points? -_-
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
With the time.com source, there is a second hyperlink: it works when you delete all of it but "http://www.beachpsych.com...; and use that link, however it seems not to work on its own...

Also, http://psychcentral.com... , http://www.apa.org... , http://psychcentral.com...

Are the sources that did not go through correctly, and I have reposted them here to make sure they are working.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gives three contentions which pro was able to refute as well as defend his own. Con wasn't very convincing on any of his arguments. The only arguments against gay marriage I ever find convincing are religious ones as I am Christian, but that has no part in this debate as pro rightly stated. Pro used allot more sources, (17 compared to cons 1) to back up his claims.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: con did better in the biology, and that was never dissproved in my eyes. And he had better scources, more doesnt mean better.
Vote Placed by HmblySkTrth 5 years ago
HmblySkTrth
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has an ax to grind. Pro defended well, and also showed the bias in Con's arguments.
Vote Placed by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dismisses several of pro's arguments, later claiming he never made them.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Close one but I'm going to have to give this one to CON
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by Mr.VicePresident 5 years ago
Mr.VicePresident
SterasmasStephen_HawkinsTied
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: This was an easy choice given the facts