The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Buckethead31594
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Resolved: Justice requires the legalization of same-sex marriage

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 5 votes the winner is...
Buckethead31594
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,662 times Debate No: 19169
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance only.
Buckethead31594

Con

I accept. Thank you for the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for being kind enough to join me in this debate, and as my position has explained on my profile, I firmly affirm the resolution and stand on the PRO side of this debate. The PRO will move on to establish the definitions of the resolution, having only one to speak of:

Justice (n.): The quality of being just, impartial, or fair (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Just (adj.): acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good

Morality (n.): A doctrine or system of moral conduct; comformity to ideals of right human conduct (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

From this definition, I can establish the following observations for this debate:

Observation 1: The burden of proof for both sides of the debate are obvious: show that his own side is the better supporter for the ideals of justice. That side will be the winner of this debate.

Observation 2: A standard for morality must be provided in order to prove that either side is better upholding morality, and the PRO will provide that such standard in the following Universal Declaration of Moral Obligations as provided by John L. Perkins:
http://home.alphalink.com.au......

With this established, we can move on to the iteration of my case:

Contention 1: The legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
For the following reasons, legalization of gay marriage has been beneficial to society, meaning that it has aided people at some level, thus upholding my standard for morality. The legalization of gay marriage has aided to society in the following ways:

Sub-point 1a: The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." The following observations on homosexuality and AIDS rates/negative statistics concurs that intolerance is a main factor in the huge AIDS rates:
http://userwww.service.emory.edu......
http://www.sprc.org......
In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases. http://www.thebody.com.......

Sub-point 1b:
Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.
http://newsbusters.org......-
http://www.cbsnews.com......
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu......

Contention 2: Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
Aside from the aids to society, however, gay marriage at some level better establishes equality, which plays into the entire argument on morality as well based on my standard. This idea is supported by the following points:

Sub-point 2a: Same-sex marriage promotes equality.
The equality within the promotion of same-sex marriage in society lies within the balance of interests of all members of society at a moral level, including the homosexual portions of society. This is a scenario similar to the idea against the legalization of interracial marriage, where two people from two groups of people couldn't acquire a legal marriage based merely on the fact that they were members of that social group and nothing else, which is the pinnacle of what embodies prejudice and discrimination in society. The status against same-sex marriage is similar in this manner.

Sub 2b:
Civil unions are not a good alternative.
Civil unions are not effective at providing parity for homosexuals in the American society because they are designed to be less than traditional marriage and does not provide equal benefit to homosexual patrons as would a normal marriage. At that point, we realize that civil unions are not equal to same-sex marriage.

Buckethead31594

Con


First I will begin by saying that I appreciate my opponent's approach to this matter. I accept my opponent's definitions, however, there is one new definition I would like to add:

equality (n.): The quality or state of being equal (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)


With this stated, I shall begin my rebuttals.


Response to Observation 1: I accept the conditions, I will be using the Bible in terms of justice; since my opponent did not discredit the usage of it in the beginning. When I say the Bible, I mean God's Law; justice according to God, not man. To discredit this as fraudulent is discrediting the entire American justice system; as it is based off of the 10 commandments. I will not be able to supply adequate sources, as this is a debate of opinion. Plus, most of society agrees with Pro, therefore, most of the experiments conducted within our society will be in accordance to Pro's morality. A challenge for me, indeed.

Response to Observation 2: Again, I will be supporting the Bible's standard of morality. As this is the fundamental doctrine with which I live by. Furthermore, I would ask my opponent to please provide a separate link, as the link he has provided for this observation is dead.

Now, let us begin.


Contention 1: The Legalization of gay marriage aids to society.
Sub-point 1a: Unfortunately, there are currently no sources I can address this with, as my opponent is correct; many a study has been conducted to explain the cause of disease and the stigma within the homosexual community. However, none of this means it is justified. My opponent has provided a means as to how it supposedly benefits society, nonetheless, he has failed to mention how it is detrimental to society. One must think, why were homosexuals criticised in the first place? It is obvious- according to human perception -that when we cast judgment on someone, it is usually for a reason. This reason, being the simple fact that the judged person is not living by our standard of morality. With this said, I cannot address this issue any further, as my opponent and I are on different moral grounds. Nonetheless, the problems with homosexual "marriage" are blatantly obvious. For one, any activity that contributes diseases to a society (I think we are all well aware of what I'm speaking of) is one that needs to be transformed into something healthy. With that said, I can conclude that homosexual marriage is both unhealthy, and unjust to the American people.


Sub-point 1b: I will accept my opponent's sources, and I respect his ability to provide them. However, benefiting commerce does not equal justice. Commerce is simply the by-product of human spending; how then, is this affiliated with Justice? I am sorry, but this is nothing more than irrelevant detail. The success of commerce has no impact, whatsoever, on justice. The economy and the justice system are two completely different aspects of the American government (In regards to commerce)


Contention 2: The Legalization of gay marriage establishes equality.
How do marriage restraints, make homosexuals "unequal?" Just as a teenager can't vote or drink, the same can be said for homosexuals. The inability to marry doesn't make homosexuals any less "equal." In the same way, should a child commit to drugs and smoking? No! My moral grounds firmly states that homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it cannot be accepted in marriage. (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9)

Sub-point 2a: I appreciate my opponent's logic, however flawed it is. The fact that homosexuals cannot marry, is not restricted by any "social" group, but by the very commandments of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that interracial marriages are inadequate. Plus, society as a whole does not benefit from homosexual marriages; more often, it is belittled. Marriage is to remain pure, and untainted from human sickness (Hebrews 13:4). It is this very corruption that contributes to the unjust nature of humanity. One must also remember that everyone is in their own "social group." My opponent has circular logic, stating that homosexual marriages benefit society, then stating that homosexuality is merely one "social group" of a society. It only makes sense that the rest of society would remain unaffected; however, if my opponent is correct in that justice requires same-sex marriage, society would continue to become degraded.

Sub-point 2b:
In truth, we as a people know that we will never be happy with what we have. The same can be applied to this case. There is one major difference between civil unions and marriage: God. When one gets married, one vows before God to be loyal for better or for worse. Considering God condemns such a practice, a homosexual "marriage" would be nothing more than a civil union with a different name.


My opponent has provided nothing but conjecture as to why homosexual marriages would, supposedly, provide justice; thus, benefiting our society. I have confirmed through reasoning that homosexual "marriages" are nothing more than civil unions with a different name, and that regardless of whether or not they are established; can be either neutral to our society, or detrimental. In this manner, it is obvious that justice does not require the legalization of same-sex "marriage."


Onto Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

It seems that my opponent has forfeited round three. Extend all refutations.
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Buckethead31594

Con

It is a shame that my opponent has forfeited almost every round, considering that he was online just a couple of hours ago. Again, extend all refutations.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Alright, thank you. I understand where you are coming from, wiploc. By the way, excellent use of a Conan quote!
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Buckethead wrote:

: I appreciate the indepth response, wiploc.

Thanks.

: However, I would please ask you to leave your personal opinions of my beliefs to the side;

Yes, that was awkward. I came across badly. I apologize.

I did have a legitimate point, but I fumbled the ball.

Can I better express my point?

Conan said the good is, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." So, he could justify despicable things by appealing to his despicable morality.

If that's all we ask, that your behavior match your claimed morality, then any behavior becomes acceptable. No behavior is better than any other.

And your debate case was like that: You favor discriminating against homosexuals _because you morality approves of that._ You didn't try to justify the morality. You didn't say that good things result from it. You just said, in effect, "This is what I believe, so it's cool if I behave this way."

Anybody could justify anything by that method. So it's not really a justification at all.

That was my point. I think I said it better this time, though I still think I risked giving offense. I apologize if I did give offense.

: as this debate was formulated around the fact that I was allowed to choose what
: my foundation of morality would be. I chose that from the Bible.

Your opponent certainly gave you an opening to do that.

: To discredit me as a hateful person is nothing less than judgmental on your part.

I'm not saying that _you_ are hateful. I wouldn't even be talking to you if I believed that.

Some people do terrible things from loving motives, though, and keeping minorities down is, in my opinion, a bad thing, hateful.

Dictionary.com's first hit for Hateful is, "arousing hate or deserving to be hated: _the hateful oppression of dictators._

Please don't think I think _you_ are hateful. Oppression is hateful.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Nonetheless, I do appreciate the time you gave to make a good response :) I was beginning to think that no one besides innomen would have seen this debate!
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
I appreciate the indepth response, wiploc. However, I would please ask you to leave your personal opinions of my beliefs to the side; as this debate was formulated around the fact that I was allowed to choose what my foundation of morality would be. I chose that from the Bible. To discredit me as a hateful person is nothing less than judgemental on your part. I hate no one, I have many homosexual friends on this website. Secondly, I realize that I was fighting a pointless fight. For one, neither I or my opponent had anything to base our arguments on; both of our doctrines of morality and our worldviews were different. If Pro were to have continued their arguments, they would have likely won; considering the outcome. I can see how this would be a difficult decision on your part...
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Dang! I just read Innoman's RFD. He had a much easier time of it than I did. :)
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
How am I to vote, then?

I voted for Pro. He made a great first post, better than I've ever seen anyone do on this topic. I want to give him credit for that.

Con made a terrible argument, consisting entirely of hateful irrelevancies. No credit there.

But, as I write this RFD, and reread the earlier part of it, I'm reconsidering. Pro never pointed out the problems with Con's argument. Maybe Con had some good points that he could have brought out in response to Pros criticisms. Con shouldn't be penalized for Pro's failure to engage.

I assume that Pro forfeited because he thought he couldn't reason with someone who wasn't even trying to be reasonable. "Never argue with a drunk," kind of thing. That's just an assumption. But forfeiting is not good. There's nothing wrong with pointing out, to the best of your ability, why your opponent's argument seems to you unreasonable.

This is hard. Pro made a great post, and Con made no good ones. But Pro forfeited, and the longer I write this RFD, the larger that grows in my mind.

I'm going to change my vote to favor Con.

I'll probably read this again tomorrow, and conceivably will change it again.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
This is a tough one to judge.

Pro made a brilliant first post, and then punted the other rounds. Advantage Con.

Con posted in every round, but he never really tried to refute Pro's case. Advantage Pro.

Con's argument is that he likes intolerance; for religious reasons, he wants to continue discriminating against the downtrodden. Can we construe this to be relevant comment in a debate? It doesn't seem likely.

Pro gave normal definitions of justice and fairness, and addressed his argument to these normal concepts. Con didn't have a comeback for this argument. Advantage Pro.

However, Pro said that in order for the debate to be judge-able, they had to offer moral systems. Having said that, he offered a dead link as his moral foundation. Not good. Even if the link were live, I shouldn't have to follow a link to read Pro's argument. And Pro's argument shouldn't be off-site where the character limits don't apply. And Pro's argument should be written by Pro, not by somebody else. Negligible advantage Con, except that Con is about to exploit that advantage effectively.

Since Pro pointlessly said they had to offer moral systems for us to judge them by, Con submitted a moral system for us to judge by. Con worships a hateful god who doesn't like justice and fairness. Con's morality requires him to be hateful too. So, if we're really going to judge this by the submitted moralities, then any behavior could be justified by simply _calling_ it part of a moral system. But Pro said that's how we're to judge. It's a stumper. But there's no way to call this part for Pro. Advantage Con.

Both sides made some off-topic remarks. Con refuted Pro's, by, for instance, pointing out that the resolution is about fairness and justice, so economic prosperity isn't part of the issue. Pro, however, didn't refute Con's off-topic remarks, because Pro forfeited all but the first round. Advantage Con.

How am I to vote, then?

---continued---
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
It would be nice if someone voted on this...
Posted by nickthengineer 5 years ago
nickthengineer
Pro has a very good point. How dare they restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex. Likewise, how dare the LPGA only allow women to play and how dare the NAACP only allow colored members.

Goodness. It never ceases to amaze me how people think that something is "unfair" or "unjust" simply because it is restrictive. If that were the case, then I could call Harvard unjust for denying me admission. "Marriage" is a word with a definition. How about you just come up with your own word and your own ceremony and your own traditions and stop trying to change ours? Gay marriage is an oxymoron. I will support your effort to legalize gay marriage, but only if you also push for the legalization of square circles as well.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Also, I do not intend to offend my opponent, rather, express my opinion on the matter. Nothing personal Pro.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
ScarletGhost4396Buckethead31594Tied
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: ScarletGhost needs to stop accepting debates he (she?) knows he (she?) can not finish.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
ScarletGhost4396Buckethead31594Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: You know pro.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
ScarletGhost4396Buckethead31594Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's forfiets cost the arguments and conduct, but Con never did use sources, so Pro still gets those.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
ScarletGhost4396Buckethead31594Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
ScarletGhost4396Buckethead31594Tied
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: Obvious forfiet.