The Instigator
CalebVinson
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
danielawesome12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 685 times Debate No: 32419
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

CalebVinson

Pro

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage.
Burdens: Under the context of standard debate procedure the Pro holds the burden of proof, and upon upholding that burden the con holds the burden of rejoinder, and, if they offer a counter-solution, the subsequent burden of proof.
Framework: For the context of this debate, the issue will be argued in a large context because of all the different points of view associated with the topic. Cases should be structured with a value and with supporting contentions or points of evidence.
Round 1: Acceptance, Overview of arguments that will be used
2: Ethical/Moral Implications of Gay Marriage
3: Societal/Political viewpoints towards gay marriage
4: Refutation of opponents arguments and propping up of your own
5: Concluding Statements hitting only already covered arguments, any new arguments made in this section will be considered abuse and should be voted against.
At this point it is prudent to begin to outline arguments:
First off, some standard definitions:
Federal Government: Individuals on a federal level that set up politics in a country (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
Legalize: To Make legal or lawful; to confirm or validate what was before void or unlawful; to add the sanction and authority of law to that which before was without or against law (Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
Gay: Homosexual (Common Knowledge)
DISPUTED TERM:
Marriage: Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, Is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incum- bent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.(Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition)
Now outlining arguments on two main areas:
First: Ethical/Moral Implications of Gay Marriage
Value: For this debate I will be upholding the value of nihilism. Nihilism as defined by Merriam-Webster as: a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; and, b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
Voting Criterion: To uphold the value of nihilism I will be using the secondary voting criterion of Pragmatism. Defined by Merriam-Webster as: a practical approach to problems and affairs.
To give my opponent proper time to prepare argumentation I will outline my logical flow of argumentation:
1. Establish that many of the barriers to gay marriage are essentially meaningless in any case:
a. Moral Values - Disproved through subjectivism and relativism as a basis for establishing a nihilistic argumentation viewpoint; utilize concepts of pragmatism to support that it is impractical to try to formulate a universal moral standard.
b. Definition of Marriage - Languages are essentially an invention of mankind made to fit the circumstances under which the words were created; for example, the Inuit have numerous words for snow, which people in more tropical climates do not require. Languages can die and be born and are hardly a universal standard for defining what a civil union (the revised, proposed definition of marriage) really is.
c. Religious - return to argument about true meaning of civil union, remind audience that "marriage" was not even existent upon the writing of the bible. Further refute by returning to value of nihilism and referencing the unreliability of faith in establishing lawful societies - as last resort call upon separation of church and state in this democratic, and NOT theocratic, society.
2. Upon establishing canvas devoid of previous moral expectation, establish argument parameter that since typical societal values are meaningless in any case and thus gay marriage should pass simply because it would be more pragmatic to focus on issues that are more prudent to the hegemony of our nation in any case.
3. Clarify arguments of pragmatism and nihilism as the basis for a philosophical understanding of why the passing of gay marriage is a non-issue and not even worth the financial and mental exertion required for a true congressional discussion of such an esoteric topic.

Round 2:
Societal/Political Issues associated with gay marriage
Value: Pragmatism (Same Definition as in first stage of argumentation)
Voting Criterion: Manifest Humanism
Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Merriam-Webster)
Manifest: The belief that something is inherently obvious and predetermined(Paraphrased from Merriam-Webster)
Contentions/Flow of Argumentation
1. Establish the practicality of passing gay marriage as a necessary part of the advancement of mankind and even of our nation.
a. The concept of civil union is ultimately an inherent right for human beings. Rather than focusing on "true love" the wishy-wash aspect of this argument must be thrust aside in the pure basic concepts of the "Social Contract"
b. While paper and passion are used on this topic the nation is billions of dollars in debt and there are rampant issues in foreign policy and domestic. The fact that the United States Federal Government is occupied by arguing a topic that really is inconsequential in the grand historical scheme of human and societal advancement, it is impractical to argue the unprovable basis that Homosexual Civil Unions are not as legitimate as Heterosexual Civil Unions.
c. To advance society, these issues either need to be forgotten or resolved. If mankind is to achieve its destiny of superiority through logical reasoning than issues such as Gay Marriage need to be forgotten or resolved; since the homosexual population of the nation will refuse to concede any points in regards to the legitimacy of their civil union the only logical end to this issue is to pass gay marriage and, in layman's terms, "move on with our lives".
2. Society's Advancement through Legalizing gay Marriage
a. The United States has the unique opportunity to be a leader on a social issue rather than a follower
i. The United States has earned significant ridicule from its peers on refusing to budge on social issues in its past. For a nation that makes its money on the slogan "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" it is hypocritical and illogical to bar everyone from having the freedom to marry.
ii. In the past the United States has made the mistake of being the last one in the pack of first world nations to legalize various societal expectations of a civil society. Some examples of this include being the last cultured, industrial nation in the world to end slavery, one of the last to legalize the rights of women to vote, women to own property and general, basic rights outlined in the Constitution for White Males, and cross-applying those same basic rights over to African-Americans.
b. By being a forerunner on this issue the United States will set the precedent for other nations to resolve their debate on gay marriage and thus be in a favorable position to move on to other issues that are more integral to the advancement of society.
3. After resolving these non-issues it is probable that Domestic policies will be more focused to issues such as Foreign negotiation, Economic Growth and towards a sustainable and favorable standard of living
a. POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE: International Cooperation

This is the shell of my argumentation. If anyone is willing to coherently and intelligently argue this issue in the context of logical reasoning and without the use of pathetic fallacies such as Ad Hominem I look forward to discussing the philosophical, societal and moral precedents of gay marriage as well as coming up with a creative solution to one of the most irrational things to be arguing about in the modern world.
danielawesome12

Con

I'm happy to accept your challenge and I wish you luck, :) I chose a hard argument so I'd like to to wish me luck I'll put 5 statements for each round to keep it short and simple.

1. all around men and women are completely different and same-sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship

2. If you can't produce offspring in your relationship then your relationship is unnatural

3. There would be no role model within a child if he never/rarely saw the opposite gender in his household

4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts, and traditions of many religious groups. The Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church, Islam, United Methodist Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, National Association of Evangelicals, and American Baptist Churches USA all oppose same-sex marriage.

5. America was founded as a conservative nation and should always remain one, since American democrats moved further left America has spun into turmoil in politics and nothing is getting done it's best to stick with what works Source: http://echochamber.me...
I look forward to round 2
Debate Round No. 1
CalebVinson

Pro

Thank you for accepting the challenge and I wish you luck as well. First of all, Roadmap for this round:
First I will be addressing my opponents arguments as they relate to Ethical/Moral Implications, then I shall be going over my own set framework for the round.
First, a point of order in regards to my opponents arguments: They are merely statements, and while there is a grain of common knowledge contained within those statements there is little to no evidence of any proper analysis or research into the topic and I hope that the audience takes that into consideration when judging this debate. The only source offered is a blog site, which is both of ill repute and likely to be extremely biased. Now to move onto my opponents main points:
1. "All Around men and women are completely different and same sex couples would destroy meaning in a relationship"
this statement is invalid because of the fact that men and women in reality are extremely similar to one another.Aside from minuscule differences in the genetic code the main determination of what makes a man and what constitutes a woman is the simple layout of the sex chromosome package: Women are XX and men are XY. This is a minuscule difference and, all in all, Men and Women are extremely similar biologically. However this is not the main flaw in my opponents argument. That is that the supposed differences between men and women in a relationship would destroy any inherent meaning. This is a direct contrast to my argument. The lack of differences doesn't change the fact that all relationships are meaningless. The human mind has developed a complex unlike any other biological organism in the world and thus feels a need to form complex social patterns. Biologically, no "relationship" has any meaning. People are essentially animals, directly descended from the African Ape and animals mate purely for the purpose of survival. (Darwin, Origin of Species). In fact, I turn my opponents argument and say that meaning in a relationship is a purely human phenomena and thus is to the discretion of those involved in said relationship.
2. "No offspring=unnatural"
this argument is directly correlated with point 1. The truth is the entire concept of marriage is "unnatural" and is an exclusively human phenomena. Humans do many unnatural things such as driving cars and debating issues on the internet. This argument is inconsequential to the issue at hand. A further point is that their are many heterosexual couples who also cannot produce offspring due to genetic deficiencies- this would imply that those relationships are also unnatural.
3. No role model for child without opposite gender
This statement could really use some further development to clarify understanding. It would be helpful for you to define what a role model is. The only lack of role models that is possible in this house hold is a "gender role" that you feel is inherent to human development. However, that role is addressed in media and in the basic patterns of human social life. The child would have plenty of exposure to heterosexual relationships through watching television, attending school and doing other basic social activities. You also make the erroneous assumption that the gay parents would encourage their adopted child to be gay. The final strike against this argument is that it is once again irrelevant to the topic: we are not debating adoption by gay parents, we are debating homosexuals right to form civil unions with one another.
4. Gay marriage is incompatible with the beliefs, sacred texts and traditions of many religious groups.
I will cover this argument further in one of my own contentions but in basic this argument is irrelevant because of the separation of church and state and the fact that relativism and subjectivism dictate that different people have different faiths. Not every tradition in the bible is followed to the letter and God means many different things to many different people.
5. Conservativism
This is mainly for part 3 but in general: Liberalism has integral to the social development of this nation and achieved benchmarks such as the annihilation of slavery, the rights of women and minorities to vote and workers rights.
Now to my main arguments:
Value: For this debate I will be upholding the value of nihilism. Nihilism as defined by Merriam-Webster as: a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless; and, b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
Voting Criterion: To uphold the value of nihilism I will be using the secondary voting criterion of Pragmatism. Defined by Merriam-Webster as: a practical approach to problems and affairs.
1. Establish that many of the barriers to gay marriage are essentially meaningless in any case. We live in a chaotic and meaningless world and human kinds have forever been trying to discover meaning where none exists. UNder these circumstances it is more prudent to merely be pragmatic in our approach to ambiguous topics such as civil unions.
a. Moral Values - Morality means different things to different people. There are very few things that one can truly say are inherently right or inherently wrong. For example in Muslim nations women may be stoned to death for committing adultery and "infidels" are doomed to execution at the hands of radicals. This is an extremely different religious opinion than that of other branches of faith. Another clear example is the interpretation of rape and genocide. The Vikings and some african tribes today considered raping and pillaging a necessary part of true conquest.
b. Definition of Marriage - Languages are essentially an invention of mankind made to fit the circumstances under which the words were created; for example, the Inuit have numerous words for snow, which people in more tropical climates do not require. Languages can die and be born and are hardly a universal standard for defining what a civil union (the revised, proposed definition of marriage) really is. This was covered in countering my opponents first short argument.
c. Religious - To this end I once again argue that civil unions are CIVIL, as in part of civilization, not a part of religion. Marriage was not even in existence during the writing of the bible, the primary text of the church. . In an meaningless world in which some individuals refuse to acknowledge the logical flaws of having a greater power, people turn to faith in their search for the "why" of society. Faith serves as a justification when there are no longer any real practical barriers to an issue. Despite scientific evidence overwhelmingly in favor of evolution many christians still believe that every species that ever existed was on Noah's ark. This is just one case of faith being a misguided attempt to explain phenomena that became more easily discernible through the process of science. Faith is not scientific or societal law and should not be interpreted as such.
2. Through my points in the first bullet I have established that society and faith and even marriage are meaningless inventions of mankind. These are ultimately inconsequential to the progress of the world and the universe. Under those circumstances it would be best to try to return to naturalism and survival of the fittest by passing gay marriage legislation so that society can focus on the real issues, namely, the survival of the human race. While mired in issues as inconsequential to you and I as gay marriage and abortion, the progress of society is extremely slow and mankind finds itself in increasing danger of world destruction. Pass this legislation so that we can establish a society that insures mankind's survival.
3. Congressional debate on such an esoteric topic is a meaningless gesture. There is no way that this topic can really be understood because it is inexplicable from the point of view of scientific research. IE. no proof or rejoinder.
danielawesome12

Con

Oh boy I got talk about thanks for the length I can tell you've put serious though into this issue within society
1. OK Men and women have never been the same through history we have tried it and in the end we always have different roles it's in our brains http://science.howstuffworks.com...
2. OK I know humanity is very unnatural but in truth it's only because of our increased abilities if tigers had a higher sense of consciousness( which they don't except in Narnia) I'm sure they would be devote to the pursuit of knowledge but homosexuality has nothing to do with learning, hopes, faith ETC.therefore it is unnatural UNNATURAL- Contrary to the ordinary course of nature; abnormal. In nature almost no animals are homosexual though they do know about it's obvious since they have had homosexual sex before but its a very rare and abnormal thing to do
3. It is my belief child should not be be able to watch the Media has too much influence in a child's life it shouldn't be needed to raise a child and ave them understand men, women, and life in general. http://kidshealth.org...
4. Church and state should not be separated he only as where church has gotten out of hand then I an recall westbro baptist and I completely agree with declaring them a hate group, church makes people comforted it grants happiness and gives you faith to believe in not only the church but also yourself
5. seriously???????????? I though you were better than that what a cheap-shot the democrats supported slavery lol Yes, very actively before and during the Civil War. After the war of course there was no slavery to support, but the Dixiecrats were solidly against equal rights for former slaves. It wasn't until John Kennedy and the 1960s that the Democrats began supporting racial integration and equality. Before the 1960's when democrats flipped sides they filibuster the civil rights movement http://www.care2.com...
oh, and by the way MLK JR. was republican liberals have made in impossible to run the U.S.A Conservatives have worked hard on budgets since the days of Reagan trust me the Debt didn't rise in the Reagen era due to Reaganomics it rose, because the liberals in congress wouldn't pass a budget Conservatives are still working on today it has been in wok for decades and Liberals has been denied during both the bushes and Reagan meanwhile they proclaim us as satanic for no passing Obama's http://liberallogic101.com...
funny how I was so classy and your were complete D**K
Debate Round No. 2
CalebVinson

Pro

My opponent failed to address my arguments on the affirmative basis so he has not upheld the con's burden of rejoinder, therefore, he automatically loses the round. In addition, he has failed to foliow the framework laid out in Round 1 Pro section meaning that he has no framework for his arguments at all except a shell of an advantages/disadvantages case. Because of lack of structure and logical progression my opponent does not deserve to win the round. In addition he resorted to ad hominem and other argumentative fallacies. Moving on: he was fallacious in his defense of his own points and made numerous concessions that proved my arguments valid.
1. "Men and women are historically similar according to this scientific argument"
Neuroscience is an extremely ambiguous and tentative branch of biological science that is extremely difficult to understand. An argument appealing to universal differences in brain chemistry only supports and upholds the belief that ALL human brains are different, which you can cross over as a point for the pro in this argument. Brain chemistry and hormone chemistry are intertwined and can be attributed to that same difference in chromosomes outlined in Pro 2. The roles in society that my opponent refers to are in no way interrelated to the issue of brain chemistry, rather, they are historically linked to social patterns founded on basic biology- Men have typically held positions of power because due to genetics they are bigger and stronger. The main fallacy in this argument is its failure to reference the concept of gay marriage whatsoever. My opponent has lost sight of the issue at hand and resorted to trying to debate 5 topics at once rather than making a focused attempt to debate whether the United States Federal Government should pass legislation legalizing gay marriage. For this, he diminishes his already weak case.
2. Concedes that humans are natural because of our further brain development as related to other species. Provided a definition of unnatural with no source for his definition. And the definition once again factors into the affirmatives contention that human beings are unnatural because we are abnormal in comparison to other species. He then references nature in the fact that almost no animals are homosexual. This is attributed to argument I have stressed over and over again stating that only human beings inherently desire to form civil unions. The entire concept of nature is Unnatural so by the merit of my opponents own argument civil unions, society and institutions of law are all inherently wrong because they do not follow the natural course of nature. This argument is fallacious and filled with holes as there is no logical progression and no attempt to adhere to the normal methodology of debate.
3. My opponent completely disregards the merit of my argument and merely states that it is HIS belief that children should not watch social media. This is an absolutely pathetic attempt to justify a belief. MY opponent assumes that because HE believes this that it is true for every member of society. This holds no burden of rejoinder and generally lacks any factual basis relevant to society and instead founded on my opponent's belief that since he read something on an internet website that everyone believes the same as he does. This argument is lost and should be dropped my opponent at this point in the debate. He also fails to connect the issue to the resolution which indicates that my opponent lacks the ability to make the correlation between the issue under discussion and the issue of adoption.
4. Once again my opponent has only his belief to back up the issue at hand. He believes that church and state should not be separated and irrationally expects the remainder of society to listen to his utterly inconsequential opinions. This once again has nothing to do with gay marriage and should be dropped/tossed out of the debate.
5. My opponent misunderstands my statement and responds through a series of inflammatory remarks and a fiery loyalty to a political PARTY rather than a political Ideology. Liberalism does not equal the United States Democratic Party just as Conservatism does not equal the United States Republican Party. Princeton.edu (reputable source) defines liberalism as: a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution. This definition exactly correlates to the points that I made in my debate. The Republican party of the United states was formerly the liberal party and had an inherent belief in the ideology of liberalism which lead to the change in legislation. In the mid 20th century the democratic party became the more liberal party and enacted legislation. No where in my original statement did I reference democrats or republicans. So my opponent has once again failed to comprehend my arguments and has failed in his burden of rejoinder.
Just to remind the audience: My opponent failed to address any of my arguments so those still stand under the affirmative burden of proof.
Following the framework I set for the debate in round one I will be analyzing gay marriage from the viewpoint of Social/Political factors:
Value: Pragmatism (Same Definition as in first stage of argumentation)
Voting Criterion: Manifest Humanism
Humanism: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason (Merriam-Webster)
Manifest: The belief that something is inherently obvious and predetermined(Paraphrased from Merriam-Webster)
Contentions/Flow of Argumentation
1. Establish the practicality of passing gay marriage as a necessary part of the advancement of mankind and even of our nation. The social contract is the belief that all members of society cooperate for shared social benefits. If we are to act as a civil society than we must realize that continuing to argue an issue as irrelevant as gay marriage is in direct violation to the ideas of this social contract. While the nation is enthralled by this issue their is rampant poverty and a bureaucracy embedded in a system that disempowers the voters ability to remove these men. The issue of gay marriage needs to be addressed in short time so that these real issues can be addressed. By upholding my value of pragmatism we must pass this legislation simply so we can advance to society's real problems and fulfill the social contract. If we hope to continue our reign as the dominant species we must realize that since the homosexual population of the nation will refuse to concede any points in regards to the legitimacy of their civil union- the only logical end to this issue is for the United States federal government to approve the legislation to make this issue a federal one and then to pass the legislation to make Gay marriage legal. Only then can we concentrate on the real issues. I am kicking the argument for the 2nd part of my societal-political framework because the topic has already been significantly addressed in the discussions over my opponents 5th contention and the true definition of liberalism. To rehash, affirming this legislation gives the United States the unique opportunity to be a forerunner on what should be an international question over the legitimacy of homosexual civil unions or "marriages". The United States government could use their increased devotion to civil rights as a springboard to make a real splash in the international community and shore up relations with first world countries such as those in the European movement. In addition the increased diplomatic leverage we gain by become obtaining a more legitimate advocacy of civil rights may make us more credible to the various second and third world countries where we are trying to institute a system of democracy. This would be a benchmark to add to our reputation.
danielawesome12

Con

Hah my opponents only argument is that I failed to follow his procedure of debate theirs no point in refuting that just LOL he attempted an argument that neuroscience is invalid, and were all the same
1. everyone reading this knows theirs a big difference between the sexes
2.All can agree humanity is similar to animals but special
3.Everyone knows the media has gotten out of hand
4. every agrees religion can help you
5. everyone knows the Liberals that support gay marriage only do it for votes, the same reason they pretend not to be hatemongers by the way who signed DOMA into law was it by chance Bill Clinton
Therefore, he has wasted round 3 because, he failed to refute my argument and his points are obviously rushed.
I'm proud to say theirs no point in refutation good luck in round 4
Debate Round No. 3
CalebVinson

Pro

CalebVinson forfeited this round.
danielawesome12

Con

I can't wait for your excuse for forfeiting this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CalebVinson

Pro

CalebVinson forfeited this round.
danielawesome12

Con

I also forfeit this round
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.