The Instigator
moofect
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CriticalThinkingMachine
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Resolved: The United States ought to legalize same sex 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 4 votes the winner is...
CriticalThinkingMachine
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 33917
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

moofect

Pro

The Con must prove in the round that their arguments do not come from a religious belief as church and state are separate. Also, the con must prove that same sex marriage is wrong from a logical and not religious stand point.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I accept. State your case.

Debate Round No. 1
moofect

Pro

moofect forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Come on dude. You're forfeiting before the debate has even begun?
Debate Round No. 2
moofect

Pro

moofect forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Pro has forfeited another round. He has provided no case for his contention that gay marriage ought to be legal in the United States. I will present my own case against the resolution.

[1] reductio ad absurdum:
A logical argument form called reductio ad absurdum points out how a belief leads to absurdities, then the belief should be rejected. If we change the definition of marriage to appease gay people, then we have to be fair and change it for all other groups. We have to allow people who engage in bestiality to marry animals. We have to allow incestuous family members to marry each other. We have to allow pedophiliac adults to marry children. We would also have to allow people to marry inanimate objects (not that it would happen, but the principle remains). But allowing these is absurd, so we should not allow gay marriage either. If gay marriage supporters believe that the law should be changed for people who want to enter into gay marriages but not changed for people who want to marry their pets, their spouses, children, or objects, they have to explain why. Until then, support for gay marriage remains absurd.

[2] inequality: The reason why gay relationships should not be given equal marital rights as heterosexual relationships is because gay relationships are not equal to heterosexual relationships. This country was founded on the principle that we are all born equal (that as citizens we are all equal, no one is superhuman or sub-human) , not that we should always treat people equally regardless of the circumstances. Do we give the same punishment to someone who stole something as we do to someone who is a mass murderer? Of course not. We give proportional treatment, not equal treatment.

There are several facts that reveal to us the conclusion that homosexuality is not simply an equal alternative to heterosexuality and therefore should not be treated with equal rights.

(a) biology: Heterosexual relationships can produce offspring while homosexual ones cannot. Procreation is essential for the survival of the human race. If you gave gay people their own country (a country in which only gay people lived and had only homosexual relationships), in a century it would be
empty because there would be no way to reproduce. Homosexual relationships depend on heterosexual relationships for their very existence.

Now of course there are cases in which people cannot conceive. But this does not refute my argument. It does not mean that these people are immoral. It is recognized as a biological mistake
that they cannot conceive. Their bodies normally would conceive if an error had not occurred, but a homosexual biological union was never meant to procreate. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex, but it is one of the purposes in healthy sexual union.

Why should homosexual unions be legitimized if they cannot even meet one of the key purposes of sexual union? Biology is on the side of gay marriage opponents.

(b) sexual anatomy: Even aside from biology, there is anatomical inequality. Penises and vaginas fit together like hands and gloves, or keys and locks. They compliment each other. There is balance. You can’t fit a penis into a penis or a vagina into a vagina, and anal intercourse is unsanitary and unhealthy. Why should we legitimize an imbalanced a and non-complimentary union?

c) holistic anatomy: Men and women’s bodies as wholes also compliment each other. Men’s bodies are larger, more muscular and rugged than women’s, which are softer, smaller, and suppler. A man’s ruggedness is supposed to complete a woman’s tenderness, and vice versa. Again, there is balance and symmetry in heterosexual unions, but this is missing from homosexual unions. A male homosexual relationship is missing the tenderness, and a female homosexual relationship is missing the ruggedness.

(d) spirit: The same principle of manliness and womanliness applies to men and women’s mind and spirits as well. Men, in having a rugged personality, are complementary to the tender personalities of women, and vice versa. Homosexual relationships lack either one of these, or only have both because one or both of the individuals in the relationship are trying to play both the male and female role, and hence are not being fully male or fully female.

[
3] low percentage: If homosexuality were an equal alternative to heterosexuality, then we would expect that there would be an equal amount of homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that is not the case. Less than five percent of the population is gay.1 This adds to the reasons to believe that homosexuality is a kind of biological mistake.

Because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights in cases where sexuality is involved, such as marriage. We should only treat homosexuality with equal rights when the homosexuality is not relevant to the case at hand, which is true in most cases. In marriage, however, it is relevant because it marriage involves sexuality, and because homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality, it does not deserve equal rights.
Debate Round No. 3
moofect

Pro

moofect forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

Extend arguments
Debate Round No. 4
moofect

Pro

moofect forfeited this round.
CriticalThinkingMachine

Con

I extend my arguments to the last round. I have fulfilled my burden of showing that gay marriage should not be legalized from a logical standpoint without referring to religious arguments. My opponent has chosen to abandon the debate and not argue.

I forgot to add my source before for my claim about the population of gay marriage, so here
it is now.

http://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Emmo 4 years ago
Emmo
crazy, i was just about to agree and someone beat me to it...i don't have a problem with gay marriage but sometimes arguing something you don't oppose is good to stimulate your mind
Posted by Legitdebater 4 years ago
Legitdebater
Hopefully 16kadams doesn't accept this otherwise you're screwed. Anyways, I'd be happy to debate you, however, I support gay marriage and agree with Pro. You should also include definitions in your debate and a debate structure. Hopefully your arguments are good.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
moofectCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. BTW, good job con, you handled yourself as if you were pro (without a BoP you made a good case).
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
moofectCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
moofectCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Mega F.F. :(
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
moofectCriticalThinkingMachineTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.