The Instigator
MattMan1
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Bitz
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

Same-Sex marriage should be allowed in the United States.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,303 times Debate No: 2089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (22)

 

MattMan1

Pro

I've seen many debates concerning the topic of same-sex marriage. However, I haven't seen what I consider a justified reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal. The common cons for same-sex marriage are:

1.) This country was developed by Christians, and same-sex marriage is a sin.
- Ok, so our Forefathers developed the nation under God. However, the United States isn't purely made up of Christians, and it is supposed to allow religious freedom. Using Christian views in government, is influencing Christian views.

2.) Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
- Whose to say this definition cannot change under various circumstances. When two people of the same sex feel strongly for each other, why should the be denied the rights of other couples.

In addition, I'd like to say that banning same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone, except for those who plan on having a same-sex marriage. If a person is morally against same-sex marriage, or against it for any other reason, then they can choose not to attend a wedding of two people of the same gender. There are no negative effects on people who aren't homosexual.
Bitz

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate.

Secondly I would like to ask everyone rating to please rate based on: WHO HAD A BETTER LOGICAL ARGUMENT, NOT WHO YOU AGREE WITH.

Now for my opening statements:

Your position is: "Same-Sex marriage should be allowed in the United States."

The current policy of same sex marriage is popular soverignty, each state has the right to vote if they want same sex marriage or not. If you want to impose a federal requirement to dictate to all the states that same sex marriage should be allowed, the burden of the logical argument if on you, not I.

"However, I haven't seen what I consider a justified reason for same-sex marriage to be illegal."

I am not the one wanting to change the legal policy we use for homosexuals, you are. since you are the one who wants to change the way society runs, the burden of the logical argument is on you, not I. Therefore, it is you who needs to come up with "a justified reason" for same sex marriage to be legal. But for the debate, I will give some arguments despite the fact that the burden of the logical argument is on you, not I.

1) If Gay Marriage should be legal, why shouldn't incest marriages be legal?

If you will respond by saying that incest has genetic problems for the children, That argument does not cut it, because there are regular heterosexual people with irregular and destructive genes and when they breed, they will almost always sire deformed children. By that logic those people should not have the right to marriage either.

Furthermore, The genetic argument against incest marriages will not cut it for another reason: By the genetic argument against incest, Incest couples that show proof of infirtility should be able to marry since there is no genetic threat to children since they wont have any.

My opponent stated: "In addition, I'd like to say that banning same-sex marriage has no effect on anyone, except for those who plan on having a same-sex marriage."

By this logic, Incest marriages and Polygamy marriages should also be legal marriages, since they don't bother anyone either. Are you saying if a 50 year old father wants to marry his 18 year old daughter, we should consider that a marriage?

2) If Gay marriages should be legal so should marriages that involve polymay.
By your logic, Polygamy should be legally considered a marriage since it doesnt bother anyone.

3) Now let's take it a step further and expand on the previous 2 arguments. Let's say I want to marry my sister, my mother, my brother, and my father all at the same time. In addition, my sister would like to marry me, my mother, my father, and my brother. Furthermore, my mother would like to marry me, my brother, my sister, and my father. You get the picture. According to your logic, we should all be married to each other and have wonderful, crazy, gay-hetero-polygamy-incest. AND LEGALLY WE SHOULD ALL BE MARRIED LOL! that's just crazy.

Also, you said homosexual marriage doesn't bother anyone. This is true so long as homosexual marriage is limited to the privacy of their own home and it is not taught in schools. People have the right to teach their children that homosexual marriage is wrong. In contrast someone else does NOT have the right to teach my children that homosexual marriage is right if I don't want them to. If I don't want those people politically influencing my children they do not have the right to do so. (this only applies when the child is under 18 of course)

Inagine a teacher telling your children that incest is OK. then your son comes back home from school and starts making out with your daughter, or worse, your wife! How would you feel?

Ok those are some arguments, I'll be waiting for your responce.
Debate Round No. 1
MattMan1

Pro

MattMan1 forfeited this round.
Bitz

Con

Looks like my opponent conceded....Oh well. What a shame, I thought this would turn out to be an interessting debate....Have I reached one hundred characterss yet?
Debate Round No. 2
MattMan1

Pro

MattMan1 forfeited this round.
Bitz

Con

Okay, I would like to clarify a few things and expand on some of my positions as well as provide my closing statements.

The reason the genetic argument against incest fails is: By the logic of the genetic argument against incest, two regular heterosexual people with Tay-Sachs Disease should not be recognized as married, since they also will have genetic problems for their future children.

Also by the logic of the genetic argument, a 50 year old father who wants to marry his 18 year old daughter and shows proof of infertility should be considered married stats since they will never have children.

Furthermore, by the logic of the genetic argument, gay incest should be recognized as marriage. A 50 year old father who wants to marry his 18 year old son should be recognized as marriage, since there is no genetic problems with their children.

Therefore, the genetic argument against incest is not a valid one.

I would like to also address the rape/child abuse argument against incest marriages.

Some may argue that since in incest couples rape and child abuse are common, we should not recognize incest couples to be legally married.

The logic of this argument is greatly flawed. Firstly, Just because in one spectrum of sexuality rape/child abuse is common is NOT grounds to ban ALL marriages of that spectrum of sexuality.

In the regular world rape and child abuse have the following statistics:

Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.
One in six American women are victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men.
In 2005-2006, there were an average annual 232,010 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30

Also, rape/child abuse is quite common in the homosexual world as well as the heterosexual world. Priests rape alter boys (child abuse) Men rape other men in jail(rape) is that grounds to ban all marriages of that orientation? Of course not,

Clearly, Just because in one orientation rape/child abuse is higher is not grounds to ban all marriages of that orientation.

Therefore, the rape/child abuse argument against incest marriage is not valid.

Therefore, My question still stands: If Homosexual marriages should be federally mandated and forced on the states to accept, why shouldn't incest marriages?

Solution/Conclusion: Here is my solution to this whole problem in two words: Popular sovereignty. The legal subsidization of a marriage comes from the will of the people of each state.

Legal marriage stats is not a fundamental right. The right to life is a fundamental right, freedom is a fundamental right. The right of other people to accept you as "married" is not a fundamental right.

I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, regardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that.

Heterosexual marriage is legally subsidized because the people of each state voted to subsidize it. If the people of a state vote not to subsidize Gay and Incest marriages, they have the right to do so as well. And if that is the case, incest couples and Gay couples have no right going to the people and forcing them to subsidize their marriage if the people of that state don't want to.

In conclusion, when it comes to subsidizing marriage, we should use popular sovereignty.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by smilingsoprano 9 years ago
smilingsoprano
Of course, I must vote for Con, seeing as Pro did not even debate. The fact that he actually got votes is beyond me.

I can see why Pro didn't respond . . . Bitz, your arguments were good and intimidating, designed to put Pro in a very uncomfortable position.

I would love to see you debate someone more competent on this topic.

You know, it's funny, I hadn't thought about the hypocrisy of society's stance on incestual marriages. But if you took on someone less squeamish, those arguments could get very interesting, indeed. After all, why should we be against incest, unless it's not consensual?

Personally, I'm socially conditioned to feel sick to my stomach at the thought of kissing my dad. But where's the logic? I can't find it.

Anyway, good debate. Good points. Find someone better to argue with.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Plusaf, Yes, I meant status. I apologize for the careless spelling error.

And yes, the core of my argument is Popular Sovereignty.

However, many people who support gay marriage are actually against incest marriage, which is a contradictory and biased position, as stated in my arguments.

I'll try to find some time to read your material, I just got off my vacation.

Cheers! :)
Posted by plusaf 9 years ago
plusaf
bitz, you did well for your side of the debate, but for anyone to vote for you as the "winner", even as i did, is a little silly. a forfeit is a forfeit, and i wonder what, if anything, your opponent would have come up with. i voted for you because you DID present better arguments. kind of silly, but what the hey....

now, just for grins, i'd like to point out that your arguments about states' sovereignty were the best, and any deviation off that track, i think, comprised wasted words.

i'd also like to point out that, over hundreds of years, the concept of "marriage" has waxed AND waned, and, contrary to many current "conservatives'" beliefs, it hasn't been constant and immutable since you-know-who died on the you-know-what. many periods of history were "marriage-free."

if anything, the concept of marriage simplifies a lot of things, especially the rights of property, inheritance and the like.

that's one of many reasons that gays are so adament about wanting to bifurcate "civil unions" from "religious unions," and although i'm a card-carrying hetero, i agree with them.

if civil union laws were rewritten to account for all of the rights that "married couples" currently enjoy [in the US, i should add...], any and all of the mixes of coupling you listed could be covered and if the participants were all willing [and sober and not deranged or of low-iq and incapable of entering into such a contract,] and able, they should all be allowed to "marry" in all those combinations!!

i've written and collected about it here...
http://www.plusaf.com... and here...
http://www.plusaf.com...

enjoy!

and by the way, when you write "stats" do you mean "status"?

while debating is generally a verbal art, here, as in similar venues, spelling may be a significant part of a successful "communication."

all in all, you done well.... :)))))
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Yeah, it is kind of ridiculous. It's okay though, the votes mean little to me. If I lose a debate, I want to be logically PROVED wrong, that is the important thing. Regardless of how many people vote based on whom they agree with, It's quite clear who won the debate.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
I DON'T GET IT. Why was matt tied with bitz?!?!?! HE DIDN'T EVEN DEBATE!!! Be honest people, and VOTE FOR THE SIDE WITH THE BETTER ARGUMENTS!!! How can you vote for some one WHO FORFEITED!?!? Ugh...
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
Good job, Bitz. Not that you had to do much to win after those forfeits, but congrats, just the same.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Kethinator,
I personally would never be involved in incest due to my religious bleiefs.

Politically: I believe legal marriage stats is not a fundamental rght. The right to life is a fundamentl right, freedom is a fundamental right. The right of other people to accept you as "married" is not a fundamental right.

I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, reguardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that.

I believe that what is considered marriage should be left up to the people IE: popular sovernty, the people of each state have the right to chose what the consider marriage. For example: I live in New York. If the people in NY vote to accept heterosexual couples as married stats, they have the right to do that. The same goes for incest and homosexuality. If the state votes to not accept incest couples as married stats, then incest couples have no right going to the people and forcing them to accept their relationship as married stats if the other people don't want to view them as married stats.

To sum it up I believe that when it comes to rights that are not fundamental, we should use popular soverinty

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
I guess i would like to know your personal view on it.
Posted by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Keithinator, Are you asking me why I am personally against incest? Or are you asking me why I am politically against incest?

The answers are different.
Posted by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
answer this question for me. Why don't you agree with incest?
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by smilingsoprano 9 years ago
smilingsoprano
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by zdog234 9 years ago
zdog234
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
MattMan1BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Morgs 9 years ago
Morgs
MattMan1BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by josh_42 9 years ago
josh_42
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by BPrincess1996 9 years ago
BPrincess1996
MattMan1BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by lexmastaflex013 9 years ago
lexmastaflex013
MattMan1BitzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rachelst 9 years ago
Rachelst
MattMan1BitzTied
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:03