The Instigator
SocialDemocrat
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Alain.Ginger
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Same sex marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S 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  
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: 2/27/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 872 times Debate No: 87334
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

SocialDemocrat

Pro

I am arguing that gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 U.S states.
Just use the first round to clarify you understand your position.
Alain.Ginger

Con

I will argue that gay marriage should be outlawed in all fifty states.

I will show how gay marriage laws are imposing on other people's beliefs and rights and that culture shows unfair sympathy towards gays as far as marriage laws.

I will try to make no fallacies in my arguments. I will be courteous as long as you are, too.

In the end, whoever best supports their argument should be the winner. The number of arguments and sources should not matter as much as their strength and impact.

Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1
SocialDemocrat

Pro

So i am arguing that homos should be allowed to be married in all 50 U.S states.
I back this for the reason that, they have a right to. The reason I say this is because homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality.
An article by out.com explains this about a video with scientist Bill Nye, "In the video, Nye explains homosexuality exists among all different species; Nye gives an example of how bonobo monkeys at times exhibit homosexuality, and that, as a species, "Bonobo monkeys aren't going anywhere anytime soon."
The meaning to this is that, the fact that in some states and certain places homosexuals are not allowed to be married is asinine. It's like this, the reason why a homo should have a right to be married if they want to is because, if they are not allowed to, then that is a right being taken away from them in a secular country. So they should be allowed to. Really my argument is based on refuting your arguments. Since it lies on the fact that their is no secular reason to take that right away from them.
Alain.Ginger

Con

Basically, what my opponent is saying is that since homosexuality is natural, homosexual marriage ought to be legal. I would like to ask my opponent means when he says, "they have a right to". Do you mean that all natural things should be legal? The instinct to kill is certainly natural. Does that mean murder should be legalized?

I will first explain why I disagree with SocialDemocrat's scientific explanation of homosexuality and then I will give my reasons why same-sex marriage should not be legal. I will conclude with an important question to the Affirmative.

SocialDemocrat's argument looks something like this: "If bonobo monkeys can exhibit homosexual behavior, then it's natural for humans too." The fact is that homosexuality is neither natural nor moral for human beings. It holds no biological benefit for humans. According to the Bible it is morally wrong:

Romans 1:2-28 "26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done."

These verses are saying that homosexuality is sinful. Even if you are not a Christian, please realize that Christians view homosexuality as a sin and do not want to advocate it in any way.

Now on to my second point, that same-sex marriage should not be legal. So I have shown that it's a sin. But it also is much more than a sin between two people and THIS is why it should be outlawed. The Bible is clear that people are allowed to make their own decisions even if they have consequences. Paul, when he talks about sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:12 says, "'I have the right to do anything,' you say-- but not everything is beneficial."

My first point is:

1. Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people.

Let's say a gay couple is getting married. They want to buy flowers from a certain flower shop. But the man who owns the flower shop doesn't support gay marriage. He doesn't want to supply them with flowers because it goes against his own, personal beliefs that he is entitled to. However, BY LAW this flower shop owner cannot turn them away. This is the difference between same-sex marriage and divorce. Other people are being obligated to support gay people against their beliefs.

This is about the rights of Christians. It is unconstitutional to force someone to compromise their own beliefs or give up their job. I have evidence for all my arguments available upon the affirmative's request.

My last question is: IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?
Debate Round No. 2
SocialDemocrat

Pro

"Do you mean that all natural things should be legal?" No I do not, I did not say homo marriage should be legal because it is natural but because in the U.S you have a right to do anything that does not infringe on other's rights. Really disallowing homo marriage is effectively taking a way a right that they do have in the U.S to get married. So no murder should not be legalized because murder infringes on the rights of other people, the right to live, homo marriage does not. They have a right to because the U.S is a secular country, not a theocracy.
Well bonobo monkeys can, but many other animals as well. An article by Yale university says this, "Currently, homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide." First of all this is only the species that have been observed there are likely many more, and in any case homosexuality is natural as heterosexuality. It is certainly natural, you have no grounds for saying it is not. You go on to say homosexuality is also not moral, but why? Well your argument for that seems to be that The Bible says it, however this has nothing to do with U.S law, the U.S is not a Christian theocracy so whatever the guys that wrote the Bible have to say about morality has no effect on U.S "a separation of Church and State" that is the idea of secularism, and the U.S. So, whatever the Bible has to say about morality does not change U.S law. Alright but lets look past that for a second, you are saying that homo marriage should not be allowed because of the Bible and Christianity. Well then lets look deeper, what is the most common form of marriage in the Bible... polygamy. Polygamy is having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Hey if we indeed should base laws of the U.S off the Bible then you should be advocating for polygamy. If you are not, you yourself are conceding that the Bible should not determine law in a secular country, which is one of my points.
Alright you also say it should not be allowed because it holds no biological benefit for humans... okay, so what. In the U.S you can do whatever you want as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, whether or not it is biologically beneficial. So really, okay it is not, that does mean it should be outlawed in a secular country, that does not at all prove it should be legal or not. Lets look past that for a second, what else is not economically beneficial... alcohol. Should we ban alcohol because of this, if you say no then you are conceding that things do not have to be biologically beneficial to be legal, which is you rendering that single point of yours useless. But there is other examples which would have you doing this too. Television, the internet, junk food, expensive clothing, jewelry, none of these biologically beneficial. I presume you agree we should not ban all of these things, same goes for homo marriage. Continuing.
The verses you use do show that homosexuality is a sin in Christianity correct. However, this does not show anything really. Here is why the U.S is a secular country so this is point 1, just because certain people have certain ideological views that does not give them a right to take away the rights of homos, and they do have a right to get married.
Point 2: if homo marriage is outlawed, then they are having a right taken away, to be married. If it is legal are Christians really having a right taken away, they still have a right to be anti gay, and to protest against it, and post anti gay social media posts, etc. So what right is really being taken away from them I have to ask?
Point 3: No matter how you look at it wanting to outlaw homo marriage is intolerant, that is just a fact, in the U.S laws have to tolerate everything... except intolerance. If you say that laws have to tolerate intolerance because of religion well then lest extend this with an example I will make up. Lets say I make up a new religion, called Novalyism (its not actually a word I just thought of it) and within a month of its creation this religion gains 1,000,000 followers. I, being the creator, right in this religions holy book that heterosexual marriage is sinful and an abomination before the god of Novalyism, named Jaison of the trees. I say that if hetero marriage is legal it would be going against my religion, which it would, and I say therefore it has to be outlawed. How would most people respond to that, it would probably be something like too bad, we have every right to, and your religion can not take that right away from us in a secular country. They would be 100% correct. Now take out Novalyism put in Christianity, take out jaison of the trees put in Yahweh (Christian God), and take out heterosexual put in homosexual, and you have an argument fundamentally the same as what we are having now. So tell me, what makes these two situations fundamentally different. They are really the same, it is religious people saying they have a right to take away the basic secular rights of other people, that logic is just self contradictory, as is the logic you use there.
So its a sin more than between two people... and... its also still a secular country that means nothing when it comes to laws. "Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people." Tolerance of people seems good in a secular country to me.
So the example you make up is actually very different. The issue you are talking about is that do private business owners have a right to decide who they want to sell to. This has virtually nothing to do with homo marriage. Look actually I do believe that private business owners should be able to say that they do not want to be able to sell their product to any group they do not want to, gays included. But the thing is we are talking about same sex MARRIAGE here, this has nothing to do with the rights of private business owners. However lets delve into it here, let me bring up Novalyism the religion I made up earlier. If a business owner followed Novalyism then could he decide not to sell to hetero people, if you say yes, we are in agreement about this issue which is separate from what we are debating, if you say no then I guess what you say about private businesses only applies to businesses with owners who follow religions against homos, which is completely contradictory with your stance on this.
So its about the rights of Christians? Islam is against homos too, but its only about Christians? Really this is a secular country if you are going to be consistent you have to say you are also defending the rights of, for example, Muslims. However again, the rights of private business owners is a different issue from homo marriage which is what we are debating, I think you forgot that.
However lets say this, if a preacher who works for a PUBLIC GOVERNMENT FUNDED CHURCH decided he does not want to marry two homos he cannot, because he is not a private business owner, that is why this is a different issue. Being a government worker he has to marry them, it is not compromising his belief, because he is not homo himself. However the problem with this is that this is a secular country, what that means in this case is that religion is separated from law and state so if he has these religious beliefs he has to put them aside for this occasion because it is a secular country or open up his own private business. remember that law you are talking about does not apply to private businesses that marry people, because that does not count as a place of public accommodation.
In turn, the issue of the rights of private businesses is different from the rights of homos to be married, and outlawing homo marriage is effectively taking away their rights. Try it like this, if two homo people are forbidden to be married from anywhere they go by law, then they are having a right of a secular country taken away from them, a religious person is still allowed to be personally anti gay or openly, however they do not have a right to take away other peoples rights because of their religion. Refer to the example I stated earlier, if you go off that philosophy you could do something like outlaw homo marriage because of religion, well then I should be able to outlaw hetero marriage because of Novalyism, if you say no, then what you are saying is you could use religion to take away other peoples rights only if the religion coincides with Christianity, which would make the U.S a theocracy for one. Also means that laws do have to tolerate intolerance in a secular country, which is not true. Look in a secular country it is unconstitutional to base laws off of religion, (U.S specifically) and your arguments based off religion do not really support your claim at all, because all they really say is since some religions are against homos, homos should have their right to be married taken away from them, but that is not true in a secular country.
"IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?" Assuming homo marriage is still just two people of the same sex getting married, yes it would, and how does that help your argument. It is still a natural thing in any case.
Alain.Ginger

Con

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.

I am glad my opponent has taken the time to write such a detailed response to me. But despite his efforts, he really hasn't proved or disproved anything at all. In this speech I will address every point he made and effectively refute them.

The first thing SocialDemocrat said is that, "No I do not, I did not say homo marriage should be legal because it is natural but because in the U.S you have a right to do anything that does not infringe on other's rights. " This is EXTREMELY important. For the time being, we can both hypothetically assume homosexuality is not natural and talk only about human rights.

Regardless of this, SocialDemocrat tries to prove that homosexuality is natural, by referring to the behavior of various animal species. This is a weak argument because it should be obvious that humans are very different from any other animal. It doesn't matter how many homosexual animals are out there, that proves nothing. My opponent also said, "You have no grounds for saying it (homosexuality) is not." He tried to turn it around on me but the burden of proof is on the Affirmative to prove it is natural. So far he has done nothing to prove homosexuality is natural in any way.

Let's talk about the moral argument. I understand my opponent's point and I agree that this not a Christian government. However our founders based their laws on Biblical principles and John Adams even said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

But even this was not my point. My point was that Christians, who make up 61% of America (https://www.lifesitenews.com...) are offended by gay marriage and don't support it. This 61% of the entire population is who gay marriage laws are harming. The Bible was simply to back up this statistic.

My opponent made another attack that sounded like this: "In the Bible God allowed polygamy so if you're Christian you should want the government to allow polygamy too." Clearly my opponent doesn't know very much about the Bible. Let me explain: In the old testament, God had separate rules for his chosen people. This was called the Mosaic law because God gave it to Moses. It included plenty of things you don't see Christians today doing, like sacrifices and not eating certain meat. Jesus the savior was prophesied to come and make new laws ("covenant"). When he did, Christians didn't have to make sacrifices to God and there was no more polygamous marriage. Also polygamous marriage, although wrong and unnecessary now, was part of the culture in that part of the ancient times, not to mention they needed more people to carry on the family lines. I have verses to back up all these things I have said. You can see now that it's in fact very easy to base laws off of the Bible (that is, the New Testament) and be perfectly consistent with what God has instructed us.

On to the next point, which is basically my opponent still wallowing in the biological benefit. This time he tried to explain himself with a counter-example, alcohol. Personally, I believe, ideally, that alcohol should be banned too, because things like drunk driving are more common when people are allowed to drink and that is something that infringes on others' rights. Again, SocialDemocrat did nothing to prove that gay marriage is biologically beneficial, in fact he seemed to agree that it is not. His other counter examples do not hold up because those things do not infringe on other people's rights like gay marriage does.

Three more points were made:

1. "Just because certain people have certain ideological views that does not give them a right to take away the rights of homos, and they do have a right to get married." I want to ask my opponent to point out exactly where in the Constitution does it say homosexuals have the right to marry. Unfortunately, he will not be able to do that because they don't have the right. Homosexuals do not have any right to marry. The negative should win on this point, the affirmative has nothing more to say about it.

2. "If homo marriage is outlawed, then they are having a right taken away, to be married." Again, this is based on the premise that homosexuals have the right to marry, which they do not. If they WERE allowed to marry, it would take away the rights of others. In this rather complicated dilemma, we must chose that gay marriage should not be legal. I will talk more about this later.

3. "No matter how you look at it wanting to outlaw homo marriage is intolerant, that is just a fact, in the U.S laws have to tolerate everything... except intolerance." Judges, do not be fooled by this, it is a very ridiculous argument. US laws DO NOT to tolerate everything! Do US laws tolerate terrorism? Murder? Rape? Abuse? US laws are in place to promote JUSTICE. Gay marriage laws are unjust. Therefore they must be abolished.

The second part of the third point the negative used an example where a supposed religion, Novalyism (probably based off the Latin root nova, "new"), determined heterosexual marriage sinful. On the surface, this seems like a good argument but there are many differences between the two. The first, which my opponent will probably not like, it that Christianity is true. This is not biased of me, and perhaps we can save it for another debate because I cannot possibly argue that Christianity is true while arguing gay marriage should be outlawed because I only have 3, 877 characters remaining and I am in an airplane with a half hour left. I would like to ask SocialDemocrat if he would like to debate that after this one is finished.

The second difference between "Novalyism" and Christianity is that Novalyism does not exist and no person on earth (except maybe SocialDemocrat) believes in it. I challenge my opponent to come up with any statistics on how many people don't support heterosexual marriage. So far, in the real world, such a religion does not exist. The negative would obviously win on this point, too.

Finally, SocialDemocrat responded to my point, that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people. He completely missed my point, though. The first thing is that irrational tolerance is NOT good or just. In my example that, according to my opponent, "has virtually nothing to do with homo marriage", the flower shop owner would have NO choice but to sell the flowers to the couple or risk a destructively costly lawsuit. This has everything to do with homosexual marriage. With these new laws people are not allowed to not believe in homosexuality. This cannot be ignored and I will not let my opponent brush over it by saying, "this has nothing to do with the rights of private business owners." How does this example have nothing to do with private business owners? SocialDemocrat even agreed with me by saying "Look actually I do believe that private business owners should be able to say that they do not want to be able to sell their product to any group they do not want to, gays included." With this statement alone the Affirmative has forfeited his most valuable argument. By default, the Negative should win this whole debate. If the shop owner should be allowed to deny customers, and these new gay marriage laws prohibit that freedom, why should the laws be in place? They are not just.

Then my opponent explained how a public government-funded church worker couldn't refuse to marry two homosexuals, but that isn't my point. Most churches are not public government funded and this is another issue entirely. SocialDemocrat avoided the question (this is a logical fallacy) and used red herrings to distract from the real topic, which he cannot deny.

My characters are running out but I will address the last thing SocialDemocrat said:
"'IF homosexuality was not natural, would it be right to make homosexual marriage legal?' Assuming homo marriage is still just two people of the same sex getting married, yes it would, and how does that help your argument. It is still a natural thing in any case."

With this question I was hoping to take the topic away from the natural aspect and more to the legislative for the purposes of ease of debate.

In conclusion, I have shown that homosexuality is not natural and that homosexual marriage law is unjust. The Affirmative has given in to all of my points and for these reasons I urge a Negative vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialDemocrat

Pro

Your quote, here is part of it. "...that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I believe many homos could say that marriage for them falls under the category of the pursuit of happiness, so by the quote you use to help your argument you are going against it. This is part of my point that in a secular country they have a right to get married because it is part of the foundation of the U.S and it is a right they just should have. If you argue back that he mentions his creator and Yahweh (Christian God) does not agree with homosexuality, then I say that Thomas Jefferson was actually most likely a deist. Or at least he did not believe that Christianity did not have a place in law.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." http://www.positiveatheism.org...
Scroll down for a while and you will find that specific quote under the section titled Establishment of Religion.
Why can we assume it is not natural, what is your grounds for that, it has been observed in over 450 species, that makes it natural. Natural means this-existing in or caused by nature. Clearly as I said it exists in nature, and is not created by humankind, therefore it is natural. So lets hypothetically assume it is natural, because it literally fits the definition of natural perfectly.
Yes the burden of proof is on me to prove it is natural, and I did, because if it has been observed by nature and was not a creation of humankind, it is natural, that's it its pretty much indisputable. However okay humans are different from any animals, but we do share many similarities with monkeys. Examples, monkeys can actually do math, and chimps do have culture. This shows it- http://www.livescience.com...
But even if we are quite different, what does that mean, if it has been observed in nature it is still natural. I proved its natural by showing it has been observed in at least 450 species of animals, that makes it natural, that proves it. But if that does not show it, what do we need to determine if something is natural I will ask. Here is a question for next round. If something being observed in nature does not make it natural and therefore homosexuality is not natural, what makes heterosexuality natural? I mean we know heterosexuality is natural because that is how reproduction takes place yeah, but what determines if something is natural or not is not if it is biologically beneficial, but if it occurs in nature, and homosexuality does indeed occur in nature.
So you have said that whether Christians believe it is wrong or not does not matter in a secular country, good, we are getting somewhere. That John Adams quote does not mean nothing. What is the document that the foundation of the U.S is primarily based on... The Constitution. How many times does the Constitution say God... 0. Bible... 0 Jesus... 0 Christianity... 0 Judaism... 0 Islam... 0 Karan... 0 Allah... 0
Religion maybe... 1, specifically to say that one shall never be established. Yeah pretty clearly the country was not made on the foundation that laws are based on religious views. So no, the laws were not based on Biblical principles or else we simply would have had a theocracy, if they were based on Biblical principles men who shave their beards would have to be stoned to death. "Leviticus 19:27 says, "Do not cut your hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org...
Look man this is like the word of God right here if we have Biblical principles then we need to make this a law and soon, but we do not, because it is a secular country.
Your next argument that Christians are offended, yes they may be but why does that mean they are allowed to take away the right of a homo to get married? It does not, because it is a secular country. If they are allowed to are Christians really having a right taken away, I mean they are still allowed to be anti gay, so what right are they really having taken away? None.
Lets look at some more polls- poll done my CBS News done from 10/21-10/25 of 1,289 adults across the U.S has an overall of 56% SUPPORTING HOMO MARRIAGE, 34% OPPOSED, AND 10% UNDECIDED.
Qunnipac University September 17-21 2015 polling 1,574 voters nationwide has 55% SUPPORTING HOMO MARRIAGE, 38% OPPOSED, AND 7% UNDECIDED.
Pew Research Center done July 14-20 2015 2,002 adults surveyed nationwide has 54% SUPPORT HOMO MARRIAGE, 39% AGAINST, AND 7% UNSURE.
Yeah most people have come around, and the majority of polls reflect that people do support homo marriage. Also you do not have a size for your poll it may have been a very small number. You can find all these polls and more of them here: http://www.pollingreport.com...
You call my statement about polygamy and attack but it is just something that happens in the Bible which you do use for evidence at multiple points, it is far from a personal attack.
Well no what I am saying is that if you say that homo marriage should not be allowed because of the Bible then you should also want polygamy around if that is what you base your beliefs on solely. Yes Jesus did create new laws, however in Christianity polygamy was still thing, that shows a couple things. If you render my comment about polygamy wrong then you have to also render out anything else in the Old Testament which would destroy the foundation for Christianity. Also it kind of shows that the Bible was a product of its time as well but that is besides the point. My point still stands, if you say laws should be based off the Bible you have to include all of them, polygamy is in the Bible, because the Old Testament is part of the Bible. Okay if we base laws off the New testament then we would have a theocracy, because even Jesus says that non-Christians do not get to go to heaven, AND he says that rich people will not either because they already had their paradise on Earth, so we would essentially have a mix of communism and theocracy. Yeah that does not really make sense, so its not that easy. I can cite verses at your request.
Okay biological benefit, okay based on your opinions on alcohol if you want after this we could have a debate on that but because of your opinions on that lets ignore it. I also cited more examples, refer to the last round, and you say they are not the same because they do not take away peoples rights, correct. But you say homo marriage does. Tell me what right Christians are having taken away from by allowing homo marriage? You have failed to do that, you have not a single example of how homo MARRIAGE infringes on the rights of religious people. (Again the rights of private business owners is a completely different issue.)
Okay yes the Constitution does not mention marriage AT ALL including hetero marriage, so if your argument here is that anything the Constitution does not mention is wrong, well then that includes all marriage, since it never mentions marriage at all. However what do we learn from this, we learn that at the time of the Constitutions writing marriage just was not an issue, but from its contents we know the first amendment was mostly about protection against tyranny, including religious tyranny, so whether the Constitution DIRECTLY mentions marriage or not does not matter. What is important is that the Constitution highlighted essentially that religious matters are separate from laws (I have examples at your request), and so the religious argument does not work against this. That is where your point here falls apart. Again the Constitution does not mention marriage at all, if you use it to say why homo marriage should be illegal then you have to apply that to hetero marriage as well.
On your second rebuttal here all you say is that homos do not have a right to get married, but I already refuted your reasons for this at multiple points, and you say nothing new or provide any examples of how other peoples rights will be taken away so this point is completely useless for you.
Okay here it is, its the paradox, yes U.S laws do not tolerate terrorism or murder or such. Why? Because all those things you mention are forms of intolerance, U.S laws are made to tolerate everything except intolerance, if you tolerate intolerance then that brings you anarchy where you could literally do anything you wish, look homo marriage is not intolerant, because it does not take anyone's rights away, unless you could tell us how. You have failed to do that though. Tell us why they are unjust in a secular country, that, you have not done yet, so on that front you have no evidence at all right now. Saying they cannot be married is intolerant of them, allowing them to is not, since no ones rights are being taken in that case.
Sure I will debate wish you about Christianity after, but for right now, saying it is true, holds no grounds yet since you have not proved it.
Yes no one follows it, however in a hypothetical U.S where it did and had 1,000,000 followers, would you support outlawing hetero marriage. If you say no, you are in fact conceding that religious views can not impact law.
Okay tell us why tolerance of homos is always irrational, because I do not know why.
The problem with the flower shop is that he is not marrying them, this issue is about the rights of private business owners WHO SELL ITEMS, again different from marriage. Its not that they cannot have anti gay beliefs, its that they have to keep business separate, marriage is a separate issue, so this is different. You ask a question at the end, I will answer, in the end, who private business owners decide who to sell to is different from allowing any homos to marry, that's it, different issue, different laws, the topic is marriage the rights of private business owners is separate from that. Im out of characters, ill respond to the rest in part 4
Alain.Ginger

Con

SocialDemocrat, you have repeatedly ignored my points and twisted my words. Judges, his points are still as meaningless as ever and I will use this last speech to reiterate everything I have already said.

1. The Constitution does NOT specifically say that marriage is included in pursuit of happiness. If you call marriage pursuit of happiness, you might as well call the duty to defend one's beliefs pursuit of happiness as well. His argument gets us nowhere. I kinda thought my opponent would mention that Thomas Jefferson was a deist. This proves little to nothing and my quote about the United States being founded on Biblical principles still stands. In opposition to my opponent on his "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.", I have a quote from 10 Reasons Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Harmful and Must be Opposed, "It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)"

I strongly urge a negative vote.

It's been a pleasure debating,
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BenJWasson// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I liked both sides, however I thought Pro won.

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's approval for Pro.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: CJames// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I agreed with Pro before and after the debate on his position. Conduct was equal between the two, however I feel that Con better organized his debate. Sources were equal in this case. Pro made the most convincing arguments, con attempted to use the Bible as refutation for science. Given that the document is in all its parts over 1,000 years old, with little known about original sources, and essentially nothing more than opinion of men on a topic. It isn't exactly the best reference for refuting science. For that reason alone, I give Pro the convincing portion of the argument.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G requires further explanation. Merely stating that one side is more organized is insufficient reasoning " one of the debater's arguments must be difficult to understand in order to award this point. (2) Arguments require more explanation than just pointing to perceived problems with the sources " the arguments need to be directly and specifically assessed.
************************************************************************
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
reason!
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
Saying that same sex marriages should be outlawed because the US is primarily Christian is the same as saying it should be legal for men to beat their wives in the middle east because they are primarily Muslim.

Just because the religion of the region wants it, doesn't mean its right.

Interestingly, Christians use the concept of objective morality as proof of a god yet Con backs up his argument with subjective morality.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
you didn't answer my question in round 4
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
i thought I got another round. I was wrong. I should have edited my response. I messed it up.
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
but how does that change the debate
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
That has been added in recent times because of more and more places allowing gay couples to get 'married' (obviously, or marriage would have no definition before places recognised gay 'marriage')
Posted by SocialDemocrat 1 year ago
SocialDemocrat
This is the definition i find for marriage.
"the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."
I just looked up define marriage
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 1 year ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
'Redefining Marriage' is a more accurate statement. 'Gay marriage' doesn't make sense. Marriage is a historical tradition between a man and a woman and that ultimately is its definition. It has nothing to do with being gay or anything against people who are gay. The issue here is the fact that certain homosexuals think they have the right to redefine a word and a tradition to suit them just because they are gay and anyone who thinks otherwise is a homophobe.
No votes have been placed for this debate.