The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
nerdydork4044
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Same sex marriage.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,047 times Debate No: 98719
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I've avoided this topic for too long, mostly because of my religious background and only I have only recently known a different path, atheism.


Burden of proof will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.


Structure
Round one Acceptance and definitions
Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three.

Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.

Sex
"2.
a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0]


Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]


Marriage "1.
a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2]


Thanks in advance for accepting the debate.


Sources.
0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
nerdydork4044

Con

I forfeit
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Outline
I. Benefits of marriage
II. Being Gay is not a choice
III. Financial gain to government
IV. Separation of church and state
V. Sources


I. Benefits of marriage

The first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits.

"There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [3]


II. Being gay is not a choice

This might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay.

"Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [4]

"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [5]

That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust.


III. Financial gain to government

Marriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.


IV. Separation of church and state

Almost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [6]

By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion.

V. Sources
3. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
4. http://www.livescience.com...
5. http://www.livescience.com...
6. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
nerdydork4044

Con

I told you! I FORFEIT! I do not stand by same-sex marriage. I FORFEIT!
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


"I told you! I FORFEIT! I do not stand by same-sex marriage. I FORFEIT!" nerdydork4044

My opponent's argument is non-sequitur.

"Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made.

Evidence is presented for Claim A.

Therefore, claim C is true."

My opponent claims to forfeit, then states she is against same-sex marriage. This is confusing, adds little to support the conclusion, and is contradictory.


Source.
7. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
nerdydork4044

Con

I am a frickin' teen! Take me out of this debate. I said I FROFEIT
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round four defense


"I am a frickin' teen! Take me out of this debate. I said I FROFEIT" nerdydork4044


My opponent's statement is a red herring.

"Red HerringExplanation

The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic. This can be one of the most frustrating, and effective, fallacies to observe." [8]

My opponent's argument has no impact upon the debate since it is off topic. Thanks for debating.

Source.

8. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

nerdydork4044

Con

Finally, you understand that I forfeit.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Pretty high point win for a debate that never happened. 0 stars
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for voting MWonderWolf
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
conducting weapons research by its very nature is dubious and the burden of proof should rest of the researcher.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
First, the Separation of church and state is describing the distance that can be measured between points held by a State of any word, any word including both Religion and God. There is by law of natural limit of two points placed on any one line. No single line has more than two ends, two points. Multiple points means many lines in section and not one line. Each section when held separate creates two end points even if one point rests over another to obscure its representation.

This distance can be seen and measured as a separation which is often extended by interpretation. The more interpretation which is undertaken the longer a line can become, yet with no real change to the fact of two ends one at each side of the center still remain.

The public argument of religion being the only reason behind objection to Same Gender Marriage is simply untrue. This is however a religious test and simple has a complicated reason attached to other laws unrelated to couple at all.

First and foremost there is a plagiarism issue dealing with the word Marriage. This is where the test catches many people who are dedicated to shared public belief. As they see this wrong in the open and cannot quite locate it, to explain themselves clearly.

Constitutionally there are four types of Civil liberty contracts between two people and judicial State. Binivir, UnosMulier, Marriage, Civil Union. What makes these liberties a judicial State is that they describe only what a witness can see. In its most basic since though the explanation by be in order to understand the witness account.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Waiving arms is not the same thing as say, conducting weapons research.

At a minimum, some actions are inherently morally dubious and some are even hazardous.

Would Bernie Madoff's actions have been moral if the scheme had not collapsed?
Posted by arjunsareen77 1 year ago
arjunsareen77
i completely agree with what u have to say over the topic. It is a disgrace for the society when we paralyze someone for not being with the one they love.i wonder if these people who r against same sex marriage have looked upon through the eyes of these (lgbt) people,the latter just baselessly consider marriage should b a ban for the gays.Speaking from the emotional point of view anyone who has been in love to which i believe everyone has at any point in their life knows that love is a natural feeling of affection towards another human nd putting a halt to that feeling for no good reason that too by the third part who is not involved in the two point line is totally unjustifiable.More so we cry,scream nd roar about us being the democratic state with the belief that everyone should have the right to preach nd follow whatever they want provided does not harm the society.
Now putting aside emotions nd getting onto the logics people involve religion into the topic.
Firsty as said by the moderator that our first amendment itself says that no law should b framed respecting the establishment of any releigion so that just rests the case.
Secondly (no offence to religious believers) the church says god wants u to do this nd what not but can anyone come out nd say they have seen god say these things themselves?(again i respect all the religious beliefs but again pulling the religion card into something like this makes me question the credibility of ur belief).
so in conclusion everyone should have the right to live, kiss,marry with anyone they love to but afcourse the feeling should b mutual between the two.
Thank u
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"Where do you get the notion that actions are moral until proven otherwise..? That is not the same thing as innocence until proof of guilt."

We can waive our arms around and not harm anyone. Why should the burden of proof be on the person waiving the arms? For starters that would be proving a negative that no harm would be done.
Posted by Dirty-Morgs 1 year ago
Dirty-Morgs
vote for me on my weeaboos should be banned debate
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
"actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. "

That in and of itself is a debatable statement.
Posted by DavidMancke 1 year ago
DavidMancke
Where do you get the notion that actions are moral until proven otherwise..? That is not the same thing as innocence until proof of guilt.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cat47 1 year ago
Cat47
Stupidapenerdydork4044Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con "forfeited" every single round. Thus, he presented no arguments or sources (whereas pro did) which is why I give Pro arguments and sources. His "forfeiture" is also why I give Pro conduct. Plus Con misspelled words like "frickin"
Vote Placed by Kescarte_DeJudica 1 year ago
Kescarte_DeJudica
Stupidapenerdydork4044Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con Forfeited every round, misspelled words like "frickin" and presented no arguments or sources. Thus, Pro wins by default.
Vote Placed by MWonderWolf 1 year ago
MWonderWolf
Stupidapenerdydork4044Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: nerdydork4044 simply 'forfeited' all the rounds (Conduct), used frickin' instead of 'freaking' (Spelling and Grammar) and had no arguments (Convincing Arguments).