The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
ParadoxPi
Con (against)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
ParadoxPi has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 98801
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

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. Previous debate for reference. [3]

Sources.
0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://www.debate.org...
ParadoxPi

Con

Homosexuality is a choice and any person is entitled to their own choices, but to people of the same sex entering the union of marriage is unnatural and promotes a regressive, anti-reproductive life. The choice to marry another individual is unnatural and allowing marriage promotes this unnaturalness in the human race. Its easy to predict a future of people who become obsessed with this idea that if your not gay, then your wrong. Its the exact same thing happening with the minorities of America, some say if your not black your wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

My opponent has broken the stucture in round one. First round was for acceptance and definitions only.


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" [4]


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. " [5]

"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." [6]

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" [7]

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

V. Sources
4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
5. http://www.livescience.com...
6. http://www.livescience.com...
7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
@John
"Second banning Gay Marriage on religious grounds is a "Free" expression of the First Constitutional Amendment (change). This change is not a Violation, it is a free, as in Freedom of religion, and constitution has been knowingly substituted for an expression which holds no self-value."

If I'm reading this correctly (which I may not be), then you're basically saying that someone banning same sex marriage is "exercising their freedom of speech and religion".

This is not true because marriage is no longer a ceremony pertaining only to religion. Marriage has plenty of benefits outside of religion as Pro in this debate, Stupidape, mentioned in the second round.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
Stupidape

First the Separation of Church and State is a common defense. Not limited to political figures. The separation is describing a word by the state it holds. The separation allows religion a right to representation to judicial separation. However religion may be required to take part in its execution, at cost. As taxation is paid in advance by all others in society to hold this process impartial and non-biased.

Second banning Gay Marriage on religious grounds is a "Free" expression of the First Constitutional Amendment (change). This change is not a Violation, it is a free, as in Freedom of religion, and constitution has been knowingly substituted for an expression which holds no self-value.

Third - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This is a disclaimer on behalf of Congress as they receive both petition and grievance on behalf of the voter, the people directly. They hold legal documents with the names and addresses which can be incriminating if an action is found to be illegal.

This is demonstrating a difference between Powers of Congress and the Powers of Executive Office, the Executive Order offers no legal protection from the possible self-incrimination. This is supposedly to force the Executive order to protect, defend, and preserve the United States Constitution as it defines the chairman of the executive Office as President of the United State. That State described by state of the Union, the position between basic principle and legal precedent of the word Constitution.

Gay marriage already has a precedent. To force this issue judicially is to force a double Standard.
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
RIP Con.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
What makes something moral then and what is the burden of proof then?
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
I don't think you understand the concept of what makes something moral, nor do you understand what a "burden of proof" actually is...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
does this mean murder is moral until proven elsewise?

Murder can be proven immoral easily.

"How can one truly debate with a limited scope?

I find it futile." Kyris

what are you talking about?
Posted by Kyris 1 year ago
Kyris
How can one truly debate with a limited scope?

I find it futile.
Posted by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
does this mean murder is moral until proven elsewise?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No...Not if you do not want it..
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.