Debate Rounds (4)
we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature.
we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage.
While I agree with my opponent that there are distinctions between males and females, these differences should not be the premise for the basis of marriage.
My opponent seems to be working off of the argument that marriage is only for the purpose of procreation; however, this ideal of marriage for procreation is a fairly new concept, only coming about in the past century. Previous to that time marriage for the most part was reserved for increasing social and financial status. This is the reason why a woman's family would present the male suitor with a dowry of land, money or physical capital.
And to address my opponent's last argument, it would be unconstitutional to, "have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage." What you've stated here is the concept of "Separate But Equal", by providing a similar, yet different institution. Civil unions do not provide the same rights (around 1,000) that come with marriage, and as such, not only is it separate, but it is unequal.
Now I'll make my own argument.
If we are to base our laws on the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals. According to the federal court case of Loving v. Virginia, it was determined that outlawing interracial marriage was unconstitutional, as it violated citizens' guarantee of equal protection under the law. If were carry this over to same-sex marriage, then one can clearly see that the same argument applies.
also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.
we can increase financial and socal status through civil unisons. we don'th ave toe elevate gay couples beyond what we want to recnogize in nature.
race and homosexual orientation are different. this is how we can have laws restricting two dudes marrying and not a black and white. race involves nothing but skin color. gender invovles whether a person can have children, and nature also has males and females who combine naturally. homosexual activity is genetic deviance, and a deviance in nature as well. it serves no purpose in nature.. it's a deviance. it does occur naturally, but it's still a deviance from the natural norm, the way things are meant to be without mutations etc.
we have to draw lines. i personally don't mind civil unions for two dudes, or for multiple people. but, if we allow all genders to marry etc, then tehre is effectively nothing stopping us from marraige for everytihng under teh sun. if we can draw limits to certain things like that, then we can draw limits on same gender marraige. the only way to draw a distinction that is not arbitrary is to follow the undevianced natural order.
As aforementioned, the United States is based upon constitutional law, so to not grant equal rights to gay couples because it is not "what we want to recnogize [sic] in nature" is completely disregarding the Equal Protections Clause.
And as for my opponent's argument about a deviance, then my opponent should stop using her computer, as that's clearly a deviation of nature, where computers do not exist. Also, homosexuality does serve a purpose it nature, as it's an effective manner of population control .
Also, in my opponent's last paragraph, she commits the "Slippery Slope" fallacy , stating that if the government allows for same-sex marriage, then they must automatically allow for other forms of marriage. Examples being human-animal, adult-child or incestuous marriages. This is based upon the premise that homosexuality is the same as beastiality, p�dophilia or incest. However, beastial marriages are a moot point, as an animal is not a citizen and cannot sign a marriage contract. The United States government sets the age of consent for marriage at 18, so anyone under that age cannot consent to marriage. Lastly, in terms of incestuous marriages between men and women, there is the potential for genetic and hereditary disorders, as they're for the most part they're caused by recessive genes and, "It is much more likely that both parents will carry the same recessive gene if the parents are related."  However there isn't really an argument against same-sex couples that happen to be related, as there's no chance of passing on a recessive disorder; though, it is less likely anyway, as close proximity as children often leads to a natural aversion to any type of romantic or sexual feelings toward family members.
while homosexuality may serve a purpose, that doesn't mean that it's a purpose that we're intending to recnogize. that is a nonsequiter for that reason. we intend to recognize the natural worth of male and female being together, and stress the importantce of kids in that environment. if homosexuals are causing poulation control... then they dont fit the purposes of marriage.
a computer is not not part of hte natural order.... we use computers that emans it's natural, it's means it's part of nature. tools are a natural part of nature, as is a computer. sexual orientation is a deviancy of normal purposes of nature... at least the normal purpooses what we're trying to recognize.
i never argued anything about age or bestiality. i did i concede say "everything under the sun"... but i would assume we'd keep the debate within reason. minors are not consenting adults, and animals are incaple of consent. incest produced kids, allowing that, is unfair to the child who had no choice. we live in a society that is based on allowing as long as it doesn't hurt others... but that doesn't mean we can't recognize the undevianced natural order.
incest is an example. what about incestuous couples who absolutely cannot bear children, or incestuous males? and you didn't mention multiple marraigte. i mean, i might be willing to extend civil rights to them or incestuous nonproducing kids... because we want to respect people. but i look to the undevianced natural order for marriage.
how else would you demarcate what is permissible than what isn't, as far as simply what should be permitted, or by extension constitutional law?
unless you can show, which you have yet to do, show how your demarcations are superior.
to act as if constitutional law isn't based on demarcations that won't affect other theories of what should be permitted... is flawed. you show me how you demarcate... and i'll show you how you'd be discriminating against some other theory. ( that is at least soemwhat more reasonable and worth considering than kids, animals, and incestuous producing couples.
Also, my opponent seems to be working along the premise that marriage hinges upon one's ability to reproduce, even though I've clearly shown that marriage and procreation are separate from one another, even though one may coincide with the other.
My opponent says that she's never seen two males caring for offspring in animals, but this is actually extremely common in Black Swans with an estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs
Computers are *not* natural, tools are *not* natural.
Natural is described as:
existing in or formed by nature
Seeing as I can't go into the forest and find a Macbook tree or a power drill bush, neither of them are natural.
However, homosexuality is indeed natural, as it occurs in nature without any outside influence.
As for polygamy, there also isn't any reason for it to be outlawed; however, it would become extremely complicated when one considers things such as, if a man marries multiple women, are all the women married to one another? And if so, would those women all have to file marriage licenses for all the other women, and if a man divorces one of the women, must all the other women divorce her too? What would occur if one of the women should die? Would her estate only go to her husband, or would it be separated among all the women?
Lastly, those demarcations on what is and is not permissible would be based on constitutional law. We cannot allow for a marriage between an adult and a child, as this is depriving the child of his rights. I hate to be arrogant, but my demarcations are naturally superior, as anything deviating from the "natural order" of our law systems is automatically sub-par, as it is in direct contradiction to the law which is not permissible for the simple fact that it defeats the point of a law if we're going to go against it.
In closing, I greatly appreciate your efforts and wish you the best of luck.
you have not yet given your demarcation, except a vague refernce to "natural order" as you said at the end. you need a little more substance to your definitions for me to be able to poke holes in them properly than just that. you did reference to man's activity earlier. apparently you think man made invovlement is unnatural... i see us as a part of nature. computers i argue are natural, they are part of nature, we are animals, we are nature. why is what you call natural natural, and what i call natural, not? the better demarcation is as i said... it's all "natural" even homosexuality and gay sex etc... but we're recognizing the undevianced norm, and our purposes therein can only be recognized when it's an undevianced norm.
to say computers are unnatural would be like me saying the human involvement element in gays getting together makes it unnatural... it doesn't follow for me to say that, jsut like it oesn't follow for you to call computers unnatural. the key distinction in constitutional law, or what "ought" to be regardless of what is constiutoinal... is asking whether the stiuation is fulfulling the purposes we've set for society based on an undevianced norm.
at the end of the day it is somewhat arbitarary, the demarcation. i say the undevianced norm is best, because inherent 'sacred' etc etc... fundamental values... norms are respected, and in most cases childbearing in a normative way etc is encouraged.
there might be gay swans who sometimes, probably rarely mind you, care for the kids... or some animals. for humans it is a deviation from normative. and what if there are animals who hump inanimate objects? should we accomdate humans who do? it's not like the inanimate object really has any rights, unless you argued inherent right against it... but one could just as easily argue man's dominion over objects in one's vacinity. and how would you constitutionally or otherwise, say he couldn't? unless you would go for that too, then props for a semblence of conistency?
based on what you've said . you haven't explained why a completely infertile incestuous man and woman coudl'nt get married, or incestuous males etc. i simply see it as a deviance natural order and so demarcate against it. for purposes of marraige... not civil unions. it seems you'd be willing to have multiple people get married. i see it as the against the norm of a male and female raising kids, as his historic in humanity, and the norm... as it is in the animal kingdom. i'd be okay with unions.
you would be forced to include the incestuous nonproducing couples to have any semblance of being consistent. not that you haven't or wouldn't admitted it... i'm just pointing it out.
marriage doesn't hinge on one's ability to reproduce and i haven't said so. males and females are inherently the only ones who could, though, make kids, and that is all that matters when making a paring that is recognized by the law.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.