The Instigator
drhead
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
salvagedrover
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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  
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: 4/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 730 times Debate No: 32301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

drhead

Pro

This will be my second debate on this subject.

Rules
  1. First round should contain Con's arguments.
  2. Dropped points are concessions.
  3. No semantics or lawyering.
  4. Avoid logical fallacies.
  5. Any requests for modification of rules or definitions are to be sorted out in the comments section before accepting the debate.

Restrictions

Arguments from Religion - The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting any laws respecting an establishment of religion. Therefore, if the ONLY reason to ban same-sex marriage is because a certain religion frowns upon homosexuality, then Congress cannot pass a law on it, since its sole purpose is to respect an establishment of religion. Since religious arguments alone are insufficient to get a law passed in Congress (if they are following the Constitution, at least), any religious arguments are to be excluded from this debate.

LGBT Parenting - This is a new rule since my last debate. Same-sex couples adopting children is a whole separate debate. Since any single person can adopt (including homosexuals), this argument does not hold water. You can, however, argue that an essential component of marriage is raising children, however, arguing about the effectiveness of LGBT parenting is hardly an argument that will stand when a single homosexual can already adopt. Like I said, it's for a separate debate.

Definitions

Marriage - A state-recognized union between two persons.

Traditional marriage - Two persons of the opposite biological sex in a state-recognized union.

Same-sex marriage - Two persons of the same biological sex in a state-recognized union that confers the same benefits as a traditional marriage.

Burdens

It is reasonable to say that if there is no reason to implement a law, then it should not be implemented. Therefore, it is reasonable to put the full burden of proof on Con to provide good reasons why same-sex marriage should be illegal. The current legality of same-sex marriage bears no relevance. Pro has to refute arguments provided by Con, and can argue that same-sex marriage would be beneficial in order to outweigh arguments by Con.

I wish the best of luck to Con for a thought-provoking debate.

salvagedrover

Con

So I accept your challenge. I am FOR same sex marriage, but FOR the sake of argument, I would like to offer what I feel might be a logical rebuttal to the topic, should there actually BE a logical person opposing same-sex marriage out there, somewhere. These views do not necessarily depict my actual views on any of the topics mentioned, so I do not wish to receive any comment on them in the form of a personal attack based on opinion. I welcome constructive criticism based on and supported by factual information, or at the very least, a rational and logical explanation to support opinion. So with that in mind...

I am against same-sex marriage. I feel that society has become numb to the taboos of the past that kept America wholesome and proud, and one of, if not THE, most powerful nations in the free world. The allowing of piercings, tattoos, public breastfeeding, illegal immigration, abortion, pornography stores, as well as a million-billion other things, has helped our nation's citizens to become weak to the idea of what actually IS, right and wrong. It has allowed for more technologically advanced ways of being lazier human beings, and more inappropriate in matters of how to conduct ourselves in today's society.
It's true, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time. It is in every country around the world and in every level of society from the wealthy Forbes CEO, to the unfortunate restaurant dishwasher. However that being said and emotion aside, homosexuality does not promote the human race in that a man and a woman ultimately are needed in the production of an offspring. There is no possible way that through the form of intimate copulation in ANY manner, for an offspring to be produced between two members of the same sex. Therefore, on that basis I feel that homosexuality was never originally intended for human beings. Furthermore, I'd like go on saying that it is also impossible for a human and any other species of animal to copulate and create any sort of offspring, so a relationship between a human and a dog for instance, regardless of how intelligent the dog may seem, is completely inappropriate and useless save for the human and perhaps possibly that particular dog.
So then by that rationale, I cannot condone same-sex marriage because it serves absolutely no purpose in society as a relationship between two people is used to form a bond strong enough to wish to create another life. It also forms strong communities of like individuals. If you go to Italy, are you bound to see a large amount of Japanese or Germans, or will you predominately see more Italians? That is because people tend to stay within their own race, gender, even religion and ethnicity, and seek out members of the opposite sex to help populate that area with similar individuals. What if the Saudi Arabians began to procreate with and eventually predominately colonize China, or Russia? Africans are traditionally African, Scots a traditionally Scottish, and so on and so forth. If different races and ethnicities are allowed to procreate, then over time, there will be no other countries. Everyone will look the same, and talk the same and it will be very boring. We will NOT be different or special or unique, we will all be the same thing. And if we allow predominately heterosexual society to be overrun and numb to the idea that homosexual marriage is "ok" and even commonplace, then we are opening the floodgates to many more cultural and traditional not to mention religious problems, as well as the possibility of war based on these beliefs and principles being overshadowed or dissolved over time.
I'd also like to touch on the idea that even in today's day and age, people still tend to be afraid of what they don't understand, and who not to understand anything at all the best, but kids. Kids are young and inexperienced to life, sure, but are ANYTHING but innocent and pure. They have perhaps the BEST possible grasp on right and wrong, because they KNOW what gets them in trouble and what doesn't. They know what things they do affect others in negative ways, and anyone who has ever been anywhere NEAR a child will agree that they certainly like to push boundaries and buttons for the sake of their own amusement regardless of the impact on anyone else. Kids learn early about the theory behind strength in numbers, so they will form groups and cliques early on as a personal defense mechanism. Any children who wear glasses, are overweight or too thin, or are abnormally short or even taller compared to the majority will be ridiculed. Consider what wrath a small child with two moms, or two dads might incur. People today talk about bullying and tormenting, but don't seem to grasp WHY it happens. There are three types of people; bullies, the bullied, and the ones who do nothing which include both those who watch, and those who turn away. The ones who are bullies themselves are obviously capable of rationalizing the act of bullying, and equally as guilty are those who watch and enjoy the act. Those who turn away and do nothing, identify with the bullied and may be able to offer evidence as to why it takes place, but don't speak up out of fear of the reactions of others towards them. Kids get bullied because they're unattractive, uncompetitive, have abnormal speech, and among other things, have gay parents. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way it is and has been for quite some time.
In closing, I feel homosexuality causes more problems when brought out into the open such as with a marriage or even public displays of affection than maybe it intends to, but the problems still affect others. I can turn my head from the woman breastfeeding in public, but I had to see it in the first place to turn away from. Homosexuality, regardless of what is supposedly mentioned or interpreted from the bible, is offensive to some people, bottom line. It causes issues that carry with them negative results or connotations. I would have no problem with it if it was, like sex or masturbation, or illegal drug use, done in the privacy of their own home, away from the eyes of individuals who do not wish to see or otherwise be affected by it, and with that I conclude my opening statement explaining my opinion that same-sex marriage should not be allowed.
Debate Round No. 1
drhead

Pro

I was not expecting for someone to play devil's advocate for the Con side, but okay.

"The allowing of piercings, tattoos, public breastfeeding, illegal immigration, abortion, pornography stores, as well as a million-billion other things, has helped our nation's citizens to become weak to the idea of what actually IS, right and wrong."

Piercings, tatoos, public breastfeeding, and pornography stores don't harm anyone. I wouldn't consider any of those things to be morally wrong. Illegal immigration is not 'allowed', it is just the result of weak enforcement. However, the morality of that depends on the situation - for example, I wouldn't complain if someone illegally immigrated from some place like North Korea where the people are extremely oppressed. Morality is whether you can justify something or not. When something doesn't do much harm, justifying something is very easy.

"So then by that rationale, I cannot condone same-sex marriage because it serves absolutely no purpose in society as a relationship between two people is used to form a bond strong enough to wish to create another life."

I will bring up the common point of infertility and voluntary childlessness - marriages between couples with one infertile partner or between two people with no intention of having a child would have to be forbidden under this argument.
As for the preceding argument about zoophiliac marriage, marriage has always been between people, not animals (and yes, gay marriage did exist in the Roman Empire until about 340 AD).

"Any children who wear glasses, are overweight or too thin, or are abnormally short or even taller compared to the majority will be ridiculed. Consider what wrath a small child with two moms, or two dads might incur."

Do you know of the high suicide rates among openly gay students? It's rather high. Kids will get bullied for the dumbest things, no matter what. Why should we bully gay adults by not allowing them to marry the person they love?
I've also seen that some children fail to see why same-sex marriage is even an issue, so you have people on the other side of the coin as well.

"Homosexuality, regardless of what is supposedly mentioned or interpreted from the bible, is offensive to some people, bottom line."

Lots of things are offensive to some people. Some people would find eating pork to be offensive. We aren't rushing to ban bacon, though. PDA is something that nobody likes, regardless of sexual orientation.
salvagedrover

Con

I'm sure there are a lot of things you don't expect that happen around you, but the world doesn't revolve around you. If you have a problem with me arguing my own personal motivations, you can concede at any time. I just thought the topic was one that seems to be garnishing a fair amount of press lately: If two consenting adults want to be married, where is that ANYONE else's business, especially some random politician's, but their own? It's offensive and "morally" wrong? Morality is usually associated with religion and how right and wrong are godly and religious concepts. In those cases, leave it up to God and our Government to make love illegal and immoral, lol. Back to the debate...

"Piercings, tatoos, public breastfeeding, and pornography stores don't harm anyone."

Would a Marketing or Consulting firm hire a salesperson or project manager with tattoos all over their face or neck, or even arms? How would that portray the professional attitude the client seeks to represent THEIR firm? There is a reason corporate employees wear suits and get $70 dollar haircuts and drive what they do and live where they live and dine where they dine. Image.
To be taken seriously where it counts today, where the money and a truly comfortable life exist, you need to act and look a certain way. Yes, tattoos and piercings don't physically harm anyone, but are offensive to many and can DEFINITELY be financially harmful to the bearer. Public breastfeeding is extremely offensive to some, especially most males. Breasts, regardless of their useful "mid-day lunchables" purpose, are generally thought of as sexual in nature. I realize it's "natural" and that "the baby has to eat", but I cannot simply whip out my ding-a-ling and start urinating in one of the trees at the mall, regardless of how natural it is. Also, if it's SO natural, then why are women forced to wear bras, and bikini tops in public? If it's SO not a big deal then why don't we all just walk around naked, I mean that's how "god" initially intended us to be, right?
Porno stores? Do I even have to MENTION how inappropriate they are? I guess so. Sex creates overpopulation, diseases, causes divorce, causes murders and suicides, causes car accidents, causes other crimes, and people to hurt each other. It causes people to have a skewed view of what's acceptable in society. It also causes babies. It causes marriages. It causes love. Anything can be looked at from a positive or negative standpoint, but if it is generally looked at from the latter, and is treated as such for centuries, it is generally not without good reason. Sure, suburbia has it's own socially acceptable private prescription drug addictions, and oddball fetishes among other frowned-upon activities, but they're kept behind closed doors for a reason; they're PRIVATE and nobody else's business.
You mention in so many words that you do not condone Latin immigration from the south, but you can accept immigrants from N. Korea? Well, why? Because they're farther away? Because the chance of those people making it here is slim, so you can accept that, knowing it probably won't happen? Would you be ok with Canadians doing it, because they speak our language already, and look like us? What about FRENCH Canadians who don't talk like we do? What about any WHITE person? You think Mexicans aren't oppressed? What makes two unemployed people any less unemployed? What are you saying, that they are taking all of those great landscaping laborer, dish-washing, car-washing, janitorial, and carpet-laying jobs that America's unemployed are just chomping at the bit to get hired for? You may not realize the MILES and YEARS of bureaucratic policy that are involved in becoming a legal citizen, not to mention the ENORMOUS legal fees that they can't afford in first place working for $5hr. They do what we feel are jobs beneath us, with pride. The same pride our factory workers used to have before their jobs got shipped overseas to your buddies in Korea.
You said the word "Morality", (which is simply knowing the difference between right and wrong, and has NOTHING to do directly with religion,) three times in your first paragraph. Then saying, "When something doesn't do much harm, justifying something is very easy." You say the word "something" twice there, but don't mention what that "something" is. So, by your rationale: "Oh, it's ok, I'm not going to shoot the ENTIRE SCHOOL, just a FEW of the students and teachers. There's a lot I'm NOT going to shoot, so I can justify the ones I do." "It's just four or five airplanes we're going to blow up, and like a few THOUSAND people. So what, there are THOUSANDS of planes and BILLIONS of people! It's ok, it's not going to do MUCH harm on the whole, so I can TOTALLY justify it!"

"...marriages between couples with one infertile partner...would have to be forbidden under this argument."

I said WISH to create another life. If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying? And you're absolutely right, I should have said a relationship is GENERALLY to create a bond strong enough to create a child, thank you for arguing the semantics of my wording. And WHY has marriage ALWAYS been between two people? Why NOT a person and an animal? And if it's two people you're ok with, then why not a 42 year old man and a 6 year old girl? Or boy? Why is THAT not ok? A gay couple cannot make a child. A human and an animal cannot make a child. An adult and a child do not make a happy, healthy child. But, a man and a woman? Anatomically? No problem at all. Regardless of special circumstances, you need a male penis, and a female vagina.

"Do you know of the high suicide rates among openly gay students?"

So, you're proving my point that being gay will inevitably attract ridicule and physical, emotional, and verbal abuse if it's openly displayed. Nobody is saying don't be gay, but then take into account that poor straight child whose parents are gay. How will he or she be treated by those other terrible children? A gay couple will more than likely want to have a child, because they certainly CAN, but is that selfish on their part, since they KNOW how that child will be treated, regardless of how they handle it or turn out in the end. What if it's bullied to death? They KNOW it will be tormented, and right there are your morals: whether or not they know right and wrong will affect another person and they choose the negative result for their own personal satisfaction.

"Lots of things are offensive to some people. Some people would find eating pork to be offensive. We aren't rushing to ban bacon, though. PDA is something that nobody likes, regardless of sexual orientation."

I think that if tasteful in nature, MOST people will smile and appreciate displays of affection, much like how they will smile and want to interact with a playful puppy or giggling child. Those who are not pleased with other's affection are generally people who do not receive it themselves. People generally like to be happy and pleased with themselves, so if they see someone else that way, they become pleased as well. Ban bacon? Is it fair to say some feel we should? But if I eat bacon in front of you, and you don't like bacon, you don't have to eat bacon. Or smoke a cigarette. Or dress like a woman. But eating bacon or cross dressing has nothing to do with having intercourse with a member of the same sex. The people who take offense to gay marriage are probably the people who immediately think of the sexual acts they partake in, and much like the breast feeding or porn stores topics, sex has no "moral" place in public society, hetero in nature or otherwise. This is where I feel you are getting off track a bit. Morality is knowing the difference between right and wrong, knowing that one will harm another living creature, and choosing the one that will not. Gay marriage hurts all involved.
Debate Round No. 2
drhead

Pro

I feel no need to address the first two-thirds, as it bears no relevance to same-sex marriage.

"I said WISH to create another life."

You also left out the part where I noted that plenty of people don't wish to create another life.

"And WHY has marriage ALWAYS been between two people? Why NOT a person and an animal? And if it's two people you're ok with, then why not a 42 year old man and a 6 year old girl? Or boy? Why is THAT not ok? A gay couple cannot make a child. A human and an animal cannot make a child. An adult and a child do not make a happy, healthy child."

Correction: Polygamy has existed, and same-sex marriage existed in the Roman Empire. In modern times, there is an economic stability aspect to marriage. Marrying a child or an animal would not contribute to financial stability at all.

"So, you're proving my point that being gay will inevitably attract ridicule and physical, emotional, and verbal abuse if it's openly displayed."

And being gay is something that can't be changed. Our laws discriminate against gay couples, and removing those laws would help society lean more towards acceptance of homosexuality, meaning less bullying. More people would look down upon those who bully homosexuals than looking down upon homosexuals themselves.

"The people who take offense to gay marriage are probably the people who immediately think of the sexual acts they partake in, and much like the breast feeding or porn stores topics, sex has no "moral" place in public society, hetero in nature or otherwise."

If someone has a problem with what happens in a private bedroom between consenting adults, that is their problem. If they don't like it, then they can ignore it. Or accept that not everyone likes the opposite sex.
salvagedrover

Con

salvagedrover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
salvagedrover

Con

I'm sorry, I missed the last round, it just escaped my mind, and I was half expecting some sort of email reminder situation being sent to me. You know, I'm not sure how to argue you anymore. I use essentially the entire 8000 characters allotted and you only address a few sentences with a few paragraphs, with spacing to make it seem larger than it really it, your responses I mean. I feel like you are not completely behind your issue. It seems to me that you like to re-word your responses quite a bit as you don't have any other arguments or something. I come with things on my own and I'm actually FOR same-sex marriage! STILL, I can't figure out what it has to do with ANY political office or the government, or the president or senators or anything at all government. The government can do whatever it wants, we no longer have the weather under ground to protect us, and the government constantly shows us that they are in complete control and our weak and cowardly citizens are not standing up to it's oppressions. However, the government is SUPPOSED to remain impartial when it comes to religious matters. There are MANY different religions out there, and basically two views the American citizens have; right, and wrong. The government infuriates many people with it's latest actions in the last decade, and the matter of making love illegal is one of the worst mistakes it could make. That being said;

You continually bring up the Roman empire as ammo, and by the way, I intend to make the shortest possible responses this time, as you clearly are afraid of elaborating your opinions to sway mine in this matter. Your half-hearted answers to mine are almost an insult and if not for my curiosity to how this will all end, I'd just walk away right now knowing how I feel. I'm sure the Romans did all SORT of stupid things. They were Catholic, and the Catholics are not of the religions, not to say ANY religion is very bright. They crucified thousands, spent most of it's wealth on trying to conquer Persia, for what? To be bullies? And just like our government, killed or completely discredited anyone who spoke out against their rulers. Thee is a reason Polygamy isn't very popular in this country, it's insane! There's what, ONE state it's allowed in, and even there, it's frowned upon. But the Romans allowed it. We don't really crucify people anymore, but the Romans did it all the time. So to say that homosexuality was accepted by those crazy Romans, well, it's not something I would personally lead within a debate.

"I feel no need to address the first two-thirds, as it bears no relevance to same-sex marriage."

Everything I have said in this debate, despite my opening, has been a direct answer to things YOU have written, so to completely dismiss "the first two-thirds" basically says you want to give up. That the rest of this doesn't matter, than you have put our fingers in your ears, and are now going "la, la, la, la, la, la" with your eyes closed.

"You also left out the part where I noted that plenty of people don't wish to create another life. "

No, I didn't. What I SAID was:

"...I said WISH to create another life. If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying? And you're absolutely right, I should have said a relationship is GENERALLY to create a bond strong enough to create a child, thank you for arguing the semantics of my wording."
You're right, not all people want to be in a relationship and have a child, but the majority of them do.

" In modern times, there is an economic stability aspect to marriage. Marrying a child or an animal would not contribute to financial stability at all."

What are you talking about? Are you falling asleep or becoming drunk as you write this? What was happening there? I mean, the first part doesn't make much sense, what doe economically stable have at all to do with being married? And the second part? I mean, what were you thinking about? Did you actually read it as someone else objectively after you wrote it?

You know, honestly, I don't feel you're very much into this debate. I have said my piece. I am curious as to what the people will think about my arguments versus yours. I feel that my arguments are much stronger than yours and my logic and reasoning are much better than yours "dr.". That is all I have to say, I feel I won.
Debate Round No. 4
drhead

Pro

"You continually bring up the Roman empire as ammo, and by the way, I intend to make the shortest possible responses this time, as you clearly are afraid of elaborating your opinions to sway mine in this matter. Your half-hearted answers to mine are almost an insult and if not for my curiosity to how this will all end, I'd just walk away right now knowing how I feel. I'm sure the Romans did all SORT of stupid things. They were Catholic, and the Catholics are not of the religions, not to say ANY religion is very bright. They crucified thousands, spent most of it's wealth on trying to conquer Persia, for what? To be bullies? And just like our government, killed or completely discredited anyone who spoke out against their rulers. Thee is a reason Polygamy isn't very popular in this country, it's insane! There's what, ONE state it's allowed in, and even there, it's frowned upon. But the Romans allowed it. We don't really crucify people anymore, but the Romans did it all the time. So to say that homosexuality was accepted by those crazy Romans, well, it's not something I would personally lead within a debate."

The Roman empire was autocratic, but that is irrelevant. My point is that same-sex marriage has existed in the past, so it cannot be said that marriage has always been between a man and a woman (which is an appeal to tradition anyway).
And yes, in modern times, polygamy is insane. However, in the past, it was an efficient means of procreation - a woman can only be pregnant once at a time, but a man can get lots of people pregnant simultaneously. People had families with lots of children (likely to compensate for high infant mortality rates). From this, we can see that society's definition of marriage varies with what is economical.

"Everything I have said in this debate, despite my opening, has been a direct answer to things YOU have written, so to completely dismiss "the first two-thirds" basically says you want to give up. That the rest of this doesn't matter, than you have put our fingers in your ears, and are now going "la, la, la, la, la, la" with your eyes closed."

I didn't want to keep going on with points that only have a tangential relationship to the topic of this debate.

"No, I didn't. What I SAID was:

'...I said WISH to create another life. If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying? And you're absolutely right, I should have said a relationship is GENERALLY to create a bond strong enough to create a child, thank you for arguing the semantics of my wording.'
You're right, not all people want to be in a relationship and have a child, but the majority of them do."

You are wrong: http://factfinder2.census.gov...
According to this table:
114,991,725 total households
55,519,648 married-couple households
22,561,313 married couples with children under 18

This shows that in 2011, only about 40% of married couples had children. I also don't see what you mean by "If one or the other wasn't interested in creating a child, then how would they have found out they can't without first wanting to, and trying?" That question doesn't make sense.

"What are you talking about? Are you falling asleep or becoming drunk as you write this? What was happening there? I mean, the first part doesn't make much sense, what doe economically stable have at all to do with being married? And the second part? I mean, what were you thinking about? Did you actually read it as someone else objectively after you wrote it?"

Marrying someone means you are likely living together, and you can file taxes jointly. You could have two breadwinners, or one breadwinner paying the bills while the other is a homemaker. Those things are a bit harder to do when unmarried, and are much harder to do with a child or an animal. If there was no economic stability aspect to marriage, then there would be no married couples without children.

"You know, honestly, I don't feel you're very much into this debate. I have said my piece. I am curious as to what the people will think about my arguments versus yours. I feel that my arguments are much stronger than yours and my logic and reasoning are much better than yours "dr.". That is all I have to say, I feel I won."

I feel that I have refuted your arguments adequately, and I have turned enough of them in my favor. Here's my summary of what I have shown (keep in mind that burden of proof is on Con to show that there is a legitimate case against gay marriage that outweighs the benefits of legalizing gay marriage):
  • Marriage has an economic stability aspect, which is an important part of what same-sex couples are being denied. Marriage is not exclusively for making babies in a world where we have 7 billion people.
  • Same-sex marriage causes no direct harm to anyone.
  • Homosexuality cannot be changed (this point was dropped and therefore conceded)
Con's points use the premise that people would not be accepting of gay marriage. However, with about 58% of people supporting gay marriage (and rising), I feel that that won't last long.
salvagedrover

Con

salvagedrover forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Dragonfang 3 years ago
Dragonfang
Something seems off in this statement:

"It is reasonable to say that if there is no reason to implement a law, then it should not be implemented. Therefore, it is reasonable to put the full burden of proof on Con to provide good reasons why same-sex marriage should be illegal."

Aren't the Pro suppose to do most of the proof work?
Otherwise, it feels like you want to implement homosexual marriage for the heck of it.
Your party is making the demand, so it makes little sense for your role to make defense.
I don't ride bandwagons, especially emotional ones. So I would require a logical argument of why you think it is a good idea. Just to make it fair for both sides and make the debate more likely to be constructive.

Thank you.
No votes have been placed for this debate.