The Instigator
Eitan_Zohar
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Fanboy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+37
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...
Eitan_Zohar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,899 times Debate No: 31776
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (110)
Votes (3)

 

Eitan_Zohar

Pro

I've finally decided to open this issue up. As a former proponent of traditional marriage, I send out invitation to any and all of my ex-allies to come and settle this once and for all.

Should anyone have any comments, concerns or questions regarding my position or this debate, they should be placed in the comments.


Rules:

(1) First round is for acceptance or, if Con wishes, an argument.

(2) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.
(3) No trolling or lawyering.
(4) The final round will be for concluding remarks and will have a 4000 character limit.

Burden of Proof:
The BOP is shared. Pro must show that there are no compelling reasons for marriages between two persons of the same biological sex not to be legally recognized, and Con must show that there are.


Thanks to whomever accepts this debate. I look forward to a good thrashing session (or learning experience, but they're largely the same thing on here)!

Fanboy

Con



Resolution: Same-sex marriages should be legal in the United States.



I accept. I thank my opponent for initiating such a relevant and pertinent topic; with this conflict often being skewed toward the left it is nice to have an open discussion about our own opposing viewpoints. I have defined an argumentation resolution in order guide the process of debate. If my opponent has a quarrel with this resolution, it can be tweaked.



Same-Sex Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>



Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law



Debate Round No. 1
Eitan_Zohar

Pro

I accept Con's definitions, abeit with slight differences which I will expound upon below.

Why do we have marriage?

Marriage is a social union based upon mutual rights and obligations between the partners. In Western cultures, marriage traditionally was an exclusive and permanent bond between a man and a woman that gives them exclusive sexual rights to each other and establishes parental responsibility for the offspring.

In the past, however, marriage was used to create social units in which children could be raised, consolidate wealth, and create kinship between families. The marriages would often be 'arranged' by the parents of the bride or groom, and so was not based on any sort of monogamous love or desire. Men would often take multiple wives due to the advantages in passing their genes down to more offspring (women did not do so because of a psychological stigma attached to it that was a result of males not being certain who the father of a baby was, thus risking investing resources into a baby not carrying his own genes). The creation of marriage as a legal contract came into being gradually as communities settled on the proper organization of a family (the definition of which was enormously fluid from culture to culture and would be based on things such population, resources and food, environment, and preexisting social norms) which was then codified into law. Children could support the family at an early age and so were vital for the financial growth of the family unit. There was little downside to having as many kids as possible (as the wife would raise them), and so creating larger families was the strategy almost all marriages in pre-modern societies followed.

The age of political marriage disappeared in the modern age, when producing multiple children were no longer required in order to support a family, removing one of the main motivations of marriage. 'Marriage,' from the point of view of the spouses, became a social bond between the two partners, and having children was only a luxury. While this has weakened marriage somewhat, the underlying reasons for requiring such a lifelong, rigid commitment to be carried out in the first place is still there, as children still need to be raised in stable households and parents still have motivations to do so.

So what does this mean for gay marriage?

The reason modern states hand out officially mandated marriage licenses to couples are to create the stable environments that children require and giving couples freedom and stability themselves. Anther important purpose of them is organizing society into units that create social order and force the partners to share responsibilities.

However, the fundamental difference between this view of marriage and its earlier incarnation is that having children is no longer a central part of it. Creating as many children as possible may have provided an economic boon for earlier families, but it doesn't in an age where children cannot serve any purpose in industry and are merely given mass education to prepare them to take on more sophisticated jobs when they mature (something that would have been unthinkable in antiquity). In modern developed societies infant mortality is effectivey nonexistent, and the population climbs at unnaturally high levels. Couples even have the luxury of adoptng children with different genes and raising them as their own.

This undermines the critical purpose at the heart of woman and man marriages. If any two people can fulfill the contractual duties of creating stable family units and caring for children, then having marriage be strictly between a man and a woman is not only unnecessary, but socially counterintuitive as well (for if marriage is about a spiritual or social bond, then homosexuals do these things as well). Therefore homosexual couples should be allowed to recieve marriage licenses, on no other grounds that they can perform the duties and obligations inherent to it just as effectively as a traditional couple would.

This is all for now; I await my opponent's critique. Thank you.
Fanboy

Con

I thank my opponent for such a well thought out case,

Due to the brevity of my opponent’s case, I will begin by addressing his case first and then I will present my own.

My Opponent’s Case

My opponent’s case is lacking in warrant. This may surely serve as a history lesson for Marriage but I do not believe it is an adequate argument for the legalization of homosexual marriage. Even if we are too accept the historical significance of marriage as a valid point it does nothing to support my opponents conception of marriage. Furthermore, as I mention below the purpose of marriage has never changed, the implications of marriage are what change. Simply because something is used as a tool to accomplish another end doesn’t indicate that that end is what the thing is. For example, marriage may be used as a legal contract but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal contract in of itself. Homosexual marriage not only devalues heterosexual unions but hurts the procreation conception of marriage. My opponent seems to think that procreation is somehow devalued in the face of overpopulation and the economic reality of present day. I have three different arguments against that notion. My first argument is that regardless of the validity of my opponent’s accusation, it doesn’t produce the effect intended. If overpopulation makes procreation irrelevant then it simply makes marriage irrelevant. If my opponent argues otherwise he is simply begging the question in that he assumes a non-conjugal view of marriage. My second response is that it doesn’t follow that because a tool isn’t being actively in use that it somehow is of less value. This is for several reasons, one it may have future use to different people, two this specific tool is necessary for the continuation of the human race and three it is the only method in which the species can survive reliably. My third argument, simply stated, is the overpopulation doesn’t make procreation less valuable at all! Even if we accept my opponents reasoning that overpopulation is a problem for a conjugal marriage advocate, we soon realize that this isn’t a problem at all. Procreation is necessary whether overpopulation occurs or not because eventually if we do not reproduce then we discontinue as a species. My opponent says that the purpose of marriage is to “create the stable environments that children require and giving couples freedom and stability themselves.” I have three main objections to this definition of the purpose for marriage. My first objection is that the purpose of creating stable environments for children fundamentally presupposes the creation of children, most likely through procreation. My second objection is that if marriage isn’t interested the creation of children why is it interested in the preservation of children? What the connection? And my last objection to this conception of marriage is that if marriage is simply an institution revolving around the protection of children and spouses, aren’t there other tools that do this? Why is mutually exclusive from CPS or organizations that protect spouses from each other?

My Case:

  1. The Procreation Argument

In order to set up a contemporary conception of marriage, marriage must be defined.

Why doesn’t the state regulate ordinary friendships? Why doesn’t the state punish individuals for betraying or hurting their friends? Why does the state not grant benefits for having good friends? It’s simply because ordinary friendships do not warrant any special recognition from the state. The state has no business regulating a purely emotional relationship. If marriage is to be defined by the SSM advocates in such a way that marriage is a purely emotional relationship, why need the state recognize it? However, the reason why marriage is recognized is because marriage insures the precondition for society. Procreation.

As Tim Hsiao argues “In other words, marriage is a fundamental right because "only societies that reproduce survive." The procreative act, therefore, is at the heart of what marriage is. This fits in with how the traditionalist defines marriage -- as a union between one man and one woman. It is only when it is understood this way does the state's role in marriage make sense. The state, therefore, has a compelling reason to recognize as marriages only those relationships which are procreative in type. This is precisely why the state subsidizes heterosexual marriages with certain legal and economic benefits”

Furthermore, heterosexual unions have intrinsic and instrumental value in that they are the only kind of union in which insures the continued survival of the human race. Homosexual unions by contrast have no sort of value to society as a whole.

Valuing homosexual unions on the same level as heterosexual unions devalues the ideal of both a male and female complementary pairing. If we support this kind of union on the same level as homosexual marriage then we cannot say that anything is specifically beneficial about procreation.

“legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and

wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children—an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science. Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified legal structure of incentives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal socially and practically—to minimize the need for alternative, casebycase provisions.” - SHERIF GIRGIS, ROBERT P. GEORGE, & RYAN T. ANDERSON

The biggest point to be made here is that unless my opponent not only tears my definition of marriage down, but defends his own, he must lose the debate today.

  1. The No Difference Theory is flawed

My second argument is partially in response to my opponent’s case but also is an argument I set to advance independent of my rebuttal. While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years. This has a significant effect on the raising of children because children need stability above all else. Furthermore, the Journal of Family Issues published in September 2001 published a study regarding the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting which showed that the parenting styles of homosexuals and heterosexual parents differed 15 % for gays and 30% for lesbians. Furthermore, as 16kadams shows in his debate with Stephen Hawkins from a study done by the Journal of Human Sexuality that fathers are extremely important and that only fathers can actually teach their children certain things the research was summarized as follows:

  • Lesbian mothers interact with children in different ways than heterosexual mothers.

  • The presence of a father reduces the chance that his children will use drugs or become criminals.

  • Children raised by lesbians were more sexually active, the presence of a father helps promote chaste.

  • One biological aspect: Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.

  • People with the best sexual lives are raised by both genders.

  • When interacting with people in the future, the father is actually more important than the mother.

  • For boys, when going through puberty they need to begin to interact with the father. The father teaches the child how to be assertive, how to be “a man”.

For all these reasons I can see no other but a Negative vote today.

Debate Round No. 2
Eitan_Zohar

Pro

I thank Con for his reply.

"The purpose of marriage has never changed, the implications of marriage are what change. Simply because something is used as a tool to accomplish another end doesn’t indicate that that end is what the thing is. For example, marriage may be used as a legal contract but that doesn’t mean it’s a legal contract in of itself. Homosexual marriage not only devalues heterosexual unions but hurts the procreation conception of marriage."

Incorrect. My point was that the ostensible main function of marriage, reproduction, is no longer required or valued except to keep the population level stable. The "heterosexual union" that my opponent mentions (presumably based on reproduction in addition to child-rearing) has already been effectively done and dusted. Couples today gain more by postponing child-bearing until they have stable careers and lives than they do by immediately having as many children as possible, which was the only kind of marriage pe-modern humans knew.

"My opponent seems to think that procreation is somehow devalued in the face of overpopulation and the economic reality of present day. I have three different arguments against that notion. My first argument is that regardless of the validity of my opponent’s accusation, it doesn’t produce the effect intended. If overpopulation makes procreation irrelevant then it simply makes marriage irrelevant. If my opponent argues otherwise he is simply begging the question in that he assumes a non-conjugal view of marriage."

I don't really see what this means. As I have pointed out, there are many other indispensable functions of modern day marriage that are not contingent on procreation. Con should provide a case for why procreation remains the main function of marriage.

"My second response is that it doesn’t follow that because a tool isn’t being actively in use that it somehow is of less value. This is for several reasons, one it may have future use to different people, two this specific tool is necessary for the continuation of the human race and three it is the only method in which the species can survive reliably."

I don't understand remotely what Con is saying by procreation possibly having "future use" to different people, so I'll wait for him to clarify. His second and third points are essentially the same: that procreation is necessary to the human species. However, this objection doesn't make a lot of sense when we understand that institutions evolve over time and according to the needs to the community. If humanity ever required a reinstallment of traditional couple-rearing to stave off an existential threat, it would appear again. If we teleported a group of modern day people back in time to an unpopulated forest 30,000 years, assuming they survived, the same humans would have developed basic tribal institutions and hierarchies even before they gave birth to a new generation.

"My third argument, simply stated, is the overpopulation doesn’t make procreation less valuable at all! Even if we accept my opponents reasoning that overpopulation is a problem for a conjugal marriage advocate, we soon realize that this isn’t a problem at all. Procreation is necessary whether overpopulation occurs or not because eventually if we do not reproduce then we discontinue as a species.”

Procreation may be necessary for our collective continuity, but that has, currently, close to zero bearing on individual requirements. Sure, if our population took a severe dive and we regressed into a dark ages, forgetting our technology, it's easy to see a traditional conception of marriage taking root again out of the needs of the common folk. But the fact that marriage no longer requires procreation as its main function does not mean that procreation is irrelevant. Most people still do have babies, and the amount of births is currently resulting in global overpopulation. The demand and thus value of human resources would rise if we ever began losing substantial parts of our population, giving people even more incentive to raise children. Supply and demand curves aren't only for prices.

"My opponent says that the purpose of marriage is to “create the stable environments that children require and giving couples freedom and stability themselves. I have three main objections to this definition of the purpose for marriage. My first objection is that the purpose of creating stable environments for children fundamentally presupposes the creation of children, most likely through procreation. My second objection is that if marriage isn’t interested the creation of children why is it interested in the preservation of children? What the connection? And my last objection to this conception of marriage is that if marriage is simply an institution revolving around the protection of children and spouses, aren’t there other tools that do this? Why is mutually exclusive from CPS or organizations that protect spouses from each other?"

As I have pointed out, procreation is still an intregral part of our society. Most couples choose to have children, and even if they didn't (in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages), those children still need a stable, social institution to be raised in. This follows to my rebuttal to his third argument, being that humans need to be able to organize themselves to a degree and public programs such a CPS simply cannot control natural societal functions to the degree it would take to raise a quarter of the population and provide for them the psychological and social requirements they need to grow. Child-rearing is still very much anarchic, although federal marriage benefits facilitate and help it.

I've had only an hour to type this up, so any further rebuttal (I believe my arguments have addressed a substantial portion of his case for procreation, but I haven't yet touched the NDT) will have to wait till next time. My apologies to my opponent and the audience.

I'll turn the debate over to Con now.
Fanboy

Con

I’d like to thank my opponent for his response. Unfortunately, as my opponent recognizes in his last round, he has failed to criticize my second argument at all and failed to address my procreation argument directly. Therefore, at this point my arguments are dropped and must flow through.

Let’s move onto my opponent’s response to the rebuttal I provided.

“Incorrect. My point was that the ostensible main function of marriage, reproduction, is no longer required or valued except to keep the population level stable. The "heterosexual union" that my opponent mentions (presumably based on reproduction in addition to child-rearing) has already been effectively done and dusted. Couples today gain more by postponing child-bearing until they have stable careers and lives than they do by immediately having as many children as possible, which was the only kind of marriage pe-modern humans knew.”

Two points on this. Regardless of the need for procreation, the value hasn’t changed. It is necessary regardless of the modern facts regarding the implications of marriage. My opponent needs to provide reasons why marriage is changed by these. He has failed to do so thus far. Furthermore, things that bring about effects are not the same thing as functions. Furthermore, this is almost a clear contradiction between this and the bottom of the page regarding “procreation”. Please cross-apply those points to this.



“I don't really see what this means. As I have pointed out, there are many other indispensable functions of modern day marriage that are not contingent on procreation. Con should provide a case for why procreation remains the main function of marriage.”

Two points on this as well. I provided a strong case for why procreation is the main function of marriage, which my opponent has failed to address, therefore it becomes difficult for my opponent to make an argument that would suggest that the conjugal marriage is unsupported. Furthermore, my opponent has not mentioned any modern indispensable functions. He mentions that creating stable family units and raising children, but this is hardly clear on the former and unlikely for homosexuals on the latter. What is meant by “stable”? What does that consist of? Raising children is rare for homosexuals but from my second argument that my opponent hasn’t refuted we know that homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals when it comes to raising children.



“I don't understand remotely what Con is saying by procreation possibly having "future use" to different people, so I'll wait for him to clarify. His second and third points are essentially the same: that procreation is necessary to the human species. However, this objection doesn't make a lot of sense when we understand that institutions evolve over time and according to the needs to the community. If humanity ever required a reinstallment of traditional couple-rearing to stave off an existential threat, it would appear again. If we teleported a group of modern day people back in time to an unpopulated forest 30,000 years, assuming they survived, the same humans would have developed basic tribal institutions and hierarchies even before they gave birth to a new generation.”

My opponent has made a critical assumption about marriage that is consistently applied throughout the case; he assumes that marriages implications necessarily imply what marriage is. Marriage isn’t federal assured procreation but it helps facilitate and promote relationships which facilitate procreation. Therefore, your forest analogy is simply non-sequitur. I mean future use (use in the future i.e. later) by different people (i.e. people not living now). By not responding to this criticism, voters should consider it so far dropped.


“Procreation may be necessary for our collective continuity, but that has, currently, close to zero bearing on individual requirements. Sure, if our population took a severe dive and we regressed into a dark ages, forgetting our technology, it's easy to see a traditional conception of marriage taking root again out of the needs of the common folk. But the fact that marriage no longer requires procreation as its main function does not mean that procreation is irrelevant. Most people still do have babies, and the amount of births is currently resulting in global overpopulation. The demand and thus value of human resources would rise if we ever began losing substantial parts of our population, giving people even more incentive to raise children. Supply and demand curves aren't only for prices.”

My opponent fails to see the point I was making about the marriages. It is not necessary that the two individuals decide to reproduce as long as they are able to. The analogy between infertile couples and couples that cannot naturally reproduce is logically the same. As long as they can achieve the organic bodily union they fulfill the requirements for marriage not the consequences of the union. “It is clear that the bodies of an infertile couple can unite organic all through coitus. Consider digestion, the individual

body’s process of nourishment. Different parts of that process—salivation, chewing, swallowing, stomach action, intestinal absorption of nutrients—are each in their own way oriented to the broader goal of nourishing the organism. But our salivation, chewing, swallowing, and stomach action remain

oriented to that goal (and remain digestive acts) even if on some occasion our intestines do not or cannot finally absorb nutrients, and even if we know so before we eat.” SHERIF GIRGIS,* ROBERT P. GEORGE,** & RYAN T. ANDERSON***


“As I have pointed out, procreation is still an intregral part of our society. Most couples choose to have children, and even if they didn't (in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages), those children still need a stable, social institution to be raised in. This follows to my rebuttal to his third argument, being that humans need to be able to organize themselves to a degree and public programs such a CPS simply cannot control natural societal functions to the degree it would take to raise a quarter of the population and provide for them the psychological and social requirements they need to grow. Child-rearing is still very much anarchic, although federal marriage benefits facilitate and help it.”

Unfortunately for my opponent with this concession my opponent has lost the debate. My opponent concedes that (in the first paragraph) procreation is necessary for the continuation of the human race and has an integral part of society. He says that “(in which case governments would probably step in and reward or force women to bear children to prevent catastrophic population shrinkages)” but why should they not reinforce the procreation community with benefits since they fundamentally insure that negative situation. Furthermore, my opponent agrees that humans need more than individual want to insure procreation. CPS and other organizations are simply not equipped to deal with rewarding the continuation of the human species. As for the point about the federal marriage benefits (for child rearing), it should be noted that the child rearing consistency and well roundedness is better achieved by the conjugal definition of marriage (see the no difference theory).

Conclusion

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to respond to my arguments and therefore I must end here.
I urge a Con vote today.
Debate Round No. 3
Eitan_Zohar

Pro

I thank my opponent for his case, although I fear that his claim that he has won the debate may be premature.

"Two points on this. Regardless of the need for procreation, the value hasn’t changed. It is necessary regardless of the modern facts regarding the implications of marriage."


My opponent already seems a bit confused here. What does he mean by "value?" If the need (the requirement of procreation to maintain sustanable populatio levels) hasn't changed, then procreation is still necessary, although not, as I argue, as a primary function of marriage. But the value, not the need, has definitely changed enormously. Children are no longer necessary to sustain economic familial units. Procreation only really needed create a new generation, and we are in no danger in that area.

"Things that bring about effects are not the same thing as functions."

Relevance? My entire case was centered around the function of marriage being different than in the past.

"I provided a strong case for why procreation is the main function of marriage, which my opponent has failed to address, therefore it becomes difficult for my opponent to make an argument that would suggest that the conjugal marriage is unsupported."

After looking through it, there wasn't much that wasn't addressed by my previous rebuttal. The continued existence
of society (its need for fresh members to be born) is what my opponent seems to be arguing for. Thus, the "intrinstic" value of procreation should be understood be a collective value for society as a whole. Here is where Con's case decisively falls apart. Arguing that conjugal marriage has intrinstic value because of its value to society is not a valid argument when the function of marriage as its own respective institution is not procreation any longer. My opponent is question-begging; to assert that marriage has value as its procreational contribution to society in order to argue of their inherent superiority in contrast to non-procreational type unions and then use that to claim to say that since procreational unions are superior, they are therefore are more useful to society is simply circular reasoning. The entire need for a procreative institution in the first place was fundamentally pragmatic, and marriage has evolved over the centuries to be what I defined it as.

"He mentions that creating stable family units and raising children, but this is hardly clear on the former and unlikely for homosexuals on the latter. What is meant by “stable”? What does that consist of?"

"Stable family units" are defined as families that have the emotional attachments and the psychological connections that children need for healthy development (reducing risks such as divorce or major fights).

"Raising children is rare for homosexuals but from my second argument that my opponent hasn’t refuted we know that homosexuals are not the same as heterosexuals when it comes to raising children."

It makes little difference as to how many homosexuals actually intend to get married, only those that do will have adoption rights. The divorce rates of homosexual marriages in the US is actually slightly lower than opposite-sex marriage: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

"My opponent has made a critical assumption about marriage that is consistently applied throughout the case; he assumes that marriages implications necessarily imply what marriage is. Marriage isn’t federal assured procreation but it helps facilitate and promote relationships which facilitate procreation."

No, not really. My case was centered around the functions, not implications (whatever that means) of marriage. Con finally seems to have made his definition clearer- the purpose of federal marriage licenses are, according to him, to facilitate procreative relationships. But this would imply that procreation itself was being subsidized, yet birth rates continue to climb without y need for federal involvement. This argument is moot.

"A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years."

This needs to be sourced.

"Furthermore, the Journal of Family Issues published in September 2001 published a study regarding the differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting which showed that the parenting styles of homosexuals and heterosexual parents differed 15 % for gays and 30% for lesbians."

Likewise.

  • Lesbian mothers interact with children in different ways than heterosexual mothers.

  • The presence of a father reduces the chance that his children will use drugs or become criminals.

  • Children raised by lesbians were more sexually active, the presence of a father helps promote chaste.

  • One biological aspect: Boys need fathers to help form sexual identities, and need mothers in order to interact with the opposite sex.

  • People with the best sexual lives are raised by both genders.

  • When interacting with people in the future, the father is actually more important than the mother.

  • For boys, when going through puberty they need to begin to interact with the father. The father teaches the child how to be assertive, how to be “a man”.

First of all, parents are not critical for development of children- children develop relationships with other adults and peers and learn social skills and gain sexual indentities that way. In fact, this seems to be largely more important than having fathers, as these skills are developed through experience and personal interaction with the people they will be interacting with.

Secondly, most research has resulted in the opposite consensus. I will address that study directly next round.

"Decades of methodologically sound social science research,
especially multiple nationally representative studies
and the expert evidence introduced in the district
courts below, confirm that positive child wellbeing is
the product of stability in the relationship between the
two parents, stability in the relationship between the
parents and child, and greater parental socioeconomic
resources. Whether a child is raised by same-sex or
opposite-sex parents has no bearing on a child’s
Fanboy

Con

Fanboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Eitan_Zohar

Pro

Something went wrong with my font last round. Oh well. I'd like to point out that seeing as Con has decided to forfeit, my rebuttal remains unanswered and his studies remain unsourced, depriving me of my ability to respond to them. I'll make a common-sense summary of my position here: marriage is an inherently flexible institution that evolves and adapts itself to the needs and customs of the society, and genderless marriage is simply its latest incarnation, in response to the decreased economic value of having offspring. The idea of procreational marriage being the only legitimate type of marriage because of the "special value" it has of being a precedent for the survival of the species makes no sense in this context. It's like saying every child needs to learn how to smelt copper, because metallurgy is essential to civilization. As of now, I don't believe that I have anything to refute for the moment, unless Con (hopefully) reemerges to carry on the debate.

Ciao.
Fanboy

Con

Fanboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
110 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
1. Marrying yourself would confer no benefit. What, are you planning to file taxes jointly with yourself? Or are you wanting to make sure that property can be split up fairly in he event that you divorce yourself?
2. Marrying an animal or inanimate object would confer no benefit. Generally speaking, if it isn't capable of paying taxes, there is no reason for the government to recognize a pny contractual relationships between it and a person.
3. Gays are attracted to the same sex in the same way that you are (presumably) attracted to the opposite sex (though I might add that many same-sex marriage opponents turn out to be gay... if that's the case, we will support you)
4. Your analogy is flawed. While some arguments used to justify SSM can be used to justify polygamy and other currently illegal types of marriage, the reasons used against those can't be used on SSM. Polygamy is illegal due to the fact that taxes would be weird between multiple people. As someone has previously stated, you can't marry dogs, children, or inanimate objects because none of those could possibly give informed consent.
5. You thinking gays are icky doesn't mean that it should be illegal for them to get married.
6. The debate was won by Pro because Con forfeited the last couple of rounds and closed his account. Here, that is an automatic concession (meaning Pro won by default).
7. Same-sex couples can get married in a courthouse or have a private ceremony if they can't get a church to marry them. You know that Catholic churches don't have to marry Protestant couples or atheist couples, right? Same thing applies here.
Posted by makeshift8 4 years ago
makeshift8
But still marrying myself is ok because I can be financially stable... I cannot beilieve gays are trying to "prove" they are equal, so they say, "let's get married." That's just rich right. Just think of this to. Men making out and people just walking on by. The thought makes me sick to my stomach.
Posted by makeshift8 4 years ago
makeshift8
It's an analogy...
Posted by rogerb 4 years ago
rogerb
you can't marry your dog because your dog can't consent
Posted by makeshift8 4 years ago
makeshift8
Last comment is irrelivent. Obiously our government controls things that are in the bible to. Alright, well hopefully gay trash can have sex in hell to, because if gay marriage is good, than why can I not marry my dog. I love my dog a lot. I give it free food, give it water, and all that stuff. And my dog, well he wins me money from his dog shows. I'm financially stable so hmm. drhead do you think it is a good idea to marry a dog, or a cat, or a flower. How about myself because I can put food on the table.
Posted by makeshift8 4 years ago
makeshift8
I am utterly shocked by the conclusion of this debate. Man, if marriage is run by the church, good luck finding a priest that will help with the ceremony gay trash!
Posted by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
GWL-CPA, since your response was 9 comments, I had to use a pastebin to avoid further unnecessarily flooding the comments section. You may read my response here: http://pastebin.com...

In the future, please try to keep your comments brief.
Posted by Eitan_Zohar 4 years ago
Eitan_Zohar
Oh, right, didn't realize that this was the last round. >.>
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Drhead " The Bible, Sin, the history of Marriage " Part I

Drhead, I see that you were born on December 30, 1899, how charming. You actions are very immature for a man that is over 100 years old. I bet you thought you were cute, or had some other nonsense reason for not properly completing your profile; but, you are not alone at this site; many are moronic immature little shits and don"t complete their profiles. But, I digress, and that is not what this debate is about.

And, if I want to say Gay Married is a sin because the Bible says it is that is a valid argument.

The Bible says it a sin to kill someone else and to steal per the Ten Commandments. Most of the laws in the USA about killing or murder and stealing are based on the common law of England, much of which is based on the Bible, and what are called sins in the Bible.

What the Bible calls sins are just rules for living in a society. Just because it is called a sin, that does not make the rule or law invalid just because it is called a sin in the Bible. So if I say that killing someone else should be against the law because it is a sin, how in the world is that not valid?

Why is killing someone else wrong, especially if I am stronger and have better weapons, survival of the fittest. I don"t like you so I kill you and steal your candy, too bad.

Why does society have a right to tell me that is wrong? After all, don"t the laws of nature, e.g., survival of the fittest overrule society"s rules? No, society can make whatever laws it wants to regulate the people in that society. In American we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect everyone. But, gay marriage is not a right; the right to be married has always been left up to society, and has mainly been a Church Event.
Posted by GWL-CPA 4 years ago
GWL-CPA
Drhead " The Bible, Sin, the history of Marriage " Part II

Society has the right to regulate who gets married. Marriage has always been between a man and woman for obvious reasons.

Marriage, as we know it in our Western civilization today, has a long history with roots in several very different ancient cultures, of which the Roman, Hebrew, and Germanic are the most important. Western marriage has further been shaped by the doctrines and policies of the medieval Christian church, the demands of the Protestant Reformation, and the social impact of the Industrial Revolution.

When we look at the marriage customs of our ancestors, we discover several striking facts. For example, for the most of Western history, marriage was not a mere personal matter concerning only husband and wife, but rather the business of their two families which brought them together. Most marriages, therefore, were arranged. Moreover, the wife usually had much fewer rights than her husband and was expected to be subservient to him. To a considerable extent, marriage was also an economic arrangement. There was little room for romantic love, and even simple affection was not considered essential. Procreation and cooperation were the main marital duties.

The Bible was created by the leaders of the various tribes; they laid down laws or rules for living in that society.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
Eitan_ZoharFanboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: http://youtu.be/WawIiutSqXM?t=2m4s
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Eitan_ZoharFanboyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMgnJDXd3k
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Eitan_ZoharFanboyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF'd two rounds so conduct to Pro. Arguments were unresolved by Con so argument to Pro. Sources to Pro also.