The Instigator
Lomcevok
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Dmetal
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Dmetal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,971 times Debate No: 16686
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Lomcevok

Con

This is my first debate on Debate.org, and I hope to improve my debating skills during my time on here.

In this debate, I would like to use the first round to define the terms of the debate. Arguments will begin in the second round.

Objective of this debate: To determine whether or not homosexual sexual unions are the equivalent of heterosexual sexual unions, thus determining whether or not gay unions deserve legal recognition equal to that of heterosexual unions.

Burden of Proof rests equally on the debaters. Pro must prove that homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions. Con must prove that the two unions are not equal.

Gay adoption and IVF are not being discussed here, the discussion is limited to the unions themselves.
Dmetal

Pro

Thanks for making the debate. It's been awhile for me.
Before the debate starts, you should make clearer what you mean by "equal." This debate could go in almost infinite directions depending how you want to argue equality. Are you going to argue that gay couples do not deserve the same, or equal, benefits as heterosexual couples? Or are you going to argue that gay marriages are not as traditional as heterosexual marriages, so therefore do not deserve equality?
Without formulating an argument quite yet, and to make my position explicit, I'll just say right now that I believe that someone has the right to marry whoever he or she wants as long as that marriage is between any number of competent adults. I don't care if the marriage consists of 50 men and 1 woman as long as they are all consenting adults.
Debate Round No. 1
Lomcevok

Con

My position is that homosexual relationships are not as valuable as heterosexual relationships either to nature or to society, and therefore are not equal to heterosexual relationships.

The importance of heterosexual unions in nature –

To preserve itself from extinction, the human race must reproduce. Heterosexual unions are the only way in which humans can reproduce. Therefore, heterosexual unions are essential to prolonging the very existence of our species. Because heterosexual unions result in procreation, something which cannot result from any other relationship, the heterosexual relationship is a special type of relationship which has no equal.

The importance benefits of heterosexual unions in society –

Since heterosexual unions are the sole means for keeping the human race alive, they are also vital to sustaining the population of a nation. Beyond maintaining the strength of a nation in numbers, the heterosexual relationship also is valuable to maintaining the health of those numbers. When the heterosexual couple stays together after the birth of their children and works cooperatively to raise the children who result from their relationship, they contribute to the quality and health of society. The biological parents have a special bond with their child as the child's parents and logically are the ideal people to raise their own child. [1] In addition to having this special bond with their child, the biological parents also provide their child with a balanced set of parents, both a mother and father. A set of parents who are male and female is ideal because of the differences which each sex possesses that extend beyond their bodies. Men and women are very different emotionally and psychologically. Each sex has unique strengths and weaknesses. [2] When working together, the male and female parents complement each other to give their child a well rounded upbringing. [3]

As I stated before, a heterosexual couple raising their children is beneficial to society by providing a stable, healthy environment for their children. By raising a physically and mentally healthy child, the parents are also raising a good citizen who is more likely to make a positive impact on society than a child raised in a home lacking a mother or father. [4] [5]

Also important is the understanding and support a parent can give to a child of the same sex. Certainly, a father can better address problems and give support to boys and mothers to girls at times when issues encountered are unique to each sex, such as the teenage years when children experience hormonal and physical changes which can be difficult to deal with. In a heterosexual household, a child receives the benefits of having both a parent of the same sex and a parent of the opposite sex.

One might note that there are exceptions to the situations I described such as infertile couples who can't conceive children or abusive parents who can't properly raise children, but those are only incidental exceptions to the rule. They do not alter the rule that heterosexual relationships are beneficial to society in a way that no other relationship can be.

The biological parenting household ideal is achieved without artificial means of any kind. The conception and birth of children to their parents is the natural result of the parents' physical union. The benefits both to children and to society of raising children in their biological parents' household are also achieved without outside intervention. They are simply the result of the biological parents staying together and working together to raise their children.

As one can see, the heterosexual relationship has great value that is derived solely from the nature of the relationship. Even without the government's assistance given to these relationships through marriage benefits or the use of artificial means, the heterosexual relationship has this value.

I have not seen evidence that homosexual relationships provide benefits equal to those that result from heterosexual relationships. From what I have seen, homosexual relations have no effects that are beneficial to society. Homosexual relations, as a rule, serve the sole purpose of satisfying the pleasure of those in the relationship and, in no way, have any additional effects which serve the interest of either the human race or society. Because it has no purpose in nature or society, I believe the homosexual relationship is not equal to the heterosexual relationship, a relationship which has special value. Because the homosexual relationship is not equal to the heterosexual relationship, and has no special value, I do not believe the U.S. government should recognize homosexual unions as the equal of heterosexual unions.

I now turn the debate over to my opponent.

Sources:

[1] David Popenoe Life Without Father

[2]http://www.oregoncounseling.org...

[3] http://www.cfcidaho.org...

[4] http://www.usccb.org...

[5] http://www.nationformarriage.org...
Dmetal

Pro

Thanks for the debate.
First, I will shortly address my opponent's arguments, then I will describe away in which societal "benefits" can be found within a homosexual relationship.
Con opens with the assumptions that the procreation of our species relies upon the monogamous heterosexual "union," and that those relationships have no "equal." Homosexuals can also reproduce, obviously, through different means; however, this is the point: they can still reproduce. Moreover, the health of the child should not be doubted as homosexuals can provide a healthy environment both physical and mental for the child. Much of what constitutes our psyche is not based on who our parents are, but in what environment we are raised. I know the science isn't complete on the matter of nature vs. nurture, but there is enough to support my claim.
Homosexual couples can also stay together after the birth of a child to raise it to the "benefit" of society. This brings me to my next point. Con repeatedly uses phrases like "benefit" and "equal" when referring to heterosexual "unions." What does it mean to benefit society? Not to go to prison? To live in a home, preferably one that the inhabitant owns? To get good grades? You get my point. The list can go on forever. There is no intrinsic value to anything that could be put on that list, and therefore there is nothing that is innately found within a heterosexual "union" that "benefits" society. As a society, we construct those values through our daily interactions and negotiations. Con essentially constructs heterosexual "unions" as the norm and concludes thereby that any other relationship no longer deserves legal recognition.
Con states that "Each sex has unique strengths and weaknesses. [2] [sic] When working together, the male and female parents complement each other to give their child a well rounded upbringing. [3] [sic]" There are problems with his sources, however. His second source addresses sexism, but it also ignores more contemporary sexism and attaches "true" essence to gender. Gender roles are socially and culturally constructed (http://www.nomas.org...); therefore, they have no intrinsic value. Men (as well as women) can unlearn these roles, at times to their benefit (http://www.nomas.org...). The only thing that is natural is sex, that is, a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. Men and women (gender) are roles that people act out. A similar critique can be made in regard to his third source: there is no intrinsic value in gender, and therefore no intrinsic value in the role of a mother and a father.
Con's argument that same-sex relationships do not provide "equal" benefits as heterosexual relationships is based completely on his lack of knowledge, or his lack of experience. How are we to gauge "equality" among benefits? I propose not that we decide which one is better, but that we only recognize the complexities of society, the complexity and the plurality of what constitutes a sexual relationship. By shutting out these complexities, we only construct a false dichotomy, opposing binaries that actually harm all men along with the others who are placed in the devalued half of that binary (women, trans-gendered, gay men, and lesbians).
Moreover, I can see benefits that same-sex couples can provide: they can provide a child with a healthy environment; they can help their children negotiate with society's expectations; they can demonstrate the unnaturalness of what we may consider the monogamous heterosexual "union," thereby complicating a society that is truly plural and allowing children who feel different to openly express themselves; Lastly, they can provide a tolerant and diverse environment. Children who grow up in a diverse environment will be less likely to be intolerant and more likely to be open-minded, and therefore, more critical of social norms and to their own condition. Additionally, tolerance is shown to be a driving force in attracting people to entire cities and regions, which increases the economic value of a region (http://www.urban.org...). Tolerance also requires that people accept pluralities, complexities, perspectives they may not understand. Con's assessment of sexual relationships completely diminishes any of the benefits gained from a diverse environment, an environment based on trust and acceptance.
Finally, Con concludes that we may be able to judge whether or not the government should recognize a relationship based on that relationship's "utility". There are numerous fundamental problems with this on several philosophical levels. First, are the interests of the individual completely separate from those of society? Second, how are we to measure the "benefits" of a relationship? Monetarily, socially, psychologically etc.? Thirdly, should the government have the authority to define a relationship and place values upon them? Should the government recognize categories such as unions and marriages based on the philosophical perspectives of any amount of people regardless of the size of the majority? Finally, but not the absolute last point that could be made, is this not a form of discrimination? I believe it is. The government is offering benefits to one group while denying those benefits to others based on its philosophical understanding of a union and a marriage. Moreover, the government is valuing one section of the citizenry over another.
Con must answer these questions because he seeks to restrict liberty, and there must be ample reason to restrict liberty. That is why we have a process of law making and a system of checks and balances. We ensure that liberty is limited to a justifiable degree, but we also make sure that any restrictions we implement can be taken away. Restrictions can be taken away because their reasoning is not sufficient; therefore, I contend there are no sufficient reasons to restrict marriage to any consenting adults, regardless if they want to marry the same sex or if they want to marry multiple partners.
Debate Round No. 2
Lomcevok

Con

In Pro's response, right away he went off the topic of the debate.

I clearly stated before the debate that Gay adoption and IVF were not being discussed, but rather, the value of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and whether these relationships are equal. All the points I made in my opening are naturally linked to a heterosexual relationship.

Yes, homosexuals can reproduce, but only if they choose to participate in a heterosexual union. Even IVF requires a heterosexual union of sperm and egg. The reproduction has nothing to do with the homosexual relationship. Since homosexual unions are irrelevant to adoption and IVF, the argument that homosexuals can reproduce fails.

In pro's second paragraph, he states "Homosexual couples can also stay together after the birth of a child to raise it to the "benefit" of society." Again, this argument is irrelevant to this debate. I discuss the birth and nurture of children in my post, because these events are a natural part of a heterosexual relationship. (See the end of this post.) Since the birth and nurture of children are part of a natural progression of events in a heterosexual relationship, children are highly relevant when discussing them as a result of heterosexual relationships. Birth and nurture of children are irrelevant when applied to homosexuality, because the birth and nurture of children has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Pro's opening arguments do nothing to show how homosexuality is good for either nature or society. All points I made in my opening post are directly the result of heterosexuality.

Pro then asks what it means to benefit society. To that I reply: to benefit society is to provide for the overall good of society. The first way heterosexuality benefits society through procreation by ensuring that there will be a society in the future. Without procreation, there is no future society. Society would die off as soon as the currently living generation dies.
You make the argument that homosexuals can raise children as well as heterosexuals. That argument fails for two reasons. First, raising children doesn't apply to homosexual relationships as it does to heterosexual relationships. As I said before, raising children is just part of the natural progression of events in a heterosexual relationship. How are children linked to a homosexual relationship? Sure, homosexuals can adopt, but that has nothing to do with this debate. This is because the adoption is not linked in any way to homosexual relationships. Would a brother and sister jointly begin caring for a young child form a marriage? A mother and a son? Three brothers? The ability to adopt is irrelevant to determining whether the child's caregivers are married. What matters is the relationship itself, so that is what this debate is about.

Even in adoption, is a homosexual relationship really equal to a heterosexual relationship? The second source I posted in round 2 is not about sexism as my opponent stated. The link in the second source is about the inherent psychological differences between men and women, not roles that can be learned or unlearned as you state. Here is a quote from the first paragraph of source 2:

"As the goal of equality between men and women now grows closer we are also losing our awareness of important differences. In some circles of society, politically correct thinking is obliterating important discussion as well as our awareness of the similarities and differences between men and women. The vision of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for discovery of what truly exists within a man and within a woman. "

I use the link from source two to support the points made in source three by demonstrating that men and women are different psychologically.

From source three:

"Mothers and Fathers Play Differently

Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children….Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security….Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy.

Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security

Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence."

What good for a child is having a second father in place of a mother? The fathers don't balance each other. They only provide children with the strengths of a male, but neither of the men can adequately fill the role of a mother. [1] This is similar to having two left hands as opposed to a left and right hand. Are not two halves which form one whole better than having two halves which still equal one half of a whole? A father cannot possibly replace a mother and a mother cannot replace a father due to inherent differences between the sexes. The uniqueness of each sex is not the result of culturally defined roles that are learned and unlearned. [2]

Later in your post you state: "Moreover, I can see benefits that same-sex couples can provide: they can provide a child with a healthy environment"

Is a home lacking a mother or father really as healthy for a child's development as home with both a mother and father?

"they can demonstrate the unnaturalness of what we may consider the monogamous heterosexual "union,"

This does not make sense. A heterosexual union is perfectly natural. There is no life, no future without the heterosexual union. Nothing results from a homosexual relationship.

You only use circular reasoning in the paragraph I quote from below. Homosexuality should be tolerated because it should be tolerated? No one is intolerant of homosexuality anyway, it isn't banned.

"Lastly, they can provide a tolerant and diverse environment...."

"Finally, Con concludes that we may be able to judge whether or not the government should recognize a relationship based on that relationship's "utility"." The heterosexual union derives meaning from its own nature, not government recognition. See the timeline below. I showed how a heterosexual relationship still has meaning without being called a marriage by the government.

You say that marriage laws discriminate against certain classes of people. How so? The government grants marriage benefits to couples in committed heterosexual relationships to assist them with the difficulties which come with raising children and also to encourage couples to maintain a stable relationship in which to conceive and raise children. Anyone who chooses to participate in such a relationship is eligible to receive these benefits. Homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are not barred from marrying. They just prefer not to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Natural progression of a heterosexual relationship:

Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother work together to raise child > Child matures and becomes independent > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat

Homosexual relationship:

Man and man engage in sexual play > what happens next?

Woman and woman engage in sexual play > what happens next?

Adoption and IVF will not be discussed any further in this debate. At this point, you have not even addressed the topic of the debate.

sources:
[1] http://www.narth.com...

[2]http://www.oregoncounseling.org...
Dmetal

Pro

First, I will address Con's "natural" progression of a heterosexual relationship because this "progression" is the foundation of his argument. Second, I will address Con's objections to my first argument.
Con says, "Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother work together to raise child > Child matures and becomes independent > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat"
Sexual relationships are cultural constructs. Sex is natural, but our values towards sex are not. Our values would include the proper age for sexual activity, the number of partners involved, whether or not it is actually meant to reproduce a child, whether or not the partners are married etc.
Proper age would include cultures that impose, or value, specific ages. For example, girls are sometimes selected as mates after their first period (around 12) while boys have often had to pass some sort of rite of passage to become a mate. Some cultures such as the Aztecs, among others, created something of a third gender with more feminine traits (http://www.transgender.org...). This third gender, what we would call a transsexual woman, was usually used as "practice" for the boys who to become the warriors. Obviously, Con may attempt to say that these cultures are just wrong, maybe even evil; it would certainly fit in with his imperialist, ethnocentric paradigm.
The number of partners involved in a sexual relationship is quite clear. I can imagine that many people in numerous cultures have sex with people they barely know, even if they are in a large group, essentially everyone having sex with everyone. That is usually frowned upon in the US, but it happens, nevertheless. Polygamy, and its opposite polyandry (multiple men and one woman), are practiced all over the world.
Many people engage in sexual activity with the explicit intent not to have a child. This is called contraception. Sometimes when men do not want have a baby, they wear condoms on their pricks and have horrible sex because condoms suck. Con leaves this option out of his "natural" progression.
Some cultures value some sort of marital process. Although premarital sex is traditionally frowned upon in the US, it is accepted and practiced by many worldwide including many Americans. This actually brings up another point. Con, should the government ensure that all marriages are between virgins, or at least a virgin bride? That's traditional European, Christian marriage.
The "union," or sexual relationship, between a man and a woman is cultural as all my points demonstrate, and therefore not natural. One could come to these conclusions by simply reading some basic anthropology or sociology.
I want to now mess with this "natural" progression.
Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father bails> Child matures and becomes independent because his mother raised him > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat

Man has sex with a minor> He goes to jail>Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born >mother and her new boyfriend who is her age work together to raise child > Child matures and becomes independent > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat

Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother (meth addicts) adopt their child to a homosexual couple> Child matures and becomes independent > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat

Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother work together to raise child > Child matures and becomes an independent gay man > Child, now an adult, meets member of the same sex and engages in sexual union > they live their own lives and no one else is hurt, and everyone who wants to have kids has kids, and the people who don' continue to pay taxes that go towards the schools for all the children.
Finally, Con, you completely failed to address your desire to limit liberty. Even if a "union" between a man and woman was natural (I have show it isn't), you would have to give reasons to limit liberty. There has to be some sort of threat towards the rights of others.

Before I end, however, I want to address Con's objections.
"I clearly stated before the debate that Gay adoption and IVF were not being discussed, but rather, the value of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and whether these relationships are equal. All the points I made in my opening are naturally linked to a heterosexual relationship."
and
"Yes, homosexuals can reproduce, but only if they choose to participate in a heterosexual union. Even IVF requires a heterosexual union of sperm and egg. The reproduction has nothing to do with the homosexual relationship. Since homosexual unions are irrelevant to adoption and IVF, the argument that homosexuals can reproduce fails."

Well, I never mentioned adoption or IVF, and you apparently did not get my argument since you completely failed to correctly address it. I was arguing that homosexuals, as human beings, are not usually infertile. They can still get their sperm put into a surrogate mother, and lesbians can get sperm from a sperm bank, then both go home and have sex with whoever they want. Moreover, I didn't even come close to mentioning adoption, so I have no idea where you got that one. Also, many homosexuals take their child raising seriously, so yes, reproduction is important to many homosexual relationships. Even if that was not the case, many heterosexual "unions" do not conclude with a child (contraception), many heterosexual couples use IVF and raise healthy families, or build families through adoption.
You also wrongly accuse me of circular reasoning ("Homosexuality should be tolerated because it should be tolerated? No one is intolerant of homosexuality anyway, it isn't banned.") I never made that argument. I said homosexual couples can provide a tolerant environment, which would likely make the child more tolerant and allow for the child to express feelings that may go against the grain of American culture. This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is.
You also say, "The government grants marriage benefits to couples in committed heterosexual relationships to assist them with the difficulties which come with raising children and also to encourage couples to maintain a stable relationship in which to conceive and raise children." This is not true. Heterosexual couples can marry and never have kids. The government never asks marriages they recognize if they will have children. Moreover, the government gives benefits per child, depending if the family needs it. If the government allows heterosexuals to marry without asking them to have children, then it is discrimination to ban homosexual marriage. I have also shown that homosexual couple can have children. They can, plain and simple! It may not be through means you agree with, but many people including heterosexuals (who can marry anyone they want) use these methods (sperm banks, IVF, adoption) to make a family.
Debate Round No. 3
Lomcevok

Con

"Our values would include the proper age for sexual activity, the number of partners involved, whether or not it is actually meant to reproduce a child, whether or not the partners are married etc."

Yes, I presented the ideal natural progression of events within a heterosexual relationship, but nonetheless, it is natural and is the model relationship which has been the norm in America since our nation was founded. Recently, no fault divorce laws and other societal changes have assisted with breaking up traditional style families. Before divorce was a problem, this natural family unit served society quite well, did it not?

Refer to the last round where I stated the purpose of the government's involvement in marriage.

"Obviously, Con may attempt to say that these cultures are just wrong, maybe even evil; it would certainly fit in with his imperialist, ethnocentric paradigm."

Why do you caricature my position? Definition of imperialism: "the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination." That is certainly not what I believe. I just believe that marriage should be well defined and serve the purpose of assisting unions which, in principle, can result in the procreation and birth of children. Marriage should support the natural family. It has nothing to do with dominating certain classes of people and no liberty is restricted.[1] Every American citizen who is engaged in a relationship which, in principle, can result in procreation is eligible to receive marriage benefits.

"This is called contraception….. Con leaves this option out of his "natural" progression."

For one thing, I do not support contraception. I support self control, abstinence, and natural family planning. That is a whole other discussion, so don't shift the subject.

So heterosexuals sometimes use artificial means to prevent the natural act from reaching its completion which is the conception of a child. What does that have to do with this argument? The possibility for heterosexuals to frustrate their sexual act from fulfilling its purpose of creating life does not change the nature of heterosexual unions.

"Some cultures value some sort of marital process... Con, should the government ensure that all marriages are between virgins, or at least a virgin bride? That's traditional European, Christian marriage."

I am not sure that my opponent understands my argument. Purpose of the recognition of marriage by the government as I stated in round 3:

"The government grants marriage benefits to couples in committed heterosexual relationships to assist them with the difficulties which come with raising children and also to encourage couples to maintain a stable relationship in which to conceive and raise their children."

In other words, it is to encourage the natural progression timeline I outlined, which very well can and does happen in heterosexual relationships. You could say it is the story of our nation, since this natural progression I outlined has been the typical case in America for most of its history. It has worked quite well, hasn't it? Males and females have also worked together to raise children in many cultures throughout history, biological parents raising their children is nothing new.

"The "union," or sexual relationship, between a man and a woman is cultural as all my points"

The stability and permanence of the relationship is encouraged by our culture for the well being of children, but the sexual union is perfectly natural. If the sexual relationship itself is a cultural construct, who invented the male and female sex organs?

"I want to now mess with this "natural" progression... "

" > Child is born > Father bails> …"

"…Man has sex with a minor> He goes to jail>… "

Are these ideal cases? Of course not.[2] Refer back the reason I gave in round 3 and quoted in this page which shows the purpose of marriage. One reason is to encourage stable relationships and give couples incentive to stay together, so father won't bail. There are laws against having sex with minors, for good reason.

"Father and mother (meth addicts) adopt their child to a homosexual couple"

I discussed the issue of homosexual adoption in the previous round. You still have not presented a case to show the stand alone value of homosexual relationships, whereas I have already discussed the stand alone value of heterosexual relationships. I would like to have a debate based on the terms agreed to as presented in round 1 and the comment section. In the next round, please present a valid argument of some sort which clearly explains how homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions as a stand alone relationship. I showed how, on its own, a heterosexual relationship has natural value, yet you cannot show how a homosexual relationship has value without outside influences.

"they live their own lives and no one else is hurt"

If gay marriage is legalized, I would have to disagree with this point. There is already evidence that the legal recognition of gay marriage would affect free speech, religious liberty, and children. [3] [4] [5] There are many posts here if you want to learn more on the subject. http://www.nomblog.com...

"I was arguing that homosexuals, as human beings, are not usually infertile. They can still get their sperm put into a surrogate mother, and lesbians can get sperm from a sperm bank, then both go home and have sex with whoever they want."

They still rely on the heterosexual union of sperm and egg. What does this have to do with homosexual unions?

"I said homosexual couples can provide a tolerant environment, which would likely make the child more tolerant and allow for the child to express feelings that may go against the grain of American culture."

Again, you argue that the benefit of accepting homosexuality is the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality.

"The government never asks marriages they recognize if they will have children. If the government allows heterosexuals to marry without asking them to have children, then it is discrimination to ban homosexual marriage.""

This point you make is wrong for two reasons. First, gay "marriages" are not banned. They simply are not legally equated with male-female marriage, for good reason. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from having relationships.

Second, you appeal to exceptions to the norm, but as a rule, heterosexual sex results in children. In principle, a man can have children with a woman, correct?

"The words 'in principle' mean relating to the definition of, not relating to particular circumstances. If an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple. It doesn't change what the apple is in principle. Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions. We also make laws based on definitions. If you don't know how to operate with respect for definitions, you can't make a law. An individual who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman in principle, procreation is always possible. It is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. When procreation is impossible as between two males or two females, you are not talking about something that is incidentally impossible. You are talking about something that is impossible in principle. If you say that that is a marriage, you are saying that marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation.... When you start playing games in this way, you act as if the institution has no basis apart from your arbitrary whim."

- Alan Keyes

I extend my arguments made in previous rounds.

Sources are in the comments section.
Dmetal

Pro

Con, you have done nothing to address any of my points that clearly show the unnaturalness, the cultural construct of sexual relationships, or "union." You keep coming back and just saying the "union" is natural without any logical support. Moreover, I have shown the standalone value of homosexual relationships. I argued that they could provide a healthy environment, meaning they can provide the essentials and the luxuries. You fired back with pretty much a question if whether they could do this which had no further logical analysis, answer to your question, or any attempt to ask me to answer the question. I argued homosexuals can provide a child with an open environment, and therefore the child would more likely be more tolerant. You fired back with a false accusation of circular reasoning, then you misconstrued my argument. I argued that accepting different relationships can allow children who feel pressures from society to express themselves more openly. You fired back with your own misunderstanding and completely missed the actual argument. You have, therefore, failed to address any of these "benefits" that homosexual relationships can provide.

"The government grants marriage benefits to couples in committed heterosexual relationships to assist them with the difficulties which come with raising children and also to encourage couples to maintain a stable relationship in which to conceive and raise their children."

This is not true and I have shown why it is not. Heterosexual couples can marry and never have kids. The government never asks marriages they recognize if they will have children. Moreover, the government gives benefits per child, depending if the family needs it. You have again filed to correctly address another argument.

It seems that you completely disregard anything I say, misconstrue, misinterpret, or completely miss my arguments, then throw them out as irrelevant to the subject. Moreover, my caricature is correct. You are ethnocentric because you believe that your idea of a sexual relationship is "natural" (I have shown it is not, and you have failed to address any of my points), and you are imperialist because you seek to limit liberty based on your cultural understanding. That is domination.

You failed to answer any of the questions I asked about the government's recognition of a sexual relationship. First, are the interests of the individual completely separate from those of society? Second, how are we to measure the "benefits" of a relationship? Monetarily, socially, psychologically etc.? Thirdly, should the government have the authority to define a relationship and place values upon them? Should the government recognize categories such as unions and marriages based on the philosophical perspectives of any amount of people regardless of the size of the majority? Finally, but not the absolute last point that could be made, is this not a form of discrimination?
The only one you attempted to answer was the one on discrimination, and you failed to address it properly. You seemed to believe that if a "person" (ie homosexual) is not banned then there is no discrimination. That is not discrimination. That might be closer to segregation, or the legal separation of different groups. Discrimination is to see differences among objects and to restrict or deny someone something based on values among those objects. No one could say that homosexuals are not discriminated against in the US. They just received the right to serve openly in the military, and they cannot even marry who they want and expect the government to stay out of their lives.

"There is already evidence that the legal recognition of gay marriage would affect free speech, religious liberty, and children. [3] [4] [5] There are many posts here if you want to learn more on the subject. http://www.nomblog.com...;

Okay, I guess if you call Fox News and the National Organization for Marriage evidence. I might think that a scientifically peer reviewed article would be better. You could have looked for one in a legal journal or any other humanities-based or social science-based journal. I don't think you will find an article that supports what you advocate, but you could look.

"This does not make sense. A heterosexual union is perfectly natural. There is no life, no future without the heterosexual union. Nothing results from a homosexual relationship."

This will be my last point made in this argument. Again, I have shown that the "union" is not natural; that is, what we do with and how we value our sex organs are completely cultural, therefore, not natural. You have done nothing to dispute this (if you do, stick to natural or social science, not blogs!). For example, Jack Bonsor critiques the "objective disorder" found within the discourse of the Catholic Church towards homosexuality and concludes that there is scientific evidence that should cause us to reconsider this notion. Moreover, I have shown various ways in which other cultures value sexual relationships, and therefore propagate the species in ways that do not include our concept of the heterosexual "union," or sexual relationship. For instance, some cultures have multiple partners, others use what we would call transgendered women for "practice," and many cultures have different ways in which they raise children. Again, sex is natural, but how we value sex and actually engage in sex is cultural. What Con calls the heterosexual "union" is a cultural construct (ie one man has sex with one woman and both raise a child). Propagation only requires the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, which is not the same as a "union." This can be achieved through many means including an all-out orgy, rape, sexual promiscuity, artificial insemination, or sexual relations among multiple partners. All of these examples could be theoretically institutionalized. I have also shown that homosexuals can conceive children. It does not matter if they need aid because heterosexual couples us aid without the government getting in their business.

Bonsor, Jack A. "Homosexual orientation and anthropology: reflections on the category 'objective disorder.'." Theological Studies 59.n1 (March 1998): 60(14). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Washington. 10 June 2011 (sorry the source is not online for free, so go to a library and see if they have Academic OneFile).
Debate Round No. 4
Lomcevok

Con

"Con, you have done nothing to address any of my points that clearly show the unnaturalness, the cultural construct of sexual relationships, or "union." You keep coming back and just saying the "union" is natural without any logical support."

That is not true.

"Moreover, I have shown the standalone value of homosexual relationships."

No, you haven't. Unless you show how homosexual relationships even have meaning without assistance from sperm banks, adoption, IVF etc, you have not done so. If you would like to address the stand alone value of homosexual relationships, fill in the blank.
As I already said, even a pregnancy which results from a sperm bank requires a heterosexual union to reach completion, the union of the male sperm with the female egg.

Man and man engage in union> (fill in)

If you were doing to colonize a planet such as Mars, but could only send two people to begin the colony, would you send a male and a female or two members of the same sex? The male and female could produce offspring, and yes, it sounds odd, but theoretically, the offspring of the individual male and female couple could multiply. Whether that would cause genetic issues is debatable, then we would get into a discussion of Adam and Eve vs. evolution. My point is that it is theoretically possible for Mars to become filled with people using no other means than sending one male and one female to the planet, who have offspring, the offspring multiply then the offspring's offspring multiply etc. etc. Cultural construct is not a prerequisite for two biogical parents to raise their children as heterosexual relations are for homosexuals to raise children.

This helps to demonstrate the stand alone value of the male-female relationship, and proves the truth behind my natural progression timeline.

What would happen if you sent nothing other than two men or two women to the hypothetical new world? Fill in the blank to find out

Man and man arrive on planet with no assistance > What happens?

Woman and woman arrive on planet with no assistance > what happens?

"I argued that accepting different relationships can allow children who feel pressures from society to express themselves more openly."

This proves nothing about the value of homosexuality. The same can be said for any counter cultural lifestyle.

"Heterosexual couples can marry and never have kids"

Refer to the end of my post in round four. I explain why this point you make does nothing to justify homosexuality.

"Okay, I guess if you call Fox News and the National Organization for Marriage evidence. I might think that a scientifically peer reviewed article would be better. You could have looked for one in a legal journal or any other humanities-based or social science-based journal. I don't think you will find an article that supports what you advocate, but you could look."

I pointed you to news articles. What does a social science journal have to do with the matter? The articles are written as matter of fact reporting, not science studies. Can you contest what is written in the articles?

"That might be closer to segregation, or the legal separation of different groups."

If a person prefers not to participate in a group, that is their own choice.

"I have also shown that homosexuals can conceive children. "

No, you have not. You have shown that they rely on heterosexual unions to give them children. No matter how a homosexual couples gets a child, whether it is through a sperm bank, adoption, or IVF, a heterosexual union is required to conceive the child.

Throughout this debate, I have shown how, even with no outside influence, a heterosexual union and relationship has a special value that cannot be replaced by a homosexual union. In this round I demonstrated the stand alone value of a heterosexual relationship when I hypothetically discussed populating a planet.

My opponent claims that he has shown that homosexual unions, as stand alone entities, are equal to heterosexual unions as stand alone entities. His claim is false however. He has not produced so much as one piece of evidence to show the natural value of the homosexual relationship. Instead, he relies on describing the benefits of homosexuals raising children. These children have nothing to do with the natural value of a homosexual relationship, as they were conceived through heterosexual union, thus affirming the special, irreplaceable value of the heterosexual union.

Even when discussing adoption, my opponent failed to adequately address my argument which I made on the issue in round 3. I discussed the differences between males and females, and how a child would benefit more from being raised by a male and female, particularly his/her biological parents, as opposed to two members of the same sex. In a homosexual relationship, a child will never be raised by his/her biological parents.

"It does not matter if they need aid"

Here, my opponent says it does not matter whether he addresses the topic of the debate. The topic was the stand alone value of hetero vs. homo unions (no aid). I showed how aid is not required for a heterosexual union to have value, yet my opponent cannot produce evidence that a homosexual relationship has any value without artificial means and reliance on heterosexual unions.

Because of this, I conclude that heterosexual relationships, by their nature, have great value which is not equaled by homosexual relationships. Because heterosexual relationships have special value which cannot be replaced by any other relationship, I summarize my conclusion with an argument made by Jim Spiegel:

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
Dmetal

Pro

Con, this entire debate you have used completely ambiguous words such as "union" to describe the sexual relationship of two people and the apparent fertilization of an egg. You have naturalized this term in the hopes to make your own perspective more likely. If it is natural, we cannot change it. I have shown this is not the case several times, and you have not once addressed the cultural construction of sexual relations among humans. There is nothing natural about your "natural"progression model. Any other scenario that defies your "natural" "union" can be inserted. For instance, we could institutionalize rape and the human race would succeed in procreating itself. In short, the cycle would continue; it wouldn't be fun, but it would continue.

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). I have shown, and you have not disputed, that this"union" (1 man and 1 woman, working together) is not the only means in which humans can procreate. Humans can and have propagated in different ways (1 man and many women, 1 woman and many men, Trans gendered have been used for various purposes as well).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
This is not true as I have explained above, and Con has failed to dispute over and over again. There is nothing natural or inherently significant about this "union."

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
This is an assumption and is based upon certain perspectives. "special value" to whom? Why do these "special" people deserve recognition and sanction? The government never asks married couples if they will have children. Procreation, therefore, has nothing to do with whether or not the government recognizes relationships.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. Nothing happens to heterosexual unions or marriages if gays can marry. Everything for heterosexuals will stay exactly the same. The questionable sources used by Con have really nothing to do with gay marriage or gay sexual relationships. Those are legal matters that can be solved if they are indeed true.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.
Like I said before, heterosexuals will still get to marry and nothing else will change. Where's the injustice?

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.
This conclusion does not follow. I have also shown why each premise is wrong.
Con's argument rests on his assumption that the only value in a sexual relationship is whether or not it bears children. I don't plan on having children, so does that mean my heterosexual relationship is meaningless to all society? No! Most people need to work and live together just to make ends meet. Let me outline some more substantial, tangible "benefits" to society that either people who do not plan on having children, or homosexuals can provide. 1) economic: 2 people living together means that their necessities can be paid for more easily. They can, therefore, put more money towards consuming goods, bolstering the economy. 2) Education: 2 people living together can more easily afford education, and benefits that married couples (regardless if they choose to have a baby) get could help homosexual couples as well. 3) Social well being: Any time a large portion of society is devalued or discriminated against, society becomes less stable because of it. 4) As my other source showed (http://www.urban.org...) people are attracted to tolerant environments and those areas grow economically because of it. An environment that prefers one sexual relationship over another is not a tolerant environment and not an environment that will attract diverse groups of people. This should be sufficient to prove my point.
I conclude that relationships have more value than only procreation. Other societies have carried out procreation in various ways where roles change and, even in some instances, genders change. In short, the values we place on sex are not natural, therefore, there is nothing natural about 1 man and 1 woman working together to raise a child. I have also raised the question whether or not the government has the authority to value a relationship based on whether that relationship bears children. The government is already silent on that matter, so I recommend we keep it that way. Moreover, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason to limit liberty (again, his sources addressed legal matters separate from gay marriage and can be solved through legal means if they are indeed true). Con acts as if heterosexual relationships will be threatened by gay marriage. That is completely illogical fear. Heterosexual relationships whether they are between two partners or many will be safe. The only thing that will change is that society will recognize the complexities and the pluralities that exist within the human condition.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lomcevok 5 years ago
Lomcevok
Pro didn't offer one single argument which addressed the topic of the debate.
Posted by Lomcevok 5 years ago
Lomcevok
"Pretty vague resolution but the debate seems to come down to parenting and no evidence or even argument was supplied by the Con as to why "natural" parenting is superior to parenting facilitated by "artificial" means."

Feverish, I discussed the topic in round 3.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
"I'm not a liberal democrat, so I'm not really sure why you brought it up."

"I know, its difficult to ask imperialists to think outside the box." But you know I am an "Imperialist". What would be close to the opposite of this?
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Oh well now, that is some of the most insightful and intellectual thoughts I think I have ever heard on the subject of gay marriage. "Where do I get my news from" "what is a liberal democrat" and "I have have homosexual thoughts" Utterly ground breaking and purely genius analysis.
Posted by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
Sadolite, I bet I know where you get your "news" from. Do you even know what a liberal Democrat is? To let you know, though, I'm not a liberal democrat, so I'm not really sure why you brought it up. It seems to me that you probably struggle with homosexual thoughts and racism, and therefore, take it out on the "other."
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Dmetal You don't even know what a box is. If gay marriage isn't about love then what is it about?, Is it about affording special social and economic privileges to homosexuals by redefining and mocking the institution of marriage. The goal of the homosexual agenda is to eradicate the institution of marriage not be apart of it. They even know it is absurd. It is about normalizing deviant and perverted behavior. The only thing about being outside the box on this subject is to live in a delusion and pretend that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. And a word about Imperialism, I would much rather be called an "Imperialist" than a Liberal Democrat. Liberal Democrats are by far in my opinion the most bigoted racist people I have ever met. They are the most angry and angst and bullying type of people I have ever known. The rule of law is utterly meaningless to them, unless of course they can use it to their advantage or it advances their tyrannical power grabbing control freak agenda.
Posted by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
@sadolite-I never said marriage was about love. Con seemingly equated rights with "utility." It seems you have too. I argued that sexual relationships along with our values towards them, which would include marriage, are complex and that we should be tolerant of other perspectives. I know, its difficult to ask imperialists to think outside the box. I'm probably asking too much.
Posted by sadolite 5 years ago
sadolite
Not only a semantically win but yet another debate that tries to omit reality.

The biggest flaw that the homosexual marriage agenda has is the idea that the institution of marriage was created because Johnny loved Susy and they wanted to be together for ever and ever. The institution of marriage has "never" been about love. It has and will always be about giving social and economic advantages to those who will bear the responsibility of raising families.

The whole argument about "what about those who don't have children or can't is the most monumental red herring argument in the world. If marriage is going to be defined then it must apply to all in it's meaning. Homosexuals can never have children therefore are not afforded the advantages. DUH.

Any argument based on an advancement in technology is moot. All one has to do is turn out the lights and you no longer have that ability or so called right. The idea that advances in technology somehow equates to more rights or selective new rights is absurd. The whole misguided idea of gay marriage is based on johnny loves johnny so we have to turn the entire institution of marriage upside down on it's head to please the whining of a few who will never bear the responsibility of raising a family if not by only artificial means.

And now lets poison the debate with the atypical intellectually moronic responses like "your a homophobe and you hate gays, your a bigot your a racists your a Nazi". Don't let me down now. you know who you are and you know you can't resist. It is not you fault if you do though, it's really your public school talking through your secular liberal socialist conditioned brain washed mind.
Posted by Lomcevok 5 years ago
Lomcevok
Sources for round 4:
[1] http://tech.mit.edu...

[2] http://www.usccb.org...

[3] Mandatory homosexual curriculum in Toronto: http://www.nomblog.com...

[4] http://www.foxnews.com...

[5] http://www.nomblog.com...
Posted by Dmetal 5 years ago
Dmetal
okay. Got it.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by JacobHession 5 years ago
JacobHession
LomcevokDmetalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro side completely tore apart the framework of the Con side's case. The Con side then offered insubstantial arguments and answers to refute the attacks of the Pro side. Overall the Pro side offered better attack and arguments. Well done Dmetal.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
LomcevokDmetalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Feverish categorized this arguments well. Con could not carry the BoP against same-sex unions. 3:1 on argument to Pro. 1 pt to Con as his arguments were in general easier to follow due to formatting.
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
LomcevokDmetalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro restated quite plainly, civil marriage is NOT to promote procreation. It is there for several other reasons. Therefore, gay marriage cannot be considered unqualified for marriage based on the inability to procreate in the same manner as a fertile heterosexual couple could.
Vote Placed by feverish 5 years ago
feverish
LomcevokDmetalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty vague resolution but the debate seems to come down to parenting and no evidence or even argument was supplied by the Con as to why "natural" parenting is superior to parenting facilitated by "artificial" means.