The Instigator
TheSaiyanKirby
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KhalifV
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Should homosexual marriage be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 58464
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

TheSaiyanKirby

Con

The first question you should ask yourself is: "Is the ability to get married a big deal?"
If you answered no, you've already lost the debate. There's no point in dealing with such a minuscule issue. If you answered yes, then you should understand that people will go to great lengths to "preserve" the "sanctity" of marriage. Is a certificate really worth more conflict that could potentially escalate to violence? In addition, this opens up a plethora of other questions. What other relationships should be allowed? I await your answer.
KhalifV

Pro

I am assuming the first round is for acceptance.
I accept and will be arguing that homosexual marriage should be legal.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSaiyanKirby

Con

1. One certificate is not worth a situation which could potentially escalate to violence. There is no good reason to say it is.
2. If homosexuals have the right to marry, why should any alternate sexual preference not have similar rights? Homosexual marriage is really the least of many sexual and gender issues.
3. Many people see homosexuality as a moral issue - and as such legalizing it is offensive to a large portion of many countries. While it is not my personal belief, many people see homosexuality as a moral issue just as big as stealing or murder. Similarly to point 1, does the right to a marriage certificate outweigh potential backlash?
KhalifV

Pro

Sorry I'm so late, feel asleep.
Con's arguments are basically: Gay marriage could lead to violence and gay marriage would somehow lead to the marriage of other sexual preferences. I shall address these points at the end of the round.

Argument From Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism is a moral system in which the moral act is the one that promotes the greatest well being for the greatest number of people.
My argument is as follows:
P1:We should always strive to be moral
P2: The legalization of gay marriage is moral
C: We should legalize gay marriage

I assume you agree with P1, and and the conclusion follows from P2. So we shall have to investigate P2.

The legalization of gay marriage would result in the greatest well being of others, thus it is moral.

R = P * [(I * D ) + (F * E) - (X * E)]
In case you are unfamiliar with the hedonistic calculus, I shall explain.
R is results
I is intensity (scale of 1 to 10)
D is duration (scale of 1 to 10 for simplicity)
F is fecundity(1 to 10)
E is Extent ( 1 to 10 for simplicity)
X is Impurity

Lets assign I a fair value of 8; All gay people would be happy and 60% of people in general want to recognize gay marriage.
Let's assign duration a value of 1o because the pleasure derived from the legalization of gay marriage does not have an end. All further generations of gay individuals will be happy as well, in addition to the joyful heterosexuals.
Let's assign F a value of 8; The legalization of gay marriage would lead to the well being of lots of others (gay and straight, however I must recognize some will be unhappy, however the number of happy will decrease with time.
E shall take on a value of 9. A great number of people would be affected, however a very small minority may not care.
X shall have a value of 2. This is derived from the value of I. The furthest extent of the scale - I=X

I=8
D=10
F=8
E=9
X=2
R = P * [(I * D ) + (F * E) - (X * E)]
R= (8x10) + (8x9)- (2x9)
80+72= 152
152-18=134
R=134

This displays that gay marriage legalization is more moral than illegalization. The only way this could be untrue is if we drastically alter the value of I and X. Which you shall have to argue, if you wish to.
If my opponent can sucessfully refute the first argument I shall offer more.

Refutations:

Con's argument 1 is:
".One certificate is not worth a situation which could potentially escalate to violence. There is no good reason to say it is"

I am not by any means convinced violence would ensue and if it did, I am even more skeptical that it would be to such an extent as to negate the greater good.

Con's argument 2 is: "If homosexuals have the right to marry, why should any alternate sexual preference not have similar rights? Homosexual marriage is really the least of many sexual and gender issues."

I have demonstrated that same sex marriage would lead to the greater good, it is up to you show that these other preferences would be as moral.
Pedophilia often results in the detriment of the younger party. The brain does not fully develop until one is their 20's. A young child is fully incapable of contemplating the outcomes of the act. Also pedophilia constitutes one party taking advantage of the other.

Con's argument 3 is: "
Many people see homosexuality as a moral issue - and as such legalizing it is offensive to a large portion of many countries. While it is not my personal belief, many people see homosexuality as a moral issue just as big as stealing or murder. Similarly to point 1, does the right to a marriage certificate outweigh potential backlash?"

I have already refuted this point. Once again I have demonstrated same sex marriage leads to the greater good thus it is moral. I am by no means convinced other countries would harm us for legalizing gay marriage.

Countries that have legalized gay marriage but have not encountered this asserted backlash:
Netherlands
Belgium
Canada
Spain
South Africa
Norway
Sweeden
Iceland
Portugal
Argentina
Denmark
France
Brazil.

I believe I have refuted Con's arguments.
I await your objections to my argument and comment's on your arguments.

Sources:
http://philosophy.lander.edu...
http://theweek.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSaiyanKirby

Con

Firstly, Utilitarianism is 100% flawed. For example, let's say someone shoots up a church who performs a gay wedding, as shootings are common with controversial issues. Is it not better to have more people still be living than to have some more people be married? Unless you can guarantee no violent backlashes, then your utilitarianism argument totally falls apart.
Secondly, your morality argument directly conflicts with your utilitarianism argument. Many people view homosexuality itself as immoral. So if you're looking from both a utilitarianism and an overall moral view, both can't apply unless everyone approves morally of what you're doing.
Thirdly, you can't expect the United States to act exactly as other countries act. For example, imagine trying to pass all of the women's rights bills that the United States has in a country like Saudi Arabia. We've already seen violence over issues such as abortion and race, you don't think that people care enough about gay marriage to retaliate with violence? You are wrong.

Now, onto your responses to my arguments.
1. Again, unless you can guarantee no violence, then your argument is null and void.

2. Firstly, I have already demonstrated your utilitarianism argument is flawed, and therefore this one is as well. Secondly, your argument that the brain doesn't fully develop is flawed because there is no age of consent in the United States that exceeds 20. So you're just drawing imaginary lines that aren't there. Thirdly, so if a flaw is one party taking advantage, you concede a mutual relationship is ok?

3. Again, countries don't necessarily behave similarly to the United States (I apologize for ambiguity if I did not make the country in question clear). Look back at pedophilia for a second. Countries like Mexico and Germany have ages of consent of 14. So therefore you have to concede at least one of those arguments.
KhalifV

Pro

"Firstly, Utilitarianism is 100% flawed. For example, let's say someone shoots up a church who performs a gay wedding, as shootings are common with controversial issues. Is it not better to have more people still be living than to have some more people be married? Unless you can guarantee no violent backlashes, then your utilitarianism argument totally falls apart." I would love to debate you on ethics sometime. I would love to see what your propose instead.
Im sorry but that does not count as a refutation to all of utilitarianism

I have no reason to think someone will shoot up the church. Furthermore, If someone did shoot up a church, I have absolutely no reason to think that would be a commom enough occurence to outweigh the positive benefits of the legalization.

Civil Rights Analogy: The civil rights moment resulted in the greater good. Some people were hurt and even killed, however I am sure many people are happy it happend, because equal rights were obtained. In our present it is the same. Equal rights are being denied for gay and it would be for the greater good to give them rights.

How does my moral argument conflict with my utilitarian argument?? My moral argument is my utilitarian argument.
I argued homosexual marriage is moral. I don't care if others think it's immoral, they're wrong. That doesn't matter though. The point is that you have not demonstrated it to be immoral.

Noll Hypothesis:
A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that violence will ensue. However you have provided no evidence. Your assertion that violence will ensue is false until proven otherwise. Trying to say I have to prove violence won't ensue is shifting the BoP.

Other countries: Obviously in other countries, if the age of consent is lower, then I can't have any problem with it. Technically an 18 and 17 year old is pedophilia. My argument was against traditional pedophilia, which is usually someone 35+ and someone -13.

In Conclusion: Con has not demonstrated his burden of proof.
He has demonstrated that violence would ensue.
He has not demonstrated homosexuality to be immoral.
He has not adequately refuted utilitarianism.

http://www.investopedia.com...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LordEnglish 2 years ago
LordEnglish
TheSaiyanKirbyKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not prove that same sex marriage is immoral, while Pro proved that it is not
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
TheSaiyanKirbyKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed using his utilitarianism system that legalizing gay marriage is moral and Con did not show that it would be immoral or that utilitarianism is flawed.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
TheSaiyanKirbyKhalifVTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved gay marr ethically good, Con had no good object'ns