The Instigator
BrandonSiler2044
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
Lordknukle
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points

Should their be a national ban on gay marriage to outlaw it?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,852 times Debate No: 18860
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (13)

 

BrandonSiler2044

Con

I am against a national ban on gy marriage. I believe it should be up to the states, after allit does say so in the constitution for any matter not specificly mentioned. If possible, I wish government would stay out of marriage. But I highly doubt that will ever happen. So I am for states rights. I dont personally support gay people, Im a Christian and believe homosexuality is a sin. But I do not feel that their practice should be banned.
Lordknukle

Pro

I accept the debate.

I will be arguing that it should be banned because it is not natural, a sin, marriage is defined as between a man and woman, etc...

My opponent said:
"I believe it should be up to the states, after allit does say so in the constitution for any matter not specificly mentioned"

He goes on to say:

"If possible, I wish government would stay out of marriage."

Each individual state has its own government. Therefore, you are implying that the State Government should not be involved in making its own laws. As a result, the citizens have to make their own laws. You are advocating anarchy.


Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
BrandonSiler2044

Con

Does marriage really need laws? Laws do not instigate morals. Only the character of the people do that.

Also, I said "If possible" I wish they could stay out of government. But with all the government benefits that married people get I highly doubt government will ever be out of marriage. Thats why I support states rights (and because the constitution does also).

You said "I will be arguing that it should be banned because it is not natural, a sin, marriage is defined as between a man and woman"

Doesnt everyone have the right to live as they choose as long as they arent infringing others rights? I do believe that marriage is one man and one woman.. you can look it up in the dictionary and that's what it says. But its not the governments job to tell people how to live their lives.

You also said it should be banned because it is a sin, well here is my argument.

Adultery is a sin, does that mean we should ban it? Just because something is morally bad, that does not mean the government shall tell people whats right or wrong. Its their lives, and they can live how they want as long as they are not infringing MY rights as a U.S. citizen.
Lordknukle

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments.

The two main contentions will be:

C1: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman

C2: Homosexuality is harmful to society

Followed by rebuttals.

C1: Marriage is the union between a man and a woman (5)

As defined by Google (1) marriage is:

"The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."

According to United States Federal Law, marriage is also classified as the legal union between a man and wife. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in 1996 states that marriage is defined as a legal union between one man and one woman.(2)"

"Under the law, no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state." (2)

California Proposition 8 states that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."(3)


Homosexuality is prohibited according to the Bible (4):

  • Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
  • Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.
  • Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
  • I Corinthians 6:9 - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

C2: Homosexuality is harmful to society

I will attempt to demonstrate why homosexuality is harmful to society and should be outlawed.

"Violence between homosexual couples is two to three times more common than in heterosexual couples."(6)

I would like to continue quoting the American College of Paediatricians:(6)

"Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years"

"Homosexual men and women are reported to be promiscuous, with serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed committed relationships"

"Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse,suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans."

According to Statistics Canada:(7)

"The 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) inquired about sexual orientation and results showed that spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively."

According to the CDC:(8)

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died."


I have successfully demonstrated how homosexuality is bad for society.

Rebuttals

"Does marriage really need laws? Laws do not instigate morals. Only the character of the people do that."

Fallacious presumption. Laws do instigate morals. Why does society not condone murder? Because it is illegal. The illegality of murder has caused people's morals to accept that murder is not correct.

"Also, I said "If possible" I wish they could stay out of government. But with all the government benefits that married people get I highly doubt government will ever be out of marriage. Thats why I support states rights (and because the constitution does also)."

Please expand on this point because it does not make any sense to me.
As I stated before, a state has a government. Again, you are advocating anarchy which has nothing to do with this debate.

"Doesn't everyone have the right to live as they choose as long as they aren't infringing others rights? I do believe that marriage is one man and one woman.. you can look it up in the dictionary and that's what it says. But its not the governments job to tell people how to live their lives."

The role of the government is to manage or control its own people. With this statement, you are once again advocating anarchy. The government tells people how many to pay in taxes, how much welfare they get, etc.... A government does control a person's life. The U.S. government can even legally kill citizens on the "Danger List".

"Adultery is a sin, does that mean we should ban it? Just because something is morally bad, that does not mean the government shall tell people whats right or wrong. Its their lives, and they can live how they want as long as they are not infringing MY rights as a U.S. citizen."

Murder is a sin, does that mean that we should ban it? Ideally, all sins should be banned.

If something is morally bad, then it should be restricted. Murdering is morally bad, therefore it is restricted.

If someone murders 10 people in Alaska, they are not infringing your rights (which is what your argument is about). Therefore, according to you they shouldn't be prosecuted.

My opponent's arguments are both flawed in fact, assumption, and theory.

Conclusion
I have successfully negated all of my opponent's arguments. He keeps talking about anarchy, which has nothing to do with this debate. I have shown how homosexuality negatively affects culture and therefore should be restricted or banned. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman, according to federal law. I see no point in changing it.

Vote Pro

Good luck to Con.

(1)http://goo.gl...

(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...

(4) http://www.biblegateway.com......

(5)http://www.debate.org...
(6)http://www.acpeds.org...

(7)http://www.statcan.gc.ca...

(8)http://www.cdc.gov...

Debate Round No. 2
BrandonSiler2044

Con

Laws do not create morals. Only the peoples morality creates the morals for society (In most cases)

Your first argument Is that the Bible states it is a sin.

I agree, It is a sin. But It is also morally wrong to disrespect your parents, right? But, we dont have laws saying we can't be disrespectful to our parents!

Also, please read the first amendment. Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor shall they prohibit the free excersise of religion. So while we cant make laws because of a religion, we cant make laws to outlaw any religious practice either.

Your 2nd argument, Gay marriage is harmful to society.
I agree, But so is alcohol is it not? And alcohol is legal! Alcohol causes way more deaths and violence than gay's lifestyle does.

You said this "Laws do instigate morals. Why does society not condone murder? Because it is illegal. The illegality of murder has caused people's morals to accept that murder is not correct"

Murder is illegal because it is infringing other citizen's rights! Not because we have a law! People have always known it is wrong to murder and it wasn't because of laws. Gay marriage doesn't infringe peoples rights!

I believe that gay marriage is wrong, but I respect that people can live the way they want to. And nowhere in the constiyution does it say we should outlaw someones lifestyle because my religion believes it is a sin.

My final argument, the constitution says "Anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution shall be left to the states" So the states should be the ones choosing whether or not it should be legal! Not the national government!

http://archives.gov...
Lordknukle

Pro

My opponent has not introduced any new points or rebutted my arguments.
He has infact agreed with me on both of my contentions.
If he agreed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, therefore we can infer that the government should implement a national ban on gay marriage.

I will rebut what little my opponent has brought forth.

"Laws do not create morals. Only the peoples morality creates the morals for society (In most cases)"

I already addressed and debunked this point.

"I agree, It is a sin. But It is also morally wrong to disrespect your parents, right? But, we dont have laws saying we can't be disrespectful to our parents!"

According to Dictionary.com:
Disrespect-lack of respect (1)

My opponent has not defined what disrespect is, so I shall. Murder and assault are both forms of disrespect. You are disrespecting the person by showing a lack of respect for their personal space and rights. Therefore, we do have laws against disrespect.

"Also, please read the first amendment. Congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor shall they prohibit the free excersise of religion. So while we cant make laws because of a religion, we cant make laws to outlaw any religious practice either."

Gay marriage is not necessarily a "relgion thing".
This also has nothing to do with our argument.
That amendment states that Congress shall not forcefully impose religion on anybody or prohibit practicing of religion. Until they make a Gaytianity religion, this point is moot.


"Your 2nd argument, Gay marriage is harmful to society.
I agree, But so is alcohol is it not? And alcohol is legal! Alcohol causes way more deaths and violence than gay's lifestyle does."

You cannot compare the two. Alcohol is a material object while gay marriage is a psychological commitment.

"Murder is illegal because it is infringing other citizen's rights! Not because we have a law! People have always known it is wrong to murder and it wasn't because of laws. Gay marriage doesn't infringe peoples rights!"

Fallacious point. People don't always think that murdering wrong. Take Hitler or Stalin: 36 million murdered together +WWII. Therefore, people do not always know that murdering is wrong.

"I believe that gay marriage is wrong, but I respect that people can live the way they want to. And nowhere in the constiyution does it say we should outlaw someones lifestyle because my religion believes it is a sin."

My opponent is implying that the sole reason for outlawing gay marriage is religion. If you read my previous contentions, you would have realized that your point is false.

"My final argument, the constitution says "Anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution shall be left to the states" So the states should be the ones choosing whether or not it should be legal! Not the national government!"

Perhaps a valid point, but it is currently moot. There are many laws decided by the national government on issues not relating to the Constitution. Including the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Regardless of the Constitution, there is a federal definition and regulation on gay marriage.


Conclusion

I believe that I have shown that all of my opponents points are invalid and moot. My points still stand as is and have been accepted by my opponent.

I urge the voters to vote PRO


(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...






Debate Round No. 3
BrandonSiler2044

Con

Your first argument is when you say this. "My opponent has not defined what disrespect is, so I shall. Murder and assault are both forms of disrespect. You are disrespecting the person by showing a lack of respect for their personal space and rights. Therefore, we do have laws against disrespect."

You used the Bible to support your claim that homosexuality is a sin, and I agree with you!! But so is disrespecting your parents! We don't have a federal law for that! I'm using the Bible to tell you what disrespect is and I figured that you would know that!! Just read the 10 commandments!

http://www.allabouttruth.org...

You also said this "You cannot compare the two (Referring to alcohol and gay marriage). Alcohol is a material object while gay marriage is a psychological commitment."

But what is your point? Does it matter whether its material or not? My point is that they BOTH hurt society and you are telling me that we should outlaw gay marriage because it hurts society. Then why stop there! Lets outlaw alcohol! Because it does hurt society! Lets outlaw cheeseburgers! Because it causes cancer therefore hurting society! My point is that people would still be gay whether or not gay marriage is legal or not. The only difference is that they would have a license.

Your next argument was when I said "Murder is illegal because it is infringing other citizen's rights! Not because we have a law! People have always known it is wrong to murder and it wasn't because of laws. Gay marriage doesn't infringe peoples rights!" And you said this.

"Fallacious point. People don't always think that murdering wrong. Take Hitler or Stalin: 36 million murdered together +WWII. Therefore, people do not always know that murdering is wrong."

Are you that blind? Murder was a crime in Germany when that happened!! And he still murdered people! Therefore you are proving my point that laws do not instigate morals, just the character of the people. Hitler would have murdered people regardless of whether it was legal or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Your final argument is when I talked about states rights.

You said this

-"Perhaps a valid point, but it is currently moot. There are many laws decided by the national government on issues not relating to the Constitution. Including the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Regardless of the Constitution, there is a federal definition and regulation on gay marriage"

If there are laws that dont abide by the constitution then OBVIOUSLY those laws are unconstitutional! Thus again proving my point that the legality or illegality of something wont determine whether people think its wrong or not. Its what they think.

Laws do not instigate morals. There is a law in Washington saying that noone can spit on a bus. Please.

Is spitting on a bus morally wrong? No!!

If you tell me that that law helps society then you are missing the point.

Thank you.
Lordknukle

Pro

Again, no new arguments by my opponent.
Instead just reiteration of previous points that I already debunked.

"You used the Bible to support your claim that homosexuality is a sin, and I agree with you!! But so is disrespecting your parents! We don't have a federal law for that! I'm using the Bible to tell you what disrespect is and I figured that you would know that!! Just read the 10 commandments!"

You are missing my point. I showed that disrespecting your parents can indeed be punishable by law. The 10 Commandments are open to interpretation.

"But what is your point? Does it matter whether its material or not? My point is that they BOTH hurt society and you are telling me that we should outlaw gay marriage because it hurts society. Then why stop there! Lets outlaw alcohol! Because it does hurt society! Lets outlaw cheeseburgers! Because it causes cancer therefore hurting society! My point is that people would still be gay whether or not gay marriage is legal or not. The only difference is that they would have a license."

Nobody is arguing with you that people will still be gay. I'm just stating that gay couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Yes, it does matter whether it is material or not. You are trying to compare a mental situation (being gay) to a physical situation (drinking alcohol). I am saying that you cannot compare the two. That's like trying to compare the danger of psychopaths and guns. You don't what caused what. This is a very comprehensive topic that I will not go into right now. It is a matter for a whole other debate.

"Are you that blind? Murder was a crime in Germany when that happened!! And he still murdered people! Therefore you are proving my point that laws do not instigate morals, just the character of the people. Hitler would have murdered people regardless of whether it was legal or not."

Ad hominem.

The laws were in effect. Citizens who murdered others were prosecuted and thrown into jail. However, the dictator was above the law. That is why he murdered people. If he was prosecuted by the law for every murder that he instigated, he would not have instigated them.
Its simple human nature. When something is restricted, you are less inclined to obtain it. When something is open and freely available, people will easily obtain it. In other words, laws prevent murder because people are scared of the consequences.


"If there are laws that dont abide by the constitution then OBVIOUSLY those laws are unconstitutional! Thus again proving my point that the legality or illegality of something wont determine whether people think its wrong or not. Its what they think."

I would like to bring an example of the Tea Party Movement. It adheres to the orginalist interpretation of the Constitution. However, 82% of the people oppose gay marriage. (1)
The thing is that the Constitution is 200+ years old. Priorities of issues change.


Conclusion

My opponent simply reiterated all of his points over the rounds, while I debunked them.

Vote Pro




(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mariahjane 5 years ago
mariahjane
You both need to open your ignorant little minds.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
Very mature Willoweed.

Votebombing my debate because I voted against you
Posted by mylescoen12 6 years ago
mylescoen12
Thank God!
Posted by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Lordknukle
don't worry it was a joke
Posted by mylescoen12 6 years ago
mylescoen12
Lord knuckle, I just want to make sure your argument that freedom of opinion is in the constitution and thus gay marriage violates your opinion and your rights is a joke. B/c if not, it means that you have the deductive skills of a cabbage. So if I believe murder is ok then prohibiting me from murdering others violates my rights and is unconstitutiona? Brilliant lol.
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 6 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
You said "Nobody is arguing with you that people will still be gay. I'm just stating that gay couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples"

You have to be for equal rights of individuals or you cannot promote liberty.
Posted by Lordknukle 6 years ago
Lordknukle
I haven't posted my opinion thing in the actual debate so it has nothing to do with it.
You have not rebutted or introduced any new points in Round 3. You simply reiterated them.

Btw, if I was an as*, I could have kept on with my Canadian thing because you did not specific in your Round 1 argument.
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 6 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
Im talking about America. LOL. you should know that when I said the constitution, or Bill of Rights. And you should have clicked on the link
Posted by BrandonSiler2044 6 years ago
BrandonSiler2044
First off, freedom of opinion isn't in the Bill of Rights. 2nd, Even if it was, gay marriage doesnt violate your opinion, you can still have your opinion regardless of if two gay people down the street are married. You may not like it, but you can stil have your opinion. Look at this, what if my opinion was that you should die? Well your alive! Thats violating my opinion. DOes that mean I should kill you? No.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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: Being older than six months old, the statute of limitations is up on vote reporting. I vote Pro because. Pro is not racist.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were weak.
Vote Placed by lovelife 5 years ago
lovelife
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made very weak, hard to understand arguments, but had more objective, official websites (government websites, rather than religious) Pro made better points, had a nicer format, and the punctuation used helped in understanding what point he was trying to get across.
Vote Placed by LibertyCampbell 5 years ago
LibertyCampbell
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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 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: It is obvious Pro won. He had better format, referenced his points, and rebuted Con's arguments (Although he didn't do a very good job). Still, He won. Also conduct goes to Pro because of ad hominem "are you blind?"
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering 16k and history genius
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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 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: Counter Teafood
Vote Placed by Teafood 5 years ago
Teafood
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: When you don’t even hdie the fact that you ahte gays and want to discmrinate I cant vote for you
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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 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: countering willoweed votebomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: pro was ridicoulous
Vote Placed by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
BrandonSiler2044LordknukleTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con effectively showed that marriage should be left up to the states by citing the constitution (The law of the land) and Pro responded by saying that the constitution does say that but it is not valid since we don't follow it in other cases.