The Instigator
BEN875
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Cavil
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The religious policies of the Republican Party are bad for society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
BEN875
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,033 times Debate No: 8526
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

BEN875

Pro

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the best answer for religious issues, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." While the Republican Party follows the "Free Exercise Clause," they ignore the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" by trying to force Christianity onto people. Trying to make laws that would force people to obey the Bible doesn't make sense. If you obey the Bible, and it turns out to be the word of God, then you will go to heaven, and the people who disobeyed the Bible will go to hell. If you believe that things such as abortion, drug use, pornography, and homosexuality are sins, then don't get an abortion, don't use drugs, don't look at pornography, and don't be a homosexual. Just let other people make up their own minds. The Bible says that our ability to sin comes from God's desire for us to have free will.
Cavil

Con

Since the pro has the burden of proof I argue against what my opponent said.

He says that the republicans ignore the "establishment clause" in the constitution.
First, he never explains why the constitution is good for society.

Second, his arguments are morally based when we should be talking about actual dangers to society.

Third, his arguments seem to revolve around the idea that people should have freedom to do whatever they want and live with the consequences. Essentially this is advocating anarchy because the government would not be able to impose limitations on freedom. In anarchy there would not be anything to prevent people from killing each other. When people do not recognize moral or at least legal restraints on their actions society crumbles. There is no reason why I should pay for things when I can steal them. Everything we know and love about society would lost under anarchy. Furthermore, the freedoms that my opponent advocates could never be protected. Is the government going to stop a vigilante from killing an abortion doctor? Not under my opponents view, because the vigilante can do whatever he wants. Without any established order in society, society crumbles and we cannot protect the liberties that my opponent advocates. Religiously biased order (however bad my opponent says it is) is always going to be preferable to no order.

Fourth, he says we should ignore other people's sins because human beings are supposed to have free will, but this is irrelevant. Yes, every human being has free will, but should we just allow evils to happen right under our noses when we could have stopped them? We need to try to limit the freedom of men to do evil. This does not violate their free will because their free to think or believe whatever they want. They should not be free to do whatever they want.

Fifth, what my opponent attacks about religion is not really an attack on religion. What he really attacks are the moral codes and laws that are based on religion. People may be forced to obey codes that may be taken from religion, but their never required to believe that those codes are right. Nobody is ever forced to believe the theology of a particular religion either. Furthermore the government has not been declared a "christian" government, so it is still open for other religions to enter the discourse. Republicans for their part do not support this sort of legislation.

Sixth, my opponent's interpretation of the Establishment Clause seems to be that any action that might be that any law that was based on religion is a violation. However this violates the Free Exercise Clause because it prohibits people in power from exercising their religious views.

Finally, if we are to accept my opponent's interpretation then the government becomes heavily disabled. It becomes unconstitutional for the government to act in favor of anything that religious group advocates. And that group could hypothetically advocate anything. A protestant church could advocate a strong national defense and gun rights. The government would then have to choose not to have either of those things on the grounds that it might be respecting the "establishment" of a religion.

George Washington said that:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
For all these reasons you will vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
BEN875

Pro

The reason that the Constitution has the best answer for religious issues is because it lays out a "live and let live" policy. The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people and the "Free Exercise Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion off of people.
Restricting the government from imposing religious laws would not restrict the government from imposing any limits on freedom what so ever. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best when he said "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People should be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want as long as they don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. Laws against things such as murder, robbery, and rape are good for society because those laws protect people from other people. The government doesn't need religion to justify those laws. However, laws against "sins" such as homosexuality, prostitution, and drug use are bad for society because those laws impose a pointless limit on freedom by criminalizing things that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. My opponent stated that my arguments are "morally based when we should be talking about actual dangers to society." The more time, manpower, and resources that the police use to stop people from committing "sins" that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties is less time, manpower, and resources that they will have to stop people from committing acts that do infringe on other people's rights or liberties. Isn't that a danger to society?
Restricting lawmakers from imposing religious laws onto their people does not restrict lawmakers from having religious convictions. Lawmakers can, for example, hold the belief that prostitution is a sin and, at the same time, hold the belief that it should be legal on the grounds that it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. Some of the Founding Fathers were Christians on a personal level and still believed that Church and State should be separate.
I do not believe that the government should never be able to outlaw things that a religious group also happens to advocate. What I believe is that the government should make laws from a non-religious perspective. You don't need religion to figure out that outlawing murder is a good law for society. Murder is, rightfully, illegal because it is the act of one person infringing on the rights of another person.
George Washington wrote in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to state:
"All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
Cavil

Con

"The "Establishment Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people and the "Free Exercise Clause" prohibits the government from forcing religion off of people."
I agree but go back to what I said:
"People may be forced to obey codes that may be taken from religion, but their never required to believe that those codes are right. Nobody is ever forced to believe the theology of a particular religion either. Furthermore the government has not been declared a "christian" government, so it is still open for other religions to enter the discourse. Republicans for their part do not support this sort of legislation."
At this point the religiously based laws of the republican party fulfill my opponent's requirements because no one is being forced into religion; everyone is still free to believe what they want to believe about anything.
Further he never refuted this:
"what my opponent attacks about religion is not really an attack on religion. What he really attacks are the moral codes and laws that are based on religion."
Since he never refuted it in his last post, even though he could have, he is accepting it as true. At this point he has never actually affirmed the resolution so you are going to negate on that.

He modifies his argument for liberty by explaining that liberty should only extend as far as that it does not violate other people's liberty. I contend that this is a danger to society. If I use my liberty to get a job that someone else wanted then I violate their liberty by: preventing them from taking the job and preventing them from earning the money at the job. But the same thing happens to me if he gets the job. If we are to accept my opponent's principle that we should only have liberty as far as it does not infringe on other people's liberty, then neither of us can take the job. The fact is that we are all interconnected in society, especially in economics. If someone buys the last loaf of bread then no one else can buy that loaf of bread, and their liberty is infringed. Our acts of liberty effect other people's acts of liberty and rather than going with my opponent's principle of preventing infringement on liberty, we need allow for liberties to compete. Some people will gain more liberty and some will lose it. My opponent's idea would require the government to micromanage individuals to ensure that they never infringed on anybody else's liberty. You will forget about his police argument, because enforcing his principle of liberty would only make the problem worse. It would be incredibly difficult to try to micromanage society and the cost to freedom would be great. Comparatively, it is not hard to crack down on major abortion clinics, we have been fighting illegal drugs for a long time now, and it is even easier to say marriage is only between a man and a woman.
But against his police argument again, he says that more laws would decrease enforcement of other laws. But he forgets that we could simply increase the amount of police resources.
Going back to his principle of liberty though. Even if that is true it conflicts with my opponent's argument that abortion should be legal. If you are always trying to prevent infringement of liberty, then what about the liberty of an unborn baby. If doctors are allowed to kill unborn babies then they violate the child's liberty. So my opponent goes against the very principle that he advocates.
My opponent has the burden to prove why the religious policies are bad for society. His two points toward that end are: that they violate liberty, and that they place strain on the police. Even if you do not buy what I said at the beginning of my case you vote con on the arguments against his points:
1: that his principle of liberty in effect is really bad and would decrease freedom. Religious order is again preferable to this.
2: that the principle makes the police issue worse.
3: that he contradicts his own principle on the abortion issue, so it really could not be that good could it.
At this point he has no reason why the principles are bad for society and you are going to vote con.

My opponent says that you do not need religion to justify his principle. Since you have the burden of proof, I would put to you: what makes your principle of liberty superior to the anarchy I described in the first round? Why do humans have worth? Because if they do not have worth then they have no rights and humans themselves are not worth protecting. And if you find that reason: is is in line with your principle? If the pro cannot prove that humans have worth then there are no reasons why religious policy would be bad and you are going to vote con. Religion gives you a legitimate reason to believe that human beings have worth, and there is a reason to protect their rights. And if you accept that then there is a legitimate reason to prevent all the evils afore mentioned in this debate.

I said in my first post that:
"We need to try to limit the freedom of men to do evil."
This is a religiously based conviction. My opponent says that people can still have religious convictions but that law makers should not be motivated by religion. My attack was that if they are prohibited from basing their decisions on their religion, then that violates the free exercise clause. If you cannot enact a law for religious reasons then you are not free to exercise your religion.
Exercise (from the New Oxford American Dictionary): a process or activity carried out for a specific purpose, esp. one concerned with a specified area or skill.
As long as this does not conflict with the establishment clause, it should be considered acceptable. I have already proven that the religious policies in question do not violate that clause because they never force people to join or believe a certain religion and they never prohibit people of other faiths from joining the discourse. I established this based on something my opponent said, so we agree on it. Further, my opponent's case violates the free exercise clause because it prohibit law makers can never base their decisions on religion.

Going to the Washington quote.
The right to freedom of conscience has never been violated. No one has tried to force anyone to believe something is right or true, nor could they because there is no such thing as mind control. I also explained in my first post that even though individuals have free will, that does not mean that they should be free to do whatever they want. As I showed in my first post that leads to anarchy. It mentions "natural rights", but if there are multiple natural rights should we not protect them all. My opponent only advocates protecting one natural right and that is liberty. It says we should not give sanction to bigotry. No one is being forced to adopt any belief and the government is not excluding those of other beliefs, so there is no bigotry. The final sentence has very little to do with the resolution. It merely asks that we do our best to live under the government in peace. So the quote really gives my opponent no clear support and turns against him on the issue of natural rights.

My opponent failed to affirm the resolution and his arguments have been effectively refuted or turned. With no positive reason to affirm you will vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
BEN875

Pro

My opponent begins the second round by agreeing that the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment" prohibits the government from forcing religion onto people. Then he turns around and makes the following statements which I will refute one by one:

STATEMENT #1: "People may be forced to obey codes that may be taken from religion, but their never required to believe that those codes are right."
MY RESPONSE: The "Establishment Clause" says the exact opposite of "people may be forced." It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

STATEMENT #2: "If you cannot enact a law for religious reasons then you are not free to exercise your religion."
MY RESPONSE: So you agree that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and, at the same time, believe that Congress should be able to enact laws for religious reasons? What part of "no law" do you not get?!

STATEMENT #3: "As long as this does not conflict with the establishment clause, it should be considered acceptable."
MY RESPONSE: It clearly does conflict with the "Establishment Clause"!! The "Establishment Clause" states that NO LAW shall be made respecting and establishment of RELIGION!!

My opponent goes on to state that "the government has not been declared a "christian" government." However, members of the Republican Party are constantly claiming that the United States was founded on Christianity in order to justify the enforcement of religious laws against victimless crimes such as homosexuality. My opponent says that it is easy to say marriage is between a man and a woman. I say that it is easy to say it's none of the government's business who someone wants to marry.
In my second round arguments I very clearly refuted the statement "what my opponent attacks about religion is not really an attack on religion. What he really attacks are the moral codes and laws that are based on religion." I responded by saying that "the more time, manpower, and resources that the police use to stop people from committing "sins" that don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties is less time, manpower, and resources that they will have to stop people from committing acts that do infringe on other people's rights or liberties." Again, isn't that a danger to society?
The idea that my "principle of liberty in effect is really bad and would decrease freedom" is as absurd as the idea that getting a job infringes on somebody else's liberty. A job is a privilege that people earn by developing skills which make them valuable to society. It is religious "order" that decreases freedom by telling people who they are allowed to marry, what they are allowed to put into their own body, and things like that. Abolishing religious laws would mean that the government would micromanage people's lives a lot less.
My opponent did make a good point when he said "If you are always trying to prevent infringement of liberty, then what about the liberty of an unborn baby. If doctors are allowed to kill unborn babies then they violate the child's liberty. So my opponent goes against the very principle that he advocates." My response is that the question of whether or not a fetus is a human being worthy of constitutional rights is debatable. I would support lawmakers if they concluded that a fetus is worthy of those rights on scientific grounds. I would not support lawmakers if they concluded that a fetus is worthy of those rights on biblical grounds.
Cavil

Con

Start in the middle of my last post where I asked my opponent to prove that humans have worth. He did not do so. So he has failed to prove to you that under secular principles humans have worth. This takes out all of his arguments because when humans do not have worth then there is no reason to protect them or their rights, and there is no reason why republican policies are bad for society, because nothing is really bad for society. You can use religion to justify human worth but if our law makers cannot be motivated by religion then they cannot justify human worth in the law.
I have told you that my opponent has not really attacked religion but the moral codes based on religion. He uses the same argument that he used before, but he misunderstands my argument. The argument is that the policies he was attacking are not religious. For a law to be considered religious it would have to officially endorse one religion or try to enforce a law over religious belief. My opponent has attacked neither of these things nor proven that republicans overwhelmingly support them. So his entire argument is non resolutional.
To my opponent's first response: no religion is being established. Moral codes are being put into law.
To his second: congress is not enacting laws for religious reasons the people in congress are. Senators and Congressmen are still people, with same rights as any normal citizen. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them from voting based on their faith, the same way it would not prohibit anybody else. The fact that they have religious reasons does not represent the official attitude of congress, which has never officially endorsed one particular faith. If you disallow their individual religious motives it violates free exercise in the same way it would if I am not allowed to give money to the poor for religious reasons. There is no reasonable difference. With freedom of speech and conscience comes the freedom to do what you do for whatever reason you want (call it freedom of motive). The establishment clause is not being violated because the government is still open to other religions, no religion is being endorsed by congress and no one is have a religion forced upon them (or "onto people" as my opponent put it). Furthermore, my opponent's interpretation would be contradictory to free exercise clause but clearly this would no have been meant by the founding fathers.
The republican party can say whatever it wants for whatever reason it wants. If their reasons are religious then they are using their freedom of motive, which is part of freedom of speech and conscience. They may say we are a christian nation but the government has never been officially aligned, they have not changed that.
My opponent goes on to refer to homosexuality as a victimless crime. But when the government changes the definition of marriage to include gay couples traditional marriage suffers. Traditional marriage is rooted not only in love but purpose. Men and women marry and have children and repopulate the world. The same cannot be said for gay couples (who obviously cannot have children). By expanding the definition of marriage to include gay union we eliminate the practical purpose of marriage entirely. At the point when we accept that marriage has no purpose to society, society suffers because married couples (even husband and wife) will see no reason procreate and repopulate the earth. Homosexuality should be treated by both government and people as a perversion of marriage and it's purpose to society. Even Orson Scott Card, an atheist science fiction author, described gay marriage as a "potentially devastating social experiment". Prostitution also hurts traditional marriage. Sexual intercourse has always been a special privilege of married couples. But with prostitution it is no longer restricted to married couples. At that point sex loses it's significance as a method reproduction and becomes more important as tool for entertainment. As with gay union, the importance of procreation is downsized and people feel less obligated to repopulate the world. Porn is essentially prostitution without the sex. People (especially young men) who become addicted to porn will take on a perverted sense of the purpose of sexual intercourse, using it purely for pleasure. And when those men get older they will look to prostitution to fulfill this perverted sense. Traditional marriage is essential to a sturdy society, it ensures that people have a purpose to repopulate the earth. If marriage and sex do not have this purpose then society could collapse as too many people choose not to procreate. On a similar note, the ability to terminate a pregnancy also takes away from the purpose of procreation because unborn babies no longer have to be born. So many of the things that republicans seek to stop are dangerous to society because fail to recognize peoples' obligation to procreate.
On the issue of enforcement, my opponent never refuted what I said:
"he says that more laws would decrease enforcement of other laws. But he forgets that we could simply increase the amount of police resources."
He says my attack on his principle of liberty is absurd, well the attack still stands. If I buy the last loaf of bread then nobody else is free to buy it and their liberty has been infringed. He says this is a privilege but privileges are liberties, and at the point when I get privilege that only one person can get, others are not free to get that privilege. He says this is absurd but I say it proves the absurdity of his idea that we should never let liberty be infringed. This requires more micromanagement because the state would have to decide in each individual case whether a job could be taken, a scholarship could won, or a product could be bought; all to ensure that liberty was never infringed. Further this would include economic micromanagement which is extremely bad for society. Religious order as my opponent has described does not include economic regulation at all which is better. This order is enforced against certain crimes; it can no more be micromanagement then any criminal enforcement that my opponent would advocate.
On the issue of abortion, scientific evidence suggests that the fetus is human being from it's conception. But even if you do not except that, it is a potential human and it should still hold rights as one.
Going onto the issue of drugs. Hard drugs like heroin and cocaine present a threat to liberty. They cause addiction, hallucinations, and other mental problems. Are you really free when you let your mind be manipulated by psychoactive drugs.
For all these reasons you will vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
BEN875

Pro

My opponent says that humans cannot have worth under secular principals. Does that mean that he would commit murder, rape, or robbery if he knew that no God existed? He also seems to think that we need "moral codes based on religion" to make society civilized. Civilized society is "You do what you want. I do what I want. I will not harm you or your property. You don't harm me and my property." The government does not need religious codes to enforce that principal.
Restricting lawmakers from imposing laws based on religious beliefs does not violate the "Free Exercise Clause." The "Free Exercise Clause" grants people the right to exercise their religious beliefs in any way that they want as long as they don't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. Outlawing victimless crimes, such as prostitution, is exercising a religious belief in a way that infringes on other people's liberty. Lawmakers can hold the belief that prostitution is a sin and, at the same time, hold the belief that it should be legal on the grounds that it doesn't infringe on anybody else's rights or liberties. That is how the "Free Exercise Clause" works. My opponent goes on to say that "The establishment clause is not being violated because the government is still open to other religions, no religion is being endorsed by congress and no one is have a religion forced upon them (or "onto people" as my opponent put it)." Outlawing a victimless crime, such as prostitution, is imposing a law based on religion. Therefore, people are having religion forced upon them. The "Establishment Clause" states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say that Congress can make laws based on religion as long as it is open to other religions and it doesn't say that Congress can make laws based on religion as long as it doesn't officially endorse an organized religion. It says that "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion."
On to my opponents arguments about gay marriage and prostitution. The same amount of heterosexuals will marry and have children regardless of what the law on homosexual marriage is because people don't get their purpose for getting married or having children from the government.

"Sexual intercourse has always been a special privilege of married couples."
Who grants this "special privilege"?

"But with prostitution it is no longer restricted to married couples."
Who restricts sex to married couples?

"At that point sex loses it's significance as a method reproduction and becomes more important as tool for entertainment."
People can enjoy having sex for fun and still want to have children.

"he says that more laws would decrease enforcement of other laws. But he forgets that we could simply increase the amount of police resources."
How could we "simply" do this? Draft people into the Police Academy?

"If I use my liberty to get a job that someone else wanted then I violate their liberty by: preventing them from taking the job and preventing them from earning the money at the job."
Freedom guarantees people the right to pursue anything that they want but it doesn't guarantee people a right to successfully obtain everything that they pursue.

"Going onto the issue of drugs. Hard drugs like heroin and cocaine present a threat to liberty. They cause addiction, hallucinations, and other mental problems. Are you really free when you let your mind be manipulated by psychoactive drugs."
If a person is forced to use psychoactive drugs that manipulate the mind then they are not free. If a person chooses to use psychoactive drugs that manipulate the mind then they are free.
Cavil

Con

My opponent started by answering my question about proving humans have worth under secular principles. No this does not mean I would necessarily commit crimes if I knew God did not exist. It is in the nature of every human being to believe that there is a way that things ought to be; most people have morals of some sort. The difficulty comes when you cannot prove that your morals are better than anybody else's. He says you do not need to religion to make society civilized, but can you prove that humans have worth without religion? Because civilization is put into place to protect humans. When you cannot prove that humans have worth, then civilization becomes worthless and there is no reason why civilization is superior to anarchy. But furthermore if you cannot prove that humans have worth then you cannot prove that his particular brand of civilization is superior to any other. There is no reason to protect the rights he advocates and no reason why anything is bad for society, because nothing is bad. Now perhaps he can prove that civilization is valuable without religion, but he has to first prove to you that human beings have worth without religion. He has avoided doing this but he still has one post left.
He goes on that congress can enact no law for religious reasons. Look what I explained:
"congress is not enacting laws for religious reasons the people in congress are. Senators and Congressmen are still people, with same rights as any normal citizen. Nothing in the constitution prohibits them from voting based on their faith, the same way it would not prohibit anybody else."
I also told you in the last round that with freedom of speech and conscience comes the freedom of motive. People in congress can do what they do for whatever reason they want. You can't judge or punish them for their motives, and yet this is what my opponent would have you do. People in congress would be prohibited from enacting laws with religious reasons, and yet they have the right to freedom of motive. I told you that the official attitude of congress has officially endorsed one religion. Now my opponent has told you that it doesn't matter whether it's official because no law should respect the establishment of religion. Well, congress as a whole only has an official attitude. This is because congress is an official entity and the individual opinions and views of congress men are their own, not congress'. Congress has never officially endorsed any religion. But then go to the terminology: "no law." It does not say that lawmakers shall not respect the establishment of religion. For a law to respect the establishment of religion it would have to officially endorse a religion, because a law is nothing more than an official statement by the government. But this hasn't happened. But now going to the term establishment. I'll give you three definitions from the New American Oxford Dictionary that apply:
1: the recognition by the state of a national church or religion. The state in this case is not creating a national religion because: a: no religion is being officially endorse by congress or any law. b: no one is being forced to stop practicing their religion in favor of another. c: the state is still open for other religions to enter the discourse.
2: a business organization, public institution, or household. So congress cannot regulate places or institutions of worship. Well it's not; those institutions are still free to practice their religion.
3: an influential group within a specified profession or area of activity. So congress can't regulate the views of those within a certain religion. Well it's not, people are still free to hold any view they want.
So whatever definition of establishment that you accept, the policies that my opponent attacks do not respect the establishment of religion. For this and all of the above reasons the republican religious policies do not violate the establishment clause. But further limiting congressmen to only non-religious motives is a violation of freedom of motive, as I've explained. This is unconstitutional because the freedom of motive is part of freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. My interpretation of the establishment clause is preferable to his, because his would conflict with the freedom of motive.
On the issue of enforcement. Why would we need to draft policemen, are there not enough volunteers. He gives you no evidence to say why we would need a draft to increase enforcement.
My opponent completely drops the arguments I make that abortion is dangerous to society and a violation of rights, so you will extend that.
But now onto the drug issue. He suggests that one can use drugs that manipulate the mind and still be free. But how are you free when your mind is being manipulated? It's an oxymoron. How are you free if you're being manipulated by a chemical? Sure you took the drug on your own but doesn't the drug itself infringe on your liberty?
Debate Round No. 4
BEN875

Pro

BEN875 forfeited this round.
Cavil

Con

Cavil forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Just as an add-on to what's already been said: rape generally isn't sexually driven. Rape is more about psychological control of the victim, as well as a display of the rapist's dominance over who he is raping. Anyone who has taken basic psychology courses would be familiar with the enormous body of evidence that exists regarding this issue...hence, kudos to Mark for pointing out the clear difference. While homosexuality is definitely some combination of nature and nurture, it is undoubtedly part nature. Otherwise, homosexuality wouldn't be apparent in other, non-rational species of animals. Hence, some part of homosexuality must be genetic or instinctual, and no matter what Cavil says, we are directly and subconsciously informed by those instincts, even if we have the rational ability to manipulate them at times.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
Also, to your point about abortion. I object to abortion because I believe that a fetus is a life. However, I believe abortion should remain legal for two reasons:
1. I am not so arrogant to believe that my opinion is absolute truth (I could be wrong and a fetus might not be a life) and science has yet to give us a denfinte answer on this. When the do, which I hope is soon, then steps could be taken accordingly.
2. Abortion being legal actually reduces the amount of deaths.
I'm on the side of life, not death. And, paradoxical as it may seem, legal abortion leads to fewer to deaths of fetuses, women and even men. I did a very long amount of research on this subject (actually trying to prove myself wrong) and came to the conclusion that legal abortion results in fewer deaths.
If you want me to go into detail I could, but it's very long, I'll give you the short version.
1. since abortion has been legalized the number of abortions has dropped nearly every year.
2. Women seeking abortions are not infected and killed because they don't have to seek "back-alley" abortions.
3. violent crime saw a steep decline almost 18 years to the day from the decision in Roe V. Wade. Without abortions more people would have children that can't afford and don't want children, those children grow up with little to no love, no economic opportunity and turn to drugs and crime. The lack of those children reduces violent crime and thus death.
I don't like it (because I think people that don't want babies should either keep it in their pants or wear and condom) but legal abortion leads to much less death. It's a fact.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
are by their very nature's then what they are doing cannot be a sin.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
A man's sexual urges leading him to rape and a homosexual's urges to have sex with someone of the same sex is not equatable. You must realize how insensative and ignorant that statement is.
As far as resiting the "urge" as you call it, why not ask you or I to not be attracted to women. It is an impossibility. Raping a person is not part of someone's nature. It is the product of a diseased mind. Homosexuals are not diseased (even if you might believe that) and their actions are not disgusting any more than my actions with a women would be disgusting. Also, I still don't believe that the only point (or even the most important point) in marriage is procreation. You state that many times marriages didn't contain love, which is true. Are those marriages good ones then? For the most part I believe the answer is no. Why is it that two straight people that don't love each other have more right to get married than two homosexuals that do love each other? It doesn't make any logical sense.
Also, you seem to admit that homosexuality occurs from birth in some people, if that is the case and if you believe in God then God created people in that manner. If that is the case then how can what they are doing be wrong? That would be like saying that I am wrong for be attracted to women.
If homosexuality is a choice then when did you choose to be straight? When did you decide to not be gay? I know that my orientation is not a choice, I know that I have never considered being gay. If these peple are born this way then what they are doing cannot be a sin.
Now people do have the ability to sin, sure, but this is not part of our nature (just like sexual feelings do not lead to rape in normal people) when we sin we are actually violating our nature (as intended by God) and giving into something that is not our nature. If we are all made in God's image (i.e. with a conscience and good natures) then a sin is when we reject that. If homosexuals are they way they
Posted by Cavil 8 years ago
Cavil
To respond to few other things...
Nice comments about nihilism and relativity. The reason I haven't proven in the round that religious policies are good for society, is that my opponent has the burden of proof. As the pro he has to prove that the resolution is true, my only burden is to disprove all of his arguments for why it's true. On the issue of religious laws, I've heard that many of the religious moral laws in catholicism can be proven to have societal benefits. Just to name a few:
You mentioned yourself that seven out of the ten commandments make perfect sense.
Preventing abortion ensures that innocent babies aren't hurt and that society will be repopulated.
Ensuring a traditional definition of marriage has many previously outlined advantages, which is probably why almost every society has had marriage between one man and one woman. I also explains why homosexual actions have disapproved of.
Posted by Cavil 8 years ago
Cavil
Even if homosexuality is part of a man's nature, that doesn't justify the actions he takes on it's behalf. A young man has strong sexual urges; that's part of his nature. He rapes a girl because he felt the urge to. His nature doesn't justify his actions, because he always had free will and was capable of ignoring his instincts. A homosexual is disliked because of his actions, which he's in full control over. All humans have value but they also have free will and you can't justify their actions because of their instincts. You're right that homosexuality shouldn't be given the death penalty or violent brutality; that would be excessive. Now gays do have equal treatment, they are perfectly able to marry someone of the opposite sex. You say their unions aren't given the honor of being marriage. But marriage is more than an honor, it's also a purpose to procreate. Gays cannot procreate, and their unions can never be considered marriage. Procreation has to be the responsibility of someone, otherwise society has no obligation to perpetuate itself. Married couples have always held this responsibility throughout history. Now you say the emotional connection between married couples in stronger than good friends, but this hasn't always been true. In the middle ages marriages were often made for political reasons. When Charles Dickens lived marriages were often made for practical reasons. Your potential spouse was wealthy or could protect you. Love was not impossible, but emotional connection was often disregarded for practical reasons. Were these unions not marriages because they didn't have a deep emotional connection? Of course not. So marriages have not always required emotional attachment, even if it is a beautiful thing. The only thing has always been expected in a married couple was procreation. When you take away the procreation it really is no different from friendship, because emotional attachment is not a fundamental part of marriage.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
Now on the flipside, as you really haven't addressed this in your debate, why are religous based law good for society? What good comes out of them?
The only think I can see that they do is limit the freedoms of all Americans. One of the greatest things that we possess if freedom of choice. We can make our own decisions for ourselves. When the government restricts things it takes that choice out of our hands. Now, murder should be illegal because to choose that would be a violation of someone else's liberties (i.e. the person you're killing) however when it comes to prostitution or drugs or homosexuality, why doesn't the government say, you decided. If you agree with those things fine, if not don't do them. The only person that is being affected is the person engaging in those activities and a person cannot violate their own liberties.
One last point. What I mean by moral relativity is that I don't think if one society says it's okay to rape women that that makes it right. I think that rape is wrong. I can't explain to you exactly where this comes from in my mind, because it is not empirical knowledge, which is where nihilists get it wrong. Sometimes, it is possible to obtain knowledge simply by logical thought, based on no observable evidence. If you want to call that the work of God or nature you can. However, if we say it comes from God that does not mean that everything a religion says is correct. Sometimes religious opinions come from just that, the opinion of a religious person and not from the word of God.

Oh one more thing I forgot to add to my part about homosexuals, what do they gain out of being homosexual? Where is there any reward? If it was to look cool or feel special or something like that then it would ebb and flow as with any fad. It has not, it has stayed farily steady over the years. The only reason that it appears their numbers have grown is because it has become more socially acceptable to be openly gay.
Posted by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
First you go to the exteme in your argument against homosexuals. You say that if homosexuals are allowed to get married then people wouldn't procreate. But this presupposes that if gays are allowed to marry then no one will want traditional marriages.
You admit that homosexuals have been around forever, do think a reason for this might be because homosexuality is not a choice but something that you're born with? Also think of this, if homosexuality is a choice why would people want to choose that? It is a harder lifestyle, especially in many ancient societies. Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death because of his sexuality, in Iran and Saudi Arabia it is a crime to be homosexual and the punishment is stoning.
When people make choices they balance risk with reward. The risk for being homosexual in Saudi Arabia is a horrible death, so either the reward must be equally great or it is not a choice.
Just as in the early days of America where the punishment for being Black was normally being a slave and always being a second class citizen. If skin color were a choice then there would have been very few slaves indeed. If sexual orientation is a choice then why are their still homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?
You say that digust or disapproval of homosexuals is common in many cultures. I agree, but devaluing african americans, women, jews and even Christians have been common in many cultures, that doesn't make it correct.
What distinguishes marriages with friendship is not children. You cannot be as naive as your last statement. There is a large difference between physical and emotion love for a lover or marriage partner than there is for a close friend.
Also it is not currently illegal for gays to be together in relationships but by preventing them from getting married society is telling them that are not good enough for that honor, that they don't have equal rights. That is wrong.
Posted by Cavil 8 years ago
Cavil
But here's yet another reason why procreation is integral to a definition of marriage. Without procreation there's nothing that can distinguish marriage from a very good friendship. Surely marriage has to be different from a friendship, otherwise I'd be married to every one of my good friends. If gays only want companionship out of marriage, that can be effectively found in nearly any friendship.
Posted by Cavil 8 years ago
Cavil
I won't mill much over old arguments accept to say this: where's the rational basis for your common sense morality. Let's assume that it means protecting the general well-being of society, that makes the most common sense to me without religion. Now when have I ever said I hate homosexuals? I explained that I'm disgusted by homosexual behavior. Further, christians have never said that they don't value homosexual people, they simply disapprove of the actions. You can disapprove of actions while still valuing the human actor. To say otherwise would suggest that laws against murder disrespect the murders, and yet that's not inherently true. Gays have the same rights as any other person. They can still marry under traditional rules just like any other human being. I disapprove of homosexuality for multiple reasons but I'll outline two now. First because it seems unnatural. A disapproval of this practice is in fact quite common and inherent in most societies. Gays have existed since the beginning of society, but they're relationships have remained secretive. Because most every society has disapproved of it, and the gays may have even felt some guilt about the practice themselves. But second because it ignores the traditional definition and purpose of marriage. And here's common sense. Procreation must be necessary for the continued repopulation of society. Procreation must be somebody's responsibility otherwise society has no obligation to perpetuate itself. Married people have generally held that responsibility, which is one reason why you find marriage between a man and a woman in nearly every society that has existed. I never argued the procreation was the only purpose of marriage. People can marry because they love, but procreation must be an integral part of it, otherwise nobody would hold the responsibility to procreate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
BEN875CavilTied
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