The Instigator
mstete
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

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 6 votes the winner is...
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,613 times Debate No: 25636
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

mstete

Pro

I believe there is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage.

The purpose of this debate is to decide if gay marriage (In the US) has any reason being banned using only secular agreements.

There are 3 rounds of debate.

Rounds:

(1) Acceptance
(2) Opening statements
(3) Rebuttal
(4) Rebuttal

Rules:
-No bible references
-No references to god
-All statistics or other such evidence must come with a source

If no secular argument can be found I beleve there is no reason for marriage to remain illegal in many states because of the separation of church and state.

AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

I accept, and dedicate this debate to 16kadams.
Debate Round No. 1
mstete

Pro

Hello thank you for accepting.

The only evidence have ever been presented with for why gay marriage should be illegal has come with a religious bias of some sort. gay and lesbians are perfectly happy tax paying members of society and deserve the same legal rights that any loving couple would be entitled to. The reason that gay marriage is important to be legalised is as follows:

1. It will help end discrimination. Many gays are the victims of horrible hate crimes and while I don't suggest that the government condones this if the government is treating them differently then it will be easier for the rest of society to do so as well.

2. Married couples get benefits better than a civil union can offer. Gay peoples tax dollars go to helping married straight couples so gays should be allowed to benefit from them as well.

3. The majority of the US supports it. In July of 2012 48 to 44 said they supported gay marriage: http://www.pewforum.org...

5. It will not effect anyone but gay people. I always hear people saying that "If gays marry It will hurt my marriage" I don't see how this is possible. If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married.

6. Adoption. Many children need loving homes and ending this discrimination ageist gays will make easier for gays to help out these children.

Thanks for reading.





AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Since Round 2 is only for opening statements, I will only make an opening statement. This is not me dropping any arguments. Note that my opponent should have the burden of proof to prove that there is no secular argument for a ban against gay marriage.

My Case:

The Argument from Semantics

My opponent never said semantics weren't allowed, so I present this nearly irrefutable case.

Premise 1: Some people think gay marriage should be banned.
Premise 2: We should listen to those people.
Conclusion: Gay marriage should be banned.

Whether or not this argument is good, sound, or anything else is irrelevant, because it is an argument and it is secular. Therefore, the resolution (There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage) is negated, because there is a secular argument for a ban on gay marriage, even if it's no good.

The Argument that isn't Abusive

Because I doubt my opponent wants to debate the Argument from Semantics, I have devised this new argument that I call the "Argument that isn't Abusive".

The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents, otherwise there would hardly be any need for a union of one man and one woman. This relationship is grounded in the nature of humans, which is why it has risen in pretty much every society. Although there are many private reasons for marriage, the only interest the state has in marriage is its public purpose, otherwise it needn't be involved.

There is a legal precedent for banning people from being married, as evidenced by the laws against marrying a close relative.

Because homosexual parings cannot produce children, there is no need for them to have marriages, so the marriages should be banned.

I'll write more later, but for now I turn it over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
mstete

Pro

I'm going to start this round by making my position clear on two things: weather sexuality is a choice and weather it is immoral.

Is it a choice?

I am going to assume that you are under the impression that sexuality is a choice. I want to make it clear to save this coming up in later round that I do not believe this is the case because of scientific and anecdotal evidence. I believe in the Kinsey scale. However in a secular world if homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant. Saying that I was in love with a man (but could chose to love a woman) nothing would be wrong with me choosing the man as life partner as there is not way to argue that this act would be wrong and remain secular.

RE: The Argument from Semantics

You are right in saying that I did not want to debate with semantics. But you are correct and I suppose this will be up to the audience to say wif your argument is worthwhile.

RE: The Argument that isn't Abusive

If it is true that government only does marriage to encourage offspring then why can these people get married: the elderly, the sterile and those who just never wish to have children. Shouldn't the government put tests in place to make sure couples can and want to produce offspring?

Even if that was true gay couples can adopt children. So if as you say "The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents" shouldn't the adopted (or surrogate) children be given the same connection with their gay parents and another child would get?

RE: "This relationship is grounded in the nature of humans"

Just because something has sprung up all over the world doesn't mean it is the right or in this case only way. See slavery that was also (and still is) grounded in human nature. The reason that unions are traditionally between a man and a woman is because most people are sexually oriented that way. Or to not contradict my "Is it a choice?" above most people chose that. This makes homosexual relationships more rare and therefore weaker to being outlawed. Much like when women who were not given rights because they were traditionally in a physical sense seen as weaker.

Homosexuality has been seen all over history. The Greeks cared little about sexual orientation. So really no type of relationship has been grounded in the nature of humans only one has been more popular.




AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

Time for rebuttals! I will start with Pro's Round 2, then progress on to his Round 3, then defend and augment my own case.

Rebuttals (Round 2):

Pro writes "It will help end discrimination. Many gays are the victims of horrible hate crimes and while I don't suggest that the government condones this if the government is treating them differently then it will be easier for the rest of society to do so as well."

Not only is this a bare assertion, but if the government were to let two members of the same sex get married that would be different treatment. Homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, just like heterosexuals, so right now everyone is being treated the same. Sure, opposite sex marriage may be of less use to homosexuals, but it is still equal treatment.

Pro writes "Married couples get benefits better than a civil union can offer. Gay peoples tax dollars go to helping married straight couples so gays should be allowed to benefit from them as well."

Why? My tax dollars go to helping married straight couples too, but I'm not married. What's so special about gay people, shouldn't I be allowed to benefit as well? :(

Pro writes "The majority of the US supports it. In July of 2012 48 to 44 said they supported gay marriage:"

So what? Appeal to popularity.

Pro writes "It will not effect anyone but gay people. I always hear people saying that "If gays marry It will hurt my marriage" I don't see how this is possible. If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married."

First of all, I can't see how you can change a public institution in a society and not affect anyone. Second of all, the last sentence could be applied to almost anything, "You don't like murder? Don't murder anyone then!". The second sentence brought up an argument I've never heard anyone make, so I won't say anything else about it for now.

Pro writes "Adoption. Many children need loving homes and ending this discrimination ageist gays will make easier for gays to help out these children."

Assuming they even want to. Over 80% of same-sex households have no children [1]. In Sweden and the Netherlands, very very small percentages of the gay population entered into marriage when it was legalized [2], so I doubt much of a benefit will be realized.

Rebuttals (Round 3):

Pro writes "Saying that I was in love with a man (but could chose to love a woman) nothing would be wrong with me choosing the man as life partner as there is not way to argue that this act would be wrong and remain secular."

Some philosophers of natural law (*cough*CONTRADICTION*cough*) would disagree with you.

Pro writes "You are right in saying that I did not want to debate with semantics. But you are correct and I suppose this will be up to the audience to say wif your argument is worthwhile."

I feel guilty now...

Pro writes something about the purpose of marriage

Here it comes...

Wait for it...

It's a bird! It's a plane! IT'S THE PROCREATIVE ARGUMENT!

Actually, it's not, because I'm feeling a bit lazy. It'll arrive eventually.

Pro writes "The reason that unions are traditionally between a man and a woman is because most people are sexually oriented that way."

Or, y'know, because you need a man and a woman to procreate.

Pro writes "This makes homosexual relationships more rare and therefore weaker to being outlawed."

OBJECTION! Speculation.

Pro writes "Homosexuality has been seen all over history. The Greeks cared little about sexual orientation. So really no type of relationship has been grounded in the nature of humans only one has been more popular."

The Greeks supported relationships between men and little boys too, so they're hardly the best example now, are they? I would say if one relationship arose in every society, it is likely to be grounded in human nature.

THE PROCREATIVE ARGUMENT (Yup, it's finally here)

Premise 1: Only opposite-sex couples can procreate
Premise 2: The government's purpose in marriage is procreation
Conclusion: The government should only recognize opposite-sex couples as married

(I think) this is logically sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises, but I've never done this before so maybe this is completely wrong. Who knows, I'll find out next round if my opponent rips it to shreads.

Premise 1

My opponent has already raised something that looks vaguely like it falls under this premise, so I'll just handle it here. He spoke of the sterile, the elderly, and the childless. The main point here is that even if those pairings are not reproductive in effect, they are reproductive in type. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is never reproductive. Ever. It's impossible.

Pro writes "Shouldn't the government put tests in place to make sure couples can and want to produce offspring?"

Do you really want your tax dollars going to fund sterility tests? Opposite-sex couples usually reproduce, whereas same-sex couples never can.

Premise 2

I don't really think this was that contested, but here goes. Marriage is a private-ish thing. So why does the government involve itself? Nuclear families, like bombs, are very important to the government. The government's purpose of involvement is procreation, and as an extension, children. Otherwise, it would be useless for the government. That's why you get all those benefits; for the children, won't someone please think of the children?

Pro writes "Even if that was true gay couples can adopt children. So if as you say "The public purpose of marriage is to connect children with their parents" shouldn't the adopted (or surrogate) children be given the same connection with their gay parents and another child would get?"

Your can't have gay parents, unless you mean a gay man and woman got together despite being homosexual and had intercourse. Your parents are more likely to be heterosexual, otherwise they wouldn't have reproduced.

Conclusion

Follows from the premises (maybe). Your move, Pro.

Sources:
1. http://www.domesticpartnershipflorida.com...;
2. http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 3
mstete

Pro

Okay here goes!

Rebuttals (Round 2):

Con says: "Homosexuals can enter into an opposite sex marriage, just like heterosexuals, so right now everyone is being treated the same. Sure, opposite sex marriage may be of less use to homosexuals."

Not everyone is being treated equal. Heterosexuals can marry the people they find sexually attractive homosexuals can not. This is not equal treatment. This is discrimination.


Con says: "My tax dollars go to helping married straight couples too, but I'm not married. What's so special about gay people, shouldn't I be allowed to benefit as well? :("

You are allowed the benefits once you get married that's the point. It is possible for you to get these benefits and stay true to your sexual nature. This is impossible to for gay people to do. :( To a gay person the though of straight sex is as unappealing as gay sex is to you (you probably don't believe that though).

Con Says: "If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married." The last sentence could be applied to almost anything, "You don't like murder? Don't murder anyone then!".

Umm No! Just No! My point was that gay marriage wouldn't hurt any straight people if allowed. Murder does!

Con says:
Over 80% of same-sex households have no children.

Yes but 20% do. So shouldn't these 20% of gays have the government "connect children with their parents". Even though they are not biological does not mean they cant have the same connection.

Con says: In Sweden and the Netherlands, very very small percentages of the gay population entered into marriage when it was legalized, so I doubt much of a benefit will be realized.

I would hope that we could agree that some benefit is better than no benefit.

Con says: Some philosophers of natural law (*cough*CONTRADICTION*cough*) would disagree with you.

Why? Maybe in a small tribe it would be important to keep population up but I just don't see what would be wrong with this in today's society?

Con say: I would say if one relationship arose in every society, it is likely to be grounded in human nature.

Okay I will give you that but slavery is also grounded in human nature as is murder. Does this justify these things. I would think not!

Con says: The main point here is that even if those pairings are not reproductive in effect, they are reproductive in type. Gay marriage, on the other hand, is never reproductive. Ever. It's impossible.

Its also impossible for a completely sterile man to reproduce as is a 115 year old woman but both of these people could legally marry. Gays can adopt and that is arguably better for society than reproducing as it gives a home for some child in need. Look at these two scenarios:

"A British couple, aged 97 and 87, got married at their care home in London, making them the oldest newlyweds in the world." http://goo.gl...

These people can get married fine!

"Rob Calhoun and his partner, Clay Calhoun, of Avondale Estates, Georgia, have two adopted children -- 4-year-old daughter Rainey and son, Jimmy, who is 18 months old." http://goo.gl...

These people can't. I thought the point of marriage was as you say to "connect children with their parents"


Con said "The government's purpose of involvement [in marriage] is procreation, and as an extension, children. Otherwise, it would be useless for the government. That's why you get all those benefits; for the children, won't someone please think of the children?"

I am thinking of the children just like Rob and Clay are. I don't think the 97 year old is.

Con writes: "Your can't have gay parents, unless you mean a gay man and woman got together despite being homosexual and had intercourse. Your parents are more likely to be heterosexual, otherwise they wouldn't have reproduced."

But if a gay couple adopts a child they are the child's parents. Not biologically but in EVERY other way.
AlwaysMoreThanYou

Con

"This is the last round." - Captain Obvious

Let's rebuttal this! My ace in the hole is the argument from semantics, which was dropped.

Rebuttals:

Pro writes "Not everyone is being treated equal. Heterosexuals can marry the people they find sexually attractive homosexuals can not. This is not equal treatment. This is discrimination."

Discrimination is like when I don't let homosexuals drink from the water fountain all the heterosexuals drink at. Let me use this completely useless and confusing analogy:

You are in love with squares. You adore squares. Squares are your life. No shape is better than than an equilateral quadrilateral that is equiangular. You love squares so much. Your friend loves circles as much as you love squares. One day, the government decides to give everyone a free shape. You say "GIVE ME A SQUARE, GIVE ME A SQUARE!". The government says "Everyone gets the same shape.". Is that unfair? Let's say the government gave everyone a circle. Everyone is treated the same, so it's not discrimination. Sure, you may hate the circle while your friend may love it, but that's like saying every single law should be customized on a per-person basis: The law is supposed to treat everyone equally.

Pro writes "You are allowed the benefits once you get married that's the point. It is possible for you to get these benefits and stay true to your sexual nature. This is impossible to for gay people to do. :( To a gay person the though of straight sex is as unappealing as gay sex is to you (you probably don't believe that though)."

What if I don't get married? What if I enter the priesthood? What if I take a vow of celibacy? What if I'm asexual? You're not entitled to benefits just because you pay taxes (under our current system); see people who pay no income tax and get benefits and people who pay lots of income tax and get no benefits.

Pro writes "Umm No! Just No! My point was that gay marriage wouldn't hurt any straight people if allowed. Murder does!"

Well, it wouldn't "hurt" them, but it would impact them in a negative fashion. I only used that bit of reductio ad absurdum because I hate it when people say that exact phrase that you just said. And I see that you conceded that it will not affect anyone, which was a much more critical argument.

Pro writes "Yes but 20% do. So shouldn't these 20% of gays have the government "connect children with their parents". Even though they are not biological does not mean they cant have the same connection."

Like I said, I was speaking of biological parents. Wait, I didn't say that? Well, I meant it! And actually, yes, being not biological does mean you can't have the same connection. Children do best when raised by two biological married parents [1].

Pro writes "I would hope that we could agree that some benefit is better than no benefit."

Pro also wrote "Many children need loving homes and ending this discrimination ageist gays will make easier for gays to help out these children."

My point was that gays aren't particularly interested in helping out those children, as 80% of them have no children. Compare this to heterosexual parings, according to the US Census, about 3/4 of households include children [2]. Now, this is a really flawed way of misrepresenting data, but I think we can conclude that heterosexual households raise more children.

Pro writes "Why? Maybe in a small tribe it would be important to keep population up but I just don't see what would be wrong with this in today's society?"

Like I said, some philosophers of natural law (http://www.debate.org...) would disagree with you.

Pro writes "Okay I will give you that but slavery is also grounded in human nature as is murder. Does this justify these things. I would think not!"

You've got to be kidding me. Are you claiming that opposite-sex couplings are unjustified?

Pro writes "Its also impossible for a completely sterile man to reproduce as is a 115 year old woman but both of these people could legally marry. Gays can adopt and that is arguably better for society than reproducing as it gives a home for some child in need. Look at these two scenarios:"

Looking at them. We should ban both scenarios, because neither of them are likely to procreate.

Pro writes "These people can't. I thought the point of marriage was as you say to "connect children with their parents""

My first biggest mistake in this debate was taking it. My second biggest mistake was not saying "biological parents".

Pro writes "I am thinking of the children just like Rob and Clay are. I don't think the 97 year old is."

Because the majority of same-sex marriages have children, and only a minority of opposite-sex marriages do. I see what you're doing there ;)

Pro writes "But if a gay couple adopts a child they are the child's parents. Not biologically but in EVERY other way."

It's the biology that's important. We should outlaw marriage for everyone except couples that produce children.

Conclusion:

With my trademark poor conduct, I shifted the goalposts during the last seconds of the last round to say that we should ban all non-procreative marriages. This argument is a valid opposition to the resolution, which says "There is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage", not implying that the argument should not advocate a ban on other types of marriage.

The argument from semantics stands, but I think my opponent at least deserves conduct, because I completely mixed up my argument last round and pretty much introduced a new one, which is bad. Yup.

I thank my opponent for a good debate.

Sources:

1. M. Coleman, L. Ganong and M. Fine, "Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress," Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 62, pp. 1288-1307 (200).

2. http://www.census.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Zaradi, you've never rebutted it.
Posted by panasyuk123 4 years ago
panasyuk123
You cannot categorize gays in one group. They dont ALL pay their taxes. Not all gays coulples are the same. I personally think that it is wrong. But I respect those who think otherwise.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Oh come on. If you're going to dedicate a Gay Marriage debate to 16k, you AT LEAST have to use his crappy-i-don't-know-what-the-fvck-I'm-talking-about procreation argument.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Dedicated to meeee? :D
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: Tempted to say coubter vote bomb magic... But who cares. All con needed to do is prove a secular argument exists. He proved it and wins. He defended it, too. Really simple. And this is also countering magic, as appeal to population is what pro did, not con. Con said some (a minority) oppose SSM, pro said most support it. By definition, only pro did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is an appeal to population. Failed to present a good argument.
Vote Placed by hghppjfan 4 years ago
hghppjfan
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that con is correct, especially with the convincing. I said sources for pro because he was the only one with sources.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Clash
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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: In order to win, Con only needed to give one secular argument against gay marriage. Con did this and also nicely defended this argument. Thus, Pro's claim that there is no secular argument for a ban on gay marriage is completely refuted. Indeed, there are several good arguments against the legalization of gay marriage which are secular.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
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:14 
Reasons for voting decision: I give CON the win on convincing arguments because he gave a sound secular argument for a ban on all marriage that is not pro-creative (which, thereby includes gay marriage)... he did it late in the game and without rebuttal, so mstete gets the conduct points (as CON wished)... but it really is a sound argument as far as I can see
Vote Placed by Jhate 4 years ago
Jhate
msteteAlwaysMoreThanYouTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did very well defending this but changed his topic around in the end which almost made me give pro the more convincing arguments point. Pro good debate however; it seemed like some of your info was not backed up but i did give you the sources point. Con good job you got by on this one.