Debate Rounds (3)
Well, if an increase in unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted disease, divorce, and children born out of wedlock to uncommitted parents are the measure of success, I would prefer aspiring to the traditional standards of old. The message of "practice safe sex" has been a resounding failure. There is nothing safe or wholesome about sex outside of a marriage relationship. The intimacy shared between a man and woman in a committed relationship has been reduced to a hedonistic act to be exploited by unchecked desire. Isn't it amazing how a man and woman in a committed monogamous relationship never have to practice "safe sex?" A truly disease free relationship. Wow...what a concept! They also don't worry about an unwanted pregnancy (and even if one occurs, the committed parents are prepared and support and love the child anyway). A committed sexual relationship in marriage is built on trust, respect, and love. The 3 key ingredients for any successful relationship. Most relationships today are not built on these foundational principles and the result is most marriages end in divorce. With that said, it's no wonder. How can you build a relationship on trust, respect, and love when it was already built upon a premarital sexual relationship based on everything to the contrary! Good luck. We are living in a society which values having no values at all. We live in a society whose only principle is to stand on no principle, and whose only standard is to have no standard at all. God help us...and I say that without apology. Where are we heading? I sincerely hate to think about it. In this standard-less society we could legitimately argue to accept any behavior. Prostitution? Why not? They are consenting adults. Bestiality? Those who practice such a thing are not hurting anyone. Incest? They love each other. Triad Relationships? Who says more that "marriage" has to be between two people? Our court system is in for a circus in the coming years?
Well, in closing...the logic of traditional values greatly out performs that of the "anything goes/embrace diversity to any extreme" outlook prevailing today. Water is old fashion too...but I don't want to live with out it.
Round 1, I will rebut your opening
Round 2- counter points and rebuttals
Round 3 - further rebuttals and closing
It will be easiest to categorize my responses numerically.
1. Teen pregnancy, birth and abortion rates are at an all time low. During the last 4 years, the number of teens who reported having sex greatly increased, while the birth, pregnancy and abortion rates greatly decreased. This shows Pro's opening statement regarding pregnancy rates to be incorrect and misleading.
2. People in monogamous relationships who do not wish to be pregnant, and are not on birth control, must practice safe sex. Married people can have unwanted pregnancy. Married people can also be financially incapable of child rearing, yet can still become pregnant. Married people with multiple children may opt for an abortion, rather than taking on the burden of raising another child, or making the hard choice to give a child away, knowing they may someday learn of their siblings, and believe they were less loved. This demonstrates Pro's second point to be assumptive, and uses a very real empathetic hypothetical to indicate Pro's fundamentally flawed perspective on the entire framing of the debate.
3. Any successful relationship is built on trust, respect and love. Marriage is simply the codification of vows into law, and for some, religious sacrament. Marriage does not create trust, love or respect, those must exist beforehand. The same can be said with safe sexual practices between committed partners.
4. Pro claims "most relationships today are not built on (the three) foundational principals" which is another example of assumption, and has no statistical or verifiable support. Pro also states "most' marriages end in divorce, which is inaccurate, as the word "most" denotes a majority, and statistics indicate it is roughly half of marriages which end in divorce. The irony of Pro's argument is that it conflicts with their overall point, the very fact that so many traditional marriages end in divorce indicates the cultural tradition is fundamentally flawed.
5. Pro assumes pre-marital sexual relationships cannot be built on trust, respect or love, which is myopic and incorrect and a broad generalization with no statistical or verifiable proof to support it.
6. Pro believes our society has no values, yet Pro is arguing for the perpetuation of one of the very societal value they hold so dear. Clearly a conflicting set of opinions. Again Pro utilizes assumptions and stereotypes to castigate and dehumanize those who do not adhere to their thinking, and casts disparaging and overarching generalities on society as a whole.
7. Pro falls into the pit of the slippery slope fallacy toward the end of the diatribe, wherein they indicate pre-marital sex will lead to wide-spread lawlessness, incest, prostitution (which has long been legal in certain states) bestiality and triad relationships (swingers). None of these statements can be substantiated or supported by facts or history. Children and animals cannot consent, so will never be legal for either sex or marriage. Swinging is already legal, and polygamy was legal (for a time) and practiced by Mormon Christians in the US long before safe-sex education began.
Prostitution is called the oldest profession for a reason, and has no place in a discussion regarding the value of safe-sex education and endorsement.
8. Traditional marriage was once more of a business deal than an exchange of love, devotion and respect. If we're talking about the western tradition. Pro does not elaborate on what marital tradition they adhere to. Pro could be speaking from a polygamous perspective as a Mormon, or as an Islamic individual. Pro again assumes there is but one marital tradition, when there are countless traditions from countless cultures.
9. In closing, Pro provided no logical support for their stance on traditional marriage superiority, nor were their arguments remotely salient. Pro utilized incorrect and uncited statistics, broad generalities and assumptions to support their various fallacies. Pro failed to produce a single example of the benefits of traditional marriage, while focusing on what they incorrectly assume are the downfalls of safe-sex practices.
You have moved the debate from my intended purpose, but all the more interesting.
1. I view the increase of unwanted pregnancies and children born out of wedlock as linked. If you don't, that is okay for the sake of the debate. I view it as link to only say that these children often times are born into situations that are far from ideal. In addition, the divorce rate is at 50% and trending past 50% as we speak. (http://www.divorcestatistics.info...) In spite of the fact that more and more people are choosing not to live in a traditional marriage relationship. Which I consider unfortunate. This is not a fundamental flaw in the institution marriage, but rather a demoralization of society and its respect for the institution itself.
I will focus on children born out of wedlock for the sake of my initial argument. Children born out of wedlock are more likely than children born to married parents to have their first child out of wedlock. Children born out of wedlock are more likely than children born to married parents to live in poverty. Children born out of wedlock also have lower birth weights, higher mortality rates, grow up with fewer social resources, and have a higher propensity to be involved in criminal activity.
2. Con characterizes my aspirations toward traditional marriage to be based on assumptions or flawed perspective. Well, you took on a debate with in the topic of religion so your perspective will be limited in this debate. The bible teaches that sex outside a marriage relationship is adultery/fornication with inherent consequences. (Hebrews 13:4 Give honor to marriage, and remain faithful to one another in marriage. God will surely judge people who are immoral and those who commit adultery.) Although less and less aspire to these biblical ideals in American culture today, these terms have biblical roots in our Judeo-Christian founding as a nation of laws. Unapologetically, I believe these biblical principals, defining marriage, are spiritually and socially superior to the fornication practiced today. The shift away from the biblical pattern and purpose of marriage is a cancer that is eating away at our culture from the inside out. I could argue that sexual crime against women and children, juvenile delinquency, and crime in general are closely tied to this issue. Of course, as a Christian, I believe in the words of the New Testament are God's words of instruction to live wholesome lives, but my challenge today is more a challenge of considering the ideas expressed rather than the source.
3. In closing, Con believes I am dehumanizing those who do not support my belief or point of view. To the contrary, my hope is that society would look at the evidence and determine for themselves which path they believe would best support the overall well being of themselves, their family, and society in general and not the unfettered whims of an untested anything is permissible lifestyle. My argument is not focused on premarital sex (hence the title Traditional Marriage vs Premarital Sex and the Like), but against anything that would threaten to remove this institution. I believe the evidence supports that traditional marriage provides the best framework for children to thrive physically, mentally, socially, emotionally, and spiritually and for families to prosper in these areas as well. Of course, people are not perfect, so to say a failed marriage equals a failed institution is absurd. Rather, what will be teach our children to aspire to? Cohabitation? Homosexuality? Promiscuity? Con, as many opponents of marriage, spend most of their time trying to knock holes in an opposing argument rather than defending their point of view or lack thereof. What is Con's point of view? What is Con's viable alternative to traditional marriage. In fact, if he had evidence that there was a better alternative, we should have already heard it. Yet, I imagine there is no alternative framework. There will be no evidence to support an alternative even if he was creative enough to make one up. There is, however, enough present data to support the advantages of traditional marriage and regrettably, I believe there will be much more in the future. Time will judge this debate...stay tuned.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Pro for engaging in this debate.
Now to the task at hand:
1. There has only been a slight percentage increase in the number of reportedly unwanted pregnancies, and it corresponds with the overall increase in pregnancy rates in America. Further, of the total number of unwanted pregnancies from 2001 to 2008, 1/3rd of them were conceived by married couples. This demonstrates the indirect correlation, but not the causation Pro assumes. At least one third of unintended pregnancies are the result of Pro's "traditional family structure."
2. Pro assumes children born into non "traditional" households are not ideal, which is Pro's stated opinion, but no support was provided. Pro is assuming "non-traditional" equates to "broken".
I argue Children born into non-traditional family structures where love is present, allow for the same opportunities as a "traditional" family.
3. Divorce statistics only hurt Pro's argument, that Traditional Marriage is superior morally, or that it is more stable or sustainable. Clearly "traditional marriages" end in failure at least half of the time. If Pro would like to engage in an entirely separate argument regarding the state of morality in society, that is another debate subject with much broader implication than marriage.
Further, no statistics, sources or citations have been made to establish a moral decline in society. I would gladly engage in that debate.
4. As to children born out of wedlock. Each citation does not take into account the socioeconomic status of the single parent. Children born to impoverished, "traditionally" married parents are much more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock. This is an issue of systemic poverty, rather than one of morality or tradition.
Further, shotgun weddings are no longer as prominently culturally enforced, thus driving down the post conception engagements. This means even in the "good old days" many children were conceived before marriage, yet were born into married households. If we correlate this statistic with the figures from the above link, we can determine poverty, rather than a single-parent household, is far more of a factor which influences teen pregnancy and out of wedlock pregnancy.
Additionally, correlation does not imply causation. Out of wedlock pregnancy and crime are both related to poverty, not the inverse. Pro's provided source states:
"While Kendall and Tamura found that more out-of-wedlock births are associated with higher subsequent crime rates over the last 45 years, they found just the opposite for years prior to 1965. In the 1940s and 1950s, small increases out-of-wedlock births actually correlated to lower subsequent murder rates."
SOURCE: Read more at: http://phys.org...
Also, there is no evidence of Pro's claim that children born to single mothers are more likely to be of low birth weight. Pro did not provide a source for this assumption.
Pro's link justifying the assumption which have been addressed also uses statistics taken from couples who are unmarried, but choose to have children, thus Pro's assertion that the statistics accurately reflect their argument is misleading.
5. Pro seeks to use the Christian Bible as a justification for their assumptions, which has no place in this current discussion. Pro claims my perspective is limited, yet offers no indication as to why. Pro assumes that because I am not agreeing with them, that I do not share their religious knowledge.
Pro distracts from their losing argument through the use of a subjective moral system which is a vast departure from the subject of the debate.
America does not have a Judeo-Christian founding, nor are Judeo-Chrisitan values paramount to the nation's legal system. The founding fathers were an assortment of deists, atheists, anti-church agnostics and a small handful of Christians.
Pro has not provided a single source to the contrary.
Pro repeats their original assertion regarding the assumption of "traditional marriage's superiority, yet provides no additional sources aside from their own conviction and proclaimed piety.
Pro uses rhetoric, calling out of wedlock sexual relations " a cancer", this belies a clear bias, and is again, unsupported by any facts or sources, aside from Pro's vehemence, which has little to no academic value.
Pro attempts to connect crime against children and women as being connected with a move away from the 'biblical tradition', however, these crimes have been decreasing statistically as our society begins to view women on an equal level with men. Again, Pro fails to cite examples, sources or proof for their assumptions.
This statistic shows a clear correlation, though not a causation, of the decline of 'traditional marriage' coinciding with a decline in rape and sexual assault against women. This demonstrates Pro's arbitrary claim regarding the increase in violence toward women was statistically false.
Pro should consider the role many Catholic priests played in the molestation of children before claiming it is a break from biblical tradition which contributes to these types of crimes.
Pro continues a long-winded sermon regarding their personal faith, which has no compelling argument for or against traditional marriage.
Pro believes faith alone is justification for their assumption of the superiority of "traditional marriage", yet Pro has not established the validity of their 'tradition', nor has Pro provided verifiable sources to support their argument.
The sources Pro did provide, offered conflicting statistics which do not support the broad generalizations and faith based assumptions Pro has continuously asserted.
Pro asks that society examine the evidence, which Pro has chosen not to provide.
Pro assumes out of wedlock pregnancies are the result of a "Anything is permissible lifestyle,", which belies a myopic and and stereotypical perception of unwed mothers.
Pro assumes non-traditional relationships also are the result of the aforementioned lifestyle, again, without support.
Pro states that premarital sex and non-traditional relationships "threatens to remove this institution," which is unfounded, unsupported and an example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Pro states that cohabitation, homosexuality and promiscuity are not things we should "teach our children to aspire to", which indicates a cultural bias against gay and transgender individuals.
Pro asks what my point of view is, which is not the purpose of this debate, which was a challenge Pro incited.
The entire purpose of addressing a challenge was to rebut Pro's assertion. Through a thorough examination of the provided statistics, and by absorbing the nuances of these rebuttals, my position is easily discernible.
Pro uses a number of appeals to emotion. Pro states I should provide an alternative to "traditional marriage", but that is not the purpose of our debate. Secular unions would be an example, like the one my wife and I share.
Pro's data is subjective, their argument circumstantial.
redwhiteblue forfeited this round.
There are several alternatives to traditional marriage:
"Some couples may be hesitant to get married under traditional procedures. There may be many reasons for this, such as religious reasons, financial considerations, or other factors. For example, a couple"s legal marital status can affect other areas of life, such as access to medical care, retirement benefits, tax consequences, and citizenship/immigration.
For such couples, it may be worthwhile to learn about different alternatives to traditional marriage. This is especially true of same-sex couples, as same-sex marriage is not available in all states."
Cohabitation: This is where the couple lives together in the same residence. They usually aren"t afforded the same rights as married couple. On the other hand, the couple can spell out their rights regarding property, etc., in a "cohabitation agreement".
Common Law Marriage: This is where the state recognizes the couple as a married couple, even though they never had a wedding or obtained a state marriage license. This is not available in all states, but the couple is usually granted nearly the same rights as a legally married couple.
Civil Union: This is where the couple is granted the legal status of a married couple. The couple must file with the state for a civil union, and receive the same benefits as a married couple. States that allow civil unions (or are currently reviewing civil union bills) include: CT, DE, HI, IL, NH, NJ, VT, and RI.
Domestic Partnerships: These create a legal relationship for the couple which is similar to marriage in many states. Depending on the jurisdiction, the couple may be treated as if they were married; however, in many areas a domestic partnership is closer to a cohabitation arrangement, with the couple receiving much less rights than a legally married couple.
Same-sex Marriage: This allows a same-sex couple to obtain the status of legally married. These are also not available in many jurisdictions due to the controversy surrounding the subject.
Therefore, a couple may have many different alternatives when it comes to contemplating marriage. In most cases, it will largely depend on the laws in the area where the couple lives.
1. My arguments remained respectful and on topic.
2. My spelling and grammar are superior.
3. My arguments are salient, utilize data and provide comprehensive counter-points to Pro's statements.
4. Pro attempted to change the direction of the debate.
5. Pro attempted to frame me in a negative light when their arguments were derailed.
6. Pro uses stereotypes, unsupported by provided statistics.
7. Pro was unable to refute my rebuttals.
8. Pro forfeited round 3.
Please vote Con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.