The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Typhlochactas
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

What is commonly referred to as 'Gay Marriage' should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Typhlochactas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,776 times Debate No: 28853
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

The idea that people of the same gender can marry each other is ludicrous and flies in the face of logic. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, regardless of recent attempts by popular dictionaries to update their definitions.
Typhlochactas

Con

Pro gave no indication of whether this round was for acceptance or not, so I will take this as a debate round.

'The idea that people of the same gender can marry each other is ludicrous and flies in the face of logic.'

This is merely a bare assertion fallacy. Pro provides no argumentation to prove that gay marriage is illogical or ludicrous. Since it was advanced without argumentation, we can dismiss it without argumentation.

'Marriage is a union between a man and woman.'

This claim has not been justified by Pro. As I did with his last argument, I will dismiss it without argumentation, as no argumentation was provided.

'regardless of recent attempts by popular dictionaries to update their definitions.'

This is irrelevant. What is right and wrong does not have anything to do with definitions. Anyone can define conservatism as 'the wrongful belief that we should hate women', and that would not make conservatism wrong, nor would it justify the idea that conservatives hate women. In the same way, defining marriage as 'between a man and a woman' or 'betweee a man and a woman, two men, or two women' have nothing to do with who should be allowed to get married.

Conclusion
Pro's argumentation amounts to a bare assertion fallacy, and we are provided with no argumentation. Pro makes many claims, but he does not justify them, so they do not prove the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Marriage, in principle, is based upon heterosexual relations because they are connected to procreation. Marriage is between a man and a woman; this is how it always has been but gay rights activists are trying to pervert the sacred institution. Where procreation is impossible, marriage is not relevant.
Typhlochactas

Con

Pro did not answer any of the arguments I put forward in the last round, so I consider them dropped.


'Marriage, in principle, is based upon heterosexual relations because they are connected to procreation. Marriage is between a man and a woman; this is how it always has been but gay rights activists are trying to pervert the sacred institution. Where procreation is impossible, marriage is not relevant.'

Consider the number of married couples where one (or maybe even both) of the partners are infertile, and incapable of procreation. Consider the number of people who get married and never have children for their entire marriage. Consider the fact that when one gets married, one does not have to agree to have children. The idea that marriage should not exist if procreation is not possible should be considered absurd in light of this.
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Married heterosexual couples which are infertile are unable to procreate because of the circumstances. This is different then 2 people of the same sex marrying, where not only is procreation incidentally impossible, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE! To separate marriage from the role of procreation would be to render the entire institution of marriage pointless in the first place.

Laws are written based on definitions; without them, a law is pointless and can be interpreted according to the whim of any individual. Marriage is between a man and a woman; that is how it has always been. To make a law stating that gays can marry displays a lack of understanding of the definition of marriage itself. If 2 gays were to swear an oath between themselves and government that they will live together until death, that could not be called marriage. It would be something else entirely.
Typhlochactas

Con

'Married heterosexual couples which are infertile are unable to procreate because of the circumstances. This is different then 2 people of the same sex marrying, where not only is procreation incidentally impossible, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE!'

This distinction is not important. The central point is that heterosexual couples get married and one partner is infertile. This means that the marriage has nothing to do with offspring or procreation from the very start. With homosexuals, you have two people entering a marriage that, from the start, cannot produce offspring. This is the reductio ad absurdum for the idea that having marriages that cannot produce children undermines marriage, so we shouldn't allow gays to get married. It ignores the fact that heterosexual couples are already getting married that cannot bear children.

Furthermore, if the primary purpose of marrriage is procreation, then why don't married couples have to have children? This is a point that goes unanswered by Pro, so I will ask it again.

' To separate marriage from the role of procreation would be to render the entire institution of marriage pointless in the first place.'

Marriage has never been connected to procreation, so you cannot seperate the two to start with. Marriage has not been connected to procreation because infertile people can get married, and there is no 'offspring' requirement when a couple gets married. The connection never existed.

'Marriage is between a man and a woman; that is how it has always been.'


This claim is historically inaccurate. Consider this historical analysis of gay marriage over time: http://www.randomhistory.com...;

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Typhlochactas 1 year ago
Typhlochactas
I'm the one who had to suffer through that.
Posted by Koopin 1 year ago
Koopin
Horrible argument by Pro. Just down right horrid.
Posted by likespeace 1 year ago
likespeace
Well-argued, Typhlochactas. The "infertile couple" argument clinched it.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Luggs 1 year ago
Luggs
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily refuted all of Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Tied S&G. Con pointed out all of Pro's fallacies, and is the only one to use a source at all, hence Con for Arguments and Sources.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 1 year ago
morgan2252
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con because pro basically said the same thing each time and fails to rebut. Both sides had good spelling and grammar but no sources. Con gets convincing arguments because he knows his information well and does a good job of supporting his argument.
Vote Placed by andrewkletzien 1 year ago
andrewkletzien
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pro fails to use any observable methodology. All rounds of Pro can be considered the exact same argument, repeated with different rhetorical imprecisions.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments were pretty much just claims that he made which con did a decent job of refuting. Pro though dropped a ton of con's arguments which pretty much handed con the debate.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 1 year ago
Jarhyn
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to CON for PRO's egregious use of bare assertion, and thus failure to meet BOP. S&G tied, as neither side made particularly noticeable errors. Convincing to CON for supporting all claims, and for PRO's baseless assertion and semantic begging of the question. Reliable sources on CON for factually sourcing a claim, and for PRO's failure to source any claim.
Vote Placed by wiploc 1 year ago
wiploc
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's "arguments" were mere claims. Con refuted them all.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 1 year ago
The_Chaos_Heart
GarretKadeDupreTyphlochactasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several assertions that they never sourced, and were shown to be incorrect by Con. Pro also made the hypocritical argument "where procreation is impossible, marriage is not relevant", only to follow up with claiming that infertile couples were okay because of principle; principle or not, they are still incapable of procreation. He argued against himself. I also must say as a side note, I find it amusing that a supposed libertarian is arguing why people shouldn't be legally allowed to do something, by force of the State. What?