The Instigator
Tristboi22
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Tristboi22
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,554 times Debate No: 49152
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Tristboi22

Pro

I don't believe by making homosexual marriage legal that it will lead to the legalization of pedophilia or bestiality marriages. Children and animals cannot consent to marriage or sex, therefore, the argument that gay marriage will lead to these things is absurd.
JacobAnderson

Con

Off the record, I don't agree that it will, but I find it interesting to argue things I don't necessarily agree with.

Before we start, I would like to define the terms:
Pedophilia- Sexual feelings directed toward children.
Children- A young human being below the legal age of majority. (The age of majority, of course, being 18.)
Bestiality- Sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

I look forward to the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Tristboi22

Pro

Thank you for accepting this challenge and I for the record, I respect that you don't agree with the subject that you are arguing in favor of.

Gay marriage simply put, would be two people of the same sex committing their lives together as a civil contract or union. They are TWO CONSENTING ADULTS that have decided to make a life together. My opponent must prove that this will lead to or cause pedophilia or bestiality to become legal. We must be careful with definitions or this will turn into a semantic argument. There is more than one definition of "Pedophilia". According to "Psychology Today", "Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children." (http://www.psychologytoday.com...) Just because two adults decide to enter in a civil contract, it does not make the sexual abuse of children or marriage of children "right"or "legal". Children do not possess the maturity or ability to comprehend adult issues like "marriage". That is one of the things that makes children different from adults. Children do not have the same rights and privileges under the constitution as adults, primarily because they do not possess the understanding of adult issues. Furthermore, there is documented proof of the harm that comes to children from sexual abuse.
According to "Parenting and Child Health's" website, "Sexual abuse has a big impact on a child's ability to trust adults to keep them safe, and to relate to others. They can feel scared, angry or helpless because they can't control what is happening to them and all alone because they can't tell anyone.They may need help to deal with the effects of the abuse. As children become adults it can affect their intimate relationships and make them feel worthless, anxious and depressed." Many turn to drugs and alcohol later in life as well. http://www.cyh.com...
There are MANY reasons not to allow pedophilia, but this in no way relates at all to homosexual marriages. I challenge you to show me how it would.

As for bestiality, much can be said about this subject that was said about pedophilia. Animals do not have the ability to consent. One of the differences between children and animals is that children WILL be able to get married and WILL be granted the same rights and privileges as other adults; animals never will because they are animals. Simply put, animals are not equal to human. Since marriage is a contract and both parties must agree, animals certainly cannot participate. They cannot sign a contract, do not have social security numbers, cannot communicate with an attorney if there were a divorce. Speaking of divorces, if they did get divorced, who would get the property, custody of previous children, and visitation rights of the children? The complications do not end. Two adult humans that are the same sex can raise a child. I have yet to see an animal that can raise a human child.

As I have just shown, neither pedophilia nor bestiality show ANY correlation between two adult members of the same sex getting married. With that, I yield to my opponent.
JacobAnderson

Con

Keeping this strictly my opening arguments,

Gay Marriage leading to Pedophilia.
Pedophilia can be defined many different ways, but for the sake of my argument, I will be using the definition I have provided. So, that being said, ages 13-17 are still up for grabs on my side. [1] shows the requirements for marriages under the legal age of 18 (in some states, 19), showing that marriages as young as 16 are legal with parental consent. At 16, you can argue that the individuals are still not mature enough to make a decision, but I remind you that in most cases parental consent is required. Majority of any ethical parent would sit and discuss such a life-changing decision with their child, and if the child persists, the child obviously believes it is the best decision. Plus, there are thousands of pregnant girls under 18, and a good way to ensure the father's presences could actually be marriage.

Gay Marriage leading to Bestiality
Bestiality is the relationship between a human and an animal. Marriage is typically defined as a coming together of man and woman, or in some less conservative, aged cases, the coming together of two people. People is the key word, really. An animal is clearly not human, so therefore it cannot partake in a marriage. Because I say that animals cannot partake in marriage, there is no way that bestiality will ever be legal.

HOWEVER
I realize that it may sound like I was arguing as pro, but let me tell you the main reason for gay marriage-equality. Equality for two people that love each other. Yes, if gay marriage is legal, it will open eyes to other types of relationships to attempt to earn their equality, regardless of their stances and members. Why restrict equality from pedophiliac and bestial relationships? Once, homosexuals were looked down upon (they still are) and in some countries, they are still imprisoned and killed. If homosexuals can rise from the dark unjustice, it will encourage all other members of all other relationships to do the same.

History is a chain of events. Pearl Harbor led to US involvement in war. Assassination of the Archduke led to WW1. Gay Marriage can lead to Pedophiliac and Bestial Marriages.

Sources:
[1]
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Tristboi22

Pro

Allowing ages 13-17 to marry complicates the topic even further. For example, according to the "Research on sex offender laws and their effects on people and society", the U.S. Federal age of sexual consent is 18 years old. http://solresearch.org...
As I previously stated, this can turn into a "semantic argument" very quickly. Your definition of "children" was along the lines of, "anyone who is under 18". I don't necessarily agree with that definition. I think the word, "minor" is a better choice simply because the term, "teenager" does not necessarily mean, "child". I cannot offer evidence of what the magic age for marriage should be; simply because everyone matures at different rates. In this country, almost all the states have decided on the age of 18 because it's the age where you can vote, join the military, watch pornographic material, smoke cigarettes, and get married. I would make the argument that the age of a 13-15 year-old, do not have the maturity to make such a life altering decision of marriage. That is the reason they are not allowed to drive cars. I suppose my opponent could make the argument that there are some 13-year-olds that are more mature than 18-year-olds, but that's true for any age. We can't change the law for everyone just because there are a few exceptions to the rule.

My opponent made the argument and tried to tie this in with gay marriage by saying, "Yes, if gay marriage is legal, it will open eyes to other types of relationships to attempt to earn their equality, regardless of their stances and members. Why restrict equality from pedophiliac and bestial relationships? Once, homosexuals were looked down upon (they still are) and in some countries, they are still imprisoned and killed. If homosexuals can rise from the dark unjustice, it will encourage all other members of all other relationships to do the same."

For one thing, sexual abuse of children HARMS them, there is not evidence that gay marriage harms anyone. The same goes for bestiality. If an animal cannot consent, it becomes "rape". Homosexuals were looked down upon because people thought it was gross and they had religious biases against it.

My opponent used the same argument that was made in the times when interracial marriage was being debated. People were warning that if interracial marriage became legal, gay marriage would follow. If my opponent is correct in his assertion that gay marriage will "open eyes to other types of relationships", and lead to pedophilia and bestiality, then I would ask the following questions:
1) Should we ban interracial marriages since at the time people were making the argument that interracial marriage will lead to gay marriage?
2) Better yet, should we ban heterosexual marriages because it made gay and interracial couples' eyes open to the possibility of marriage?

Of course not. Children (and by children, I mean minors under the age of least 16) are way too vulnerable at that age to marry. They need to be protected from adults they prey on them for sex. I would like to add that most children have gone through puberty by the time they are 16. They are becoming mentally AND physically mature by then. My opponent has shown that the law is inconsistent in dealing with a legal age to marry. NONE of that proves that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia becoming legal.

With gay marriage, the ONLY thing that is different from a straight marriage is the gender. It is still 2 consenting HUMAN ADULTS that enter into a civil contract. No other laws have to be changed. If one were to marry a 5-year-old, how would the 5-year-old have any idea what he or she was signing at the courthouse? How would that child fit into the "age of consent" definition? Could a child be awrded property in a divorce? Could a 5-year-old be granted custody of a 17-year-old from a previous marriage? My opponent seems to want to deal with the teenage years only, and it's probably because the lines can get a little blurred in that area. But we are dealing with ALL pedophilia.

As for bestiality, I have already covered most of this issue. My opponent still has not shown or offered evidence of how gay marriage will lead to a human marrying another species of object. In fact, my opponent seems to agree that it will never become legal, but insists on making the argument that it will open the eyes of people. We should not make a law against something that doesn't cause harm to anyone, just because people will try to use the same argument for something that DOES cause harm to someone or something.

In closing, I have offered evidence of why children getting married to pedophiles is not only dangerous, but also absurd. Furthermore, my opponent has pointed to a lot of inconsistencies in the law and some I even agree with. However, the topic is not about "legal age of consent" the topic is about "gay marriage not leading to pedophilia and bestiality". I yield to my opponent.
JacobAnderson

Con

For one thing, sexual abuse of children HARMS them, there is not evidence that gay marriage harms anyone. The same goes for bestiality. If an animal cannot consent, it becomes "rape". Homosexuals were looked down upon because people thought it was gross and they had religious biases against it.
Anyone of any age of any gender of any sexual preference can be sexually abused or raped, and regardless of the circumstances, rape if often traumatizing. You said that homosexuals were looked down upon because people thought they were gross and unaccepted by the peoples' religions. Pedophiles and bestials(?) are also looked down upon because they're gross in most eyes. Going back, interracial couples were gross in some eyes, but it all changed.

You asked:
1) Should we ban interracial marriages since at the time people were making the argument that interracial marriage will lead to gay marriage?
No, they are already legal. The point was that times change and if people recognize minorities gaining equality, they will be more prone to fight for their equality.

2) Better yet, should we ban heterosexual marriages because it made gay and interracial couples' eyes open to the possibility of marriage?
Heterosexual marriages were once seen as the only acceptable marriage, it is the rudimentary marriage and is a binding under God's eyes if religious. There would be no reason to ban any type of marriage because they open up others' eyes for equality. To say we should ban this is to say we should ban the abacus because it opened the eyes of others for innovation for the modern-day calculator.

Yes, some prepubescents won't be as mature and some will. There is no concrete age in which everyone matures.

If one were to marry a 5-year-old, how would the 5-year-old have any idea what he or she was signing at the courthouse? How would that child fit into the "age of consent" definition? Could a child be awarded property in a divorce? Could a 5-year-old be granted custody of a 17-year-old from a previous marriage?
Like I showed earlier in my link, majority of states require parental consent as well as the minor's (in this case "child's"). This being said, there would be no legal way that a 5-year-old child would ever be able to marry an adult without parental consent (which I highly doubt they will get). Age of consent is defined as the age at which a person's, typically a girl's, consent to sexual intercourse is valid in law. I know no other way to defend my stance on that question than to say that children can make their own decisions when they want something, whether it be a new toy or what they want for lunch. Typically, children do not know about sex, so with something so foreign to them, they would probably deny the invitation or repeat the question to their parents or another adult to clarify the meaning. Also, children learn very early not to talk to strangers and the rights and wrongs of these situations.
Going onto the marriage, the child, if married, should be able to be awarded property if divorced. If the adult consents to the marriage, they are aware of what a divorce will mean, and in the case of fighting a child for assets, I'm sure the parents would represent the child. When it comes to having custody over a child of their spouse, because the child is not their own, I do not believe they have the right to fight for custody. Custody is a matter of the parents of the child, in most cases.

For bestiality...
To defend it as best I can, people are marrying inanimate objects (http://www.ranker.com...). Obviously inanimate objects have no ability to consent to anything at all, but the marriages are still identified in their state. With this and gay marriage being legal, it could encourage people/animal marriages. It's better to marry something conscious than something inanimate, no?

I suppose I should ask some questions:
1) Looking throughout history, how one thing has led to a similar thing, how can we ignore that one type of marriage will lead to another?
2) Does the disgust of the majority justify the prohibition of marriages between loving partners regardless of age, gender, or in this case specie?
3) Why did you suggest that rape and sexual abuse only harm children but not those who are adults, sometimes adults who have consented their marriage? Is the rape and sexual abuse more acceptable than the rape and sexual abuse of a child? If no, why ignore this? If yes, how?
4) Going back to my rebuttal, should we ban the origin of all things innovated once not accepted by society? (By this, I mean: Some people don't like clowns (sorry for the bad example). Does this mean that we should ban clowns or should have banned the original clowns because people would grow to fear/hate them?)

In conclusion,
Gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality (marriages) because people who were looked down upon and treated poorly have risen from the dark, which in turn will cause more to do the same. We can look at this cause/effect though history. America wrote its Declaration of Independence and France followed suit to do the same. We can see this if we look at revolts in history and how some revolts led to the rising of other revolts nearby or continents away.
Debate Round No. 3
Tristboi22

Pro

My opponent made the following rebuttals:

1) "Anyone of any age of any gender of any sexual preference can be sexually abused or raped, and regardless of the circumstances, rape if often traumatizing. You said that homosexuals were looked down upon because people thought they were gross and unaccepted by the peoples' religions. Pedophiles and bestials(?) are also looked down upon because they're gross in most eyes. Going back, interracial couples were gross in some eyes, but it all changed."

I agree with my opponent that homosexuals, pedophiles, and bestiality cause society to be grossed out and it is unaccepted for religious purposes,(probably on equal levels), but one thing they do not have in common is the fact that children and animals are being HARMED. Two consenting adults of the same sex HARM NO ONE. This point cannot be overstated. We should not ban something just because someone is grossed out by it; that would be unconstitutional. That is probably the main reason gay marriage is prevailing now. There is no argument to the harm that it would cause to society. MANY arguments can be made about the harm that would come to children and animals, as I have previously stated. There is no other comparison to homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia except for people being repulsed and the religious nature. I challenge my opponent to show any more. Regardless of any of this, it is not evidence that pedophilia and bestiality will lead to gay marriage anymore than interracial or heterosexual marriage will.

My opponent answered my question about whether or not we should ban interracial marriages since it was once argued that they led to gay marriage. My opponent answered the following way, "No, they are already legal. The point was that times change and if people recognize minorities gaining equality, they will be more prone to fight for their equality."
I will rephrase the question; should we have banned (past tense) interracial marriages because some argued that they led to gay marriage? If your argument is correct, it too led to gay marriage. I would like to point out that there is no evidence that interracial marriages led to gay marriage. I have never head a gay person say that they want to get married because an interracial couple did. Most say that they want to get married because they are Americans and pay taxes like every race and orientation. In fact, if any thing was to blame, it would be the heterosexual marriages. Blacks wanted it and THEN gays wanted it.

2) "Heterosexual marriages were once seen as the only acceptable marriage, it is the rudimentary marriage and is a binding under God's eyes if religious. There would be no reason to ban any type of marriage because they open up others' eyes for equality. To say we should ban this is to say we should ban the abacus because it opened the eyes of others for innovation for the modern-day calculator. "

I don't see the correlation between the abacus and a modern-day calculator and the topic we are discussing. So far, I have not seen anyone make any "moral claims" about math. Furthermore, I believe my opponent actually proved my point and contradicted himself. I would also suggest that heterosexual marriage still "opened the eyes" for people that were interracial to question their own equality.

3) "Like I showed earlier in my link, majority of states require parental consent as well as the minor's (in this case "child's"). This being said, there would be no legal way that a 5-year-old child would ever be able to marry an adult without parental consent (which I highly doubt they will get). Age of consent is defined as the age at which a person's, typically a girl's, consent to sexual intercourse is valid in law."
Many things trouble me about that statement. As I have already shown, the Federal age of consent is 18. Having said that, it differs in each state. According to the "Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements," is says that the lowest age for consent in ANY state is 16 (pe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml) What troubles me about my opponents statement the most is that he said, "there would be no legal way that a 5-year-old child would ever be able to marry an adult without parental consent (which I highly doubt they will get)" The word "marriage" implies "a sexual relationship". Even with parental consent, it would be considered "molestation" or "child rape". Most states have more extreme penalties and laws against rape or molestation of a child under 13.
My opponent made the disturbing argument that children can make their own decisions about toys, what they want, what they want for lunch, and therefore, implied they could make a decision about sex. Children do not possess the knowledge or maturity to make SMART or SAFE decisions for their lives! That is one of the things that makes them different from adults. That is exactly why they need guardians; they cannot take care of themselves. A child can choose and make the decision to take drugs, drink, play with a gun, kill themselves, drive a car, but it does not mean they should. There is overwhelming evidence to show why they should not.
My opponent said that the child would probably deny the invitation for sex. And if they didn't, then what? Would it be the child's fault for not saying, "NO."? Even if the child initiates it, it would still be the adult's fault because the adult should have known better.

4) "When it comes to having custody over a child of their spouse, because the child is not their own, I do not believe they have the right to fight for custody. Custody is a matter of the parents of the child, in most cases"
I will complicate it even further; if the pedophile and the child adopted a 16-year-old, would the 5-year-old get custody of the 16-year-old if the judge ruled in the 5-year-old's favor?

What I find fascinating about this discussion is that I almost forgot what the topic of this debate was! None of this proves that gay marriage will lead to this nonsense. Two adults, that just happen to be the same gender and want to marry, do not give pedophiles the right to molest children or people the right to rape animals.

5) "To defend it as best I can, people are marrying inanimate objects (http://www.ranker.com......). Obviously inanimate objects have no ability to consent to anything at all, but the marriages are still identified in their state. With this and gay marriage being legal, it could encourage people/animal marriages. It's better to marry something conscious than something inanimate, no?"

The "source" my opponent quoted is not a reputable source. "Ranker" is simply a website created for voting on certain things, for example, soda brands, fast food places, ect.. There is not a single state that allows one to marry an inanimate object. My opponents argument that "it's better to marry something conscious than something inanimate", does not show evidence that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia or bestiality.

I will now deal with my opponents questions:
1) "Looking throughout history, how one thing has led to a similar thing, how can we ignore that one type of marriage will lead to another?"
In epidemiology, correlation does not prove causation (http://stats.org...) You cannot prove with epidemiology what causes something ,but you can prove what DOESN'T cause something. For example, if a high crime area has a lot of calls to the police, we cannot conclude that calling the police leads to high crime. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the answer is to stop calling the police! There is no logical way to defend the molestation of children or rape of animals. Both cause harm to the species.
2) "Does the disgust of the majority justify the prohibition of marriages between loving partners regardless of age, gender, or in this case specie? "
"Disgust" is not the issue here. It is the ability of the person or specie to consent and whether or not it harms the person or specie.
3) "Why did you suggest that rape and sexual abuse only harm children but not those who are adults, sometimes adults who have consented their marriage? Is the rape and sexual abuse more acceptable than the rape and sexual abuse of a child? If no, why ignore this? If yes, how?"
I believe my opponent simply misunderstood me. Obviously rape causes harm to adults in consented relationships. I never meant to imply they did not. I believe ALL rape and sexual abuse is evil.
Back to the subject, I still see no evidence that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality.
4) "Going back to my rebuttal, should we ban the origin of all things innovated once not accepted by society? (By this, I mean: Some people don't like clowns (sorry for the bad example). Does this mean that we should ban clowns or should have banned the original clowns because people would grow to fear/hate them?)"
I must admit, I believe this actually makes MY point; not my opponents.

In conclusion, my opponent has offered absolutely no evidence to support the theory that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality. He said that "cause/ effect through history" is proof. If that is they case, then cause/effect in history has only proven that interracial marriage has led to gay marriage, but heterosexual marriage has led to interracial marriage. Should we have banned hetero and interracial marriages? Just because someone wants to make something legal that does not harm anyone, does not mean that we should make things legal that DO harm other humans and other species because their "eyes were opened". One is not harmful; the other 2 are.
I yield to my opponent.
JacobAnderson

Con

As it is obvious there is no proof gay marriage will lead to other marriages other than the correlation and look throughout history, it is obvious that this debate put a huge burden on the Con. Yet, I still find it interesting to debate. So though this round will be my realization of the previously stated fact, thus being shorter and less important, I will still continue.

Basically, the reason gay marriage will lead to other marriages like in the topic is the idea of equality. You said that many want to marry because they are American and pay taxes, and to this I say that in a bestial relationship, the human is American and pays taxes. So does the adult in pedophilia. Marriage does not equal sex, but rather if sex is involved, equals fidel sex. Homosexuals who raise children often find their child not doing as well as other children, this is harmful to the child.

That is my argument because, hm, I don't even know I'm surprised.
Debate Round No. 4
Tristboi22

Pro

On kind of a humorous note, I cannot express the relief I have that my opponent agrees with me and only chose to debate this topic for the sake of debating. For that I am grateful. I too, found it very interesting.

Equality does not equal "child molestation" or "rape of other species". Whenever consent is not part of the equation, harm is being done. In society, we have laws that stem from the basic principle of "Do unto others as you would have the do unto you" or "Love your neighbor as yourself". While it is true that the person that is into bestiality is paying taxes, they are still breaking the law of being cruel to animals. The pedophile pays taxes too, but the physical and emotional harm that comes to the child can be proven as a result of that circumstance. My opponent has not proven that a gay marriage of 2 adult humans (which has not been proven to cause harm to society as a result of that marriage) will lead to bestiality or pedophilia.

My opponent made an attempt to say that, "Homosexuals who raise children often find their child not doing as well as other children, this is harmful to the child."
First of all, my opponent did not list the source from where he got the information, so we cannot assume the statement is true. Second of all, even if children are raised by homosexual parents and they are not doing as well as other children, it is not evidence that the "harm" that has come to the child is the result of the gay marriage. It could be from homophobic society teasing the child. The child could be adopted and came from an abusive house hold. The list of possibilities goes on and on. My opponent once again is trying to change the subject. NONE of this proves that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia or bestiality and with that, I rest and yield to my opponent.
Thank you!
JacobAnderson

Con

Eh it's proven that children raised by homosexual couples aren't as well off as normal children. There's a source I was too lazy to bring up oops. But really I didnt think it was true until I debated gay marriage and gay adoption with a homophobe.

All in all, gay marriages aren't as harmful as the others mentioned, and other than what we know from a causing b, we can assume the resolution is false. Just like we assume it's true because there has been no evidence it doesn't lead to these marriages.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MysticMansion 3 years ago
MysticMansion
Years ago when contraception was introduced by way of the pill. The church fathers stated that this in time would lead to the legalization of abortion as well as the increase of immoral behaviour and an abandonment of moral behaviour. The news papers of the day and officials said that the church is just paranoid reading the impossible into a single act. They of course were proven right.

Mankind does not limit evil God does. When people fall into sin there is no bottom to the hole. No limit to how low they can go. God removes from the wicked those graces that keep reason alive. In the end comes the complete abandonment of all reason. That is the natural process from civilization to cannibalism. One step at a time. The government has abandoned all moral guidelines and they will cast off all pretence of doing anything for the good of the country in time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Tristboi22JacobAndersonTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave arguments. Con just argued slippery slope theories, when he bothered to argue at all. Con just wasn't very convincing.