Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

RFD Gay Marriage Debate

kasmic
Posts: 1,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:50:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Analysis/Vote

Pro argued for equality before the law. While Con is correct that homosexuals would be free to marry members of the actually sex as would anyone else, I find pro argument that the attraction both sexual and romantic to be compelling to demonstrate that response unequal. Also of note about choice, I found the sources statement that "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual" to be sufficient to warrant pro"s argument. Pro wins this argument.

Pro argued economic benefits. Con negated with the cost of disease. I found pro"s response sufficient being that the benefits are linked to gay marriage, the costs are present either way. Pro wins this argument.

Con argued five points. Three of which include, that homosexuals are likely to spread harm like HIV, have more emotional problems, more mental issues. I do not see where con provides a link between these points and the legality of gay marriage. Pro points this out. None of these are weighed against the resolution.

The next point is in reference to God"s law. This is not well linked to the topic. I would expect con to demonstrate why secular law ought to conform to "God"s" law. He argues that as most Americans are Christians, and as most Christians oppose gay marriage, gay marriage ought to be opposed. Pro contends this saying that if we care about what a majority think we ought to legalize as a majority support gay marriage. Con responds that its not about majority but about the Bible. Ultimately the way it was presented seems to me to suggest majority view so this argument to Pro.

In the end it seems to me to be a clear win for Pro.

Summary of Debate


Arguments

Pro

Pro argues that as homosexuality is not a choice, not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people based on an inherent characteristic. He further argues that banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust. He also adds that not recognizing same-sex marriage is a symbolic act of discrimination, as if the state rejects the very orientation of same-sex attraction. He links these arguments to insecurity, stigmatization and psychological harms.

Tej"s second argument argues that A just government must also do what benefits its people and that recognizing same-sex marriage provides multiple economic benefits. He indicates the benefits as $20 and $40 billion more in tax revenue in addition to saving the government hundreds of millions in welfare costs.

Con

Con argues 5 points. Three of which include, that homosexuals are likely to spread harm like HIV, have more emotional problems, more mental issues. I do not see where con provides a link between these points and the legality of gay marriage. The next point is in reference to God"s law Again, this is not well linked to the topic. I would expect con to demonstrate why secular law ought to conform to "God"s" law. Con"s most relevant contention is that Gay marriage does not benefit society. For this he refers to the spread of HIV.

Rebuttals

Con

Con contends that homosexuality may be a choice and that the data is inconclusive. (Though he does quote the source saying "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual"

Jerry makes the point that homosexuals do still have the right to marry, just not people of their own sex. This seems to demonstrate equality before the law. Con concedes that while homophobia might be an issue, the legalization of the marriage isn't going to end harassment. Thus he argues that Pro"s case may highlight real issues but does not provide solvency. In response to the economic argument con argues that the boost to the economy is negated by the cost of disease and emotional health problems.

The final contention that Jerry offers is that everything pro has argued could be used to support pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, and the like.

Pro

To begin with pro highlights that much of con"s case is not linked to the resolution. He argues that the spread of disease will happen with or without gay marriage and that to apply con"s logic it would outlaw heterosexual marriage as well. Pro in response to "God"s" law argues that if we are to care what the majority wants as con implies then we ought to support Gay marriage.

To defend his case Pro again argues that homosexuality is not a choice. In response to being able to marry a member of the opposite sex he argues that this is not equality as it requires homosexuals to marry one whom they are not sexually or romantically attracted to. In support of the economic benefits, pro argues that the benefits come as a result of legalizing marriage while con"s cost"s will be present either way. Tej address con"s argument about pedophilia etc by highlighting the difference as consent.

There continues to be back and forth on these points to the end of the debate.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Thanks for voting, Kasmic.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Jerry947
Posts: 778
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 5:50:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 2:50:51 PM, kasmic wrote:
Analysis/Vote

Pro argued for equality before the law. While Con is correct that homosexuals would be free to marry members of the actually sex as would anyone else, I find pro argument that the attraction both sexual and romantic to be compelling to demonstrate that response unequal. Also of note about choice, I found the sources statement that "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual" to be sufficient to warrant pro"s argument. Pro wins this argument.

Pro argued economic benefits. Con negated with the cost of disease. I found pro"s response sufficient being that the benefits are linked to gay marriage, the costs are present either way. Pro wins this argument.

Con argued five points. Three of which include, that homosexuals are likely to spread harm like HIV, have more emotional problems, more mental issues. I do not see where con provides a link between these points and the legality of gay marriage. Pro points this out. None of these are weighed against the resolution.

The next point is in reference to God"s law. This is not well linked to the topic. I would expect con to demonstrate why secular law ought to conform to "God"s" law. He argues that as most Americans are Christians, and as most Christians oppose gay marriage, gay marriage ought to be opposed. Pro contends this saying that if we care about what a majority think we ought to legalize as a majority support gay marriage. Con responds that its not about majority but about the Bible. Ultimately the way it was presented seems to me to suggest majority view so this argument to Pro.

In the end it seems to me to be a clear win for Pro.

Summary of Debate


Arguments

Pro

Pro argues that as homosexuality is not a choice, not recognizing same-sex marriage is discriminating against a certain class of people based on an inherent characteristic. He further argues that banning gay marriage is depriving homosexuals of the right to marry. Depriving a certain group of a right without reason is inherently unjust. He also adds that not recognizing same-sex marriage is a symbolic act of discrimination, as if the state rejects the very orientation of same-sex attraction. He links these arguments to insecurity, stigmatization and psychological harms.

Tej"s second argument argues that A just government must also do what benefits its people and that recognizing same-sex marriage provides multiple economic benefits. He indicates the benefits as $20 and $40 billion more in tax revenue in addition to saving the government hundreds of millions in welfare costs.

Con

Con argues 5 points. Three of which include, that homosexuals are likely to spread harm like HIV, have more emotional problems, more mental issues. I do not see where con provides a link between these points and the legality of gay marriage. The next point is in reference to God"s law Again, this is not well linked to the topic. I would expect con to demonstrate why secular law ought to conform to "God"s" law. Con"s most relevant contention is that Gay marriage does not benefit society. For this he refers to the spread of HIV.

Rebuttals

Con

Con contends that homosexuality may be a choice and that the data is inconclusive. (Though he does quote the source saying "the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one"s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual"

Jerry makes the point that homosexuals do still have the right to marry, just not people of their own sex. This seems to demonstrate equality before the law. Con concedes that while homophobia might be an issue, the legalization of the marriage isn't going to end harassment. Thus he argues that Pro"s case may highlight real issues but does not provide solvency. In response to the economic argument con argues that the boost to the economy is negated by the cost of disease and emotional health problems.

The final contention that Jerry offers is that everything pro has argued could be used to support pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, and the like.

Pro

To begin with pro highlights that much of con"s case is not linked to the resolution. He argues that the spread of disease will happen with or without gay marriage and that to apply con"s logic it would outlaw heterosexual marriage as well. Pro in response to "God"s" law argues that if we are to care what the majority wants as con implies then we ought to support Gay marriage.

To defend his case Pro again argues that homosexuality is not a choice. In response to being able to marry a member of the opposite sex he argues that this is not equality as it requires homosexuals to marry one whom they are not sexually or romantically attracted to. In support of the economic benefits, pro argues that the benefits come as a result of legalizing marriage while con"s cost"s will be present either way. Tej address con"s argument about pedophilia etc by highlighting the difference as consent.

There continues to be back and forth on these points to the end of the debate.

I don't remember suggesting that homosexuality may be a choice. I did however argue that it wouldn't matter even if it wasn't a choice.