Gay Marriage is Morally Permissible
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/27/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 5,286 times | Debate No: | 59571 | ||
 Con  Pro |
 |
|
Con Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. -this does not create a family but a sterile union Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage. -It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage. -9.It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality. Pro Thank you, Con. Since my opponent didn't lay down any definitions, I will. Definitions [1] Gay: Homosexual [2] Marriage: The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship [3] Moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character [4] Permissible: That can be permitted; allowable This is all I can do for the 2nd round. I've been very busy this week so I didn't have time to post my arguments and rebuttals. I forfeit this round but I will still continue this debate. On to Con. Sources [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... |
 |
|
Con "There is no more lovely, friendly and charming relationship, communion or company than a good marriage." Martin Luther "Happy is the man who finds a true friend, and far happier is he who finds that true friend in his wife." Franz Schubert "Morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality." Mahatma Gandhi "What is permissible is not always honorable" Marcus Tulluis Cicero "The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom " as "extraordinary, in as much as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature." Martin Luther that is all for this round will let my opponent continue for the first round. good luck pro http://www.christianpost.com... http://www.thenation.com...# http://www.str.org... http://atheism.about.com... Pro Rebuttals 1. It is not Marriage “First I say It is not Marriage.” According to the definitions given, it is. “Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.” Marriages were not always a covenant between a man and a woman. In ancient times, gay marriages were already being practiced and in some places, accepted. Thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman emperors were homosexuals or bisexuals. The Roman Emperor Nero was the first Roman emperor to have married a man. He married his freedman, Pythagoras and a young boy named Sporus. [1] In the early 3rd century AD, the emperor Elagabalus is reported to have been the bride in a wedding to his male partner. [2] What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don’t love each other, then clearly they won’t marry each other. A homosexual won’t marry another homosexual if it’s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won’t marry a woman if they don’t love each other. Sure they can’t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children.
If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children? Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples.
2. This does not create a family but a sterile union “Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.” Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It’s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don’t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and childfree couples would not be allowed to marry. Marriage=/=Procreation
Also, Con committed an appeal to nature fallacy. [3]
3. It defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage “One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.” First statement committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3] Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking.
4. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society “By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval. In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants. In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.” All these statements are slippery slope fallacies. [4] Plagiarism I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com... [5] Rebuttal Summary Pro’s plagiarized arguments were full of slippery slope fallacies and appeal to nature fallacies. Most of his arguments were about marriage=procreation and I am confident that my rebuttals are sound. Arguments 1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Like what I’ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn’t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad hetero sexual parents. There is also a study about this to prove my point. “A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents. The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children….” [6]
2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully. This is like saying, “There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up”
3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. Sources [1] http://penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html [2] Williams, Roman Homosexuality, pp. 278–279, citing Dio Cassius and Aelius Lampridius. [3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [6] http://www.emotionaldevelopment.org... Thank you. |
 |
|
Con "What is permissible is not always honorable" Marcus Tulluis Cicero Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with. Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate. http://mlynde.wikispaces.com... http://2.bp.blogspot.com... What is this self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological difference between men and women that makes their marriage complementary? Just like a man and a woman, if two homosexuals dislike each other or they don"t love each other, then clearly they won"t marry each other. A homosexual won"t marry another homosexual if it"s not going to be a happy marriage like a man won"t marry a woman if they don"t love each other. Sure they can"t procreate, but they are fit to care for children as a man and woman couple care for their children. Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done? In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species. If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children? Marriages are not always about raising a family. Marriage is about love and the union of the couples. Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack. Like what I said above, marriages are not always about raising a family and procreating. It"s about love. There unmarried couples who have children and there are married couples who don"t have children. If the reason for marriage is strictly for reproduction, infertile couples and child free couples would not be allowed to marry. Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married. Again, homosexual marriage is not about procreating and lust, it is love. If they want children, then they can adopt. Homosexual parents are as good as heterosexual parents, generally speaking. yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them. "The study, from Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, surveyed more than 15,000 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39, asking them questions about their upbringings. Its findings are published in the July issue of Social Science Research. One survey question asked whether a parent had been in a same-sex relationship during a child's upbringing; Regnerus wanted to see whether there were differences between kids raised in a household by a parent in a same-sex relationship compared with those who were raised by biological parents who were married and heterosexual. The survey results were measured by a set of 40 outcomes on social, emotional and relationship factors. Outcomes included whether a child had grown up to need public assistance like welfare, were more likely to have anxiety or depression, were more likely to be abused, or were more apt engage in unhealthier habits such as having more sexual partners, smoking or using drugs." Plagiarism I would like to point out that my opponent plagiarized all of his arguments in round 1 from this site: http://prezi.com...... [5] I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake. "When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it." R13; Anatole France 1. Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. Like what I"ve stated in my rebuttals, if gay couples want children, they can adopt children from the orphanage. Same sex couples are as good in taking care of children as heterosexual couples do. I am not implying there are no bad homosexual parents rather the type of the parents doesn"t matter. There are good homosexual parents and bad homosexual parents like there are good heterosexual parents and bad heterosexual parents. "A new study has revealed that there are no differences between high-risk children adopted by heterosexual or gay parents. This means that high-risk children who have been adopted from foster home by gay parents have a similar cognitive and emotional development to the one of those adopted by heterosexual parents. The results of this study show that gay parents have no negative influence on the emotional development of their children"." [6] ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made. 2. Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully. This is like saying, "There is nothing wrong with gay marriage so shut up" I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality? 3. Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Religion does not have a monopoly on the concept of marriage. Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen. -Martin Luther http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.usccb.org... http://www.rightwingwatch.org... Pro Since this is the last round I won’t add anymore arguments. I will use this round to rebut Con’s arguments. Rebuttals 1. All of Con’s quotes from famous figures All of Con’s quotes from Marcus Tulluis Cicero, Franz Schubert, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. are appeals to authority. [1] Just because someone famous said it, doesn’t mean they are right. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments. 2. “Sure it was accepted but did that mean it was right, we have accepted many things which many people have a problem with. Like Monarchies they were accepted, and many people had problems with them, because of limited freedoms and their right to participate in choosing the leaders of their nation. Today many people even have issues with some laws made by democracies. Also the Caste system in India (still used today) is neither right nor liked by the people. Look at what caused the French revolution the system of Estates,which was extremely unfair, for the first two estates pushed everything on the third estate.” Con did not provide any sources to back up this claim (people having problems with monarchies). Nevertheless, I will still rebut it. Not all monarchies were “bad”. King Louis XIV, also known as the Sun King, made France the most powerful country in Europe. He strengthened the military and arts and literature flourished during his reign. [2] Monarchies and gay marriage are two different concepts. Monarchy is a political system and gay marriage is the covenant of two people, so monarchy is a bad analogy for gay marriage.
3. “Why would a child be happy if he/she is not with it's biological parents, also if it is unnatural do you not think it should not be done?
In our world today homosexuality is excepted almost everywhere, and homosexuality is growing, yet what will happen if everyone is homosexual, then they would not be able to reproduce and humanity would end. Would you still support homosexuality if you were in this situation? they would be forced to become a heterosexual to basically save the human species. If the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, then why do some married heterosexual couples have no children?” Again, Con committed another appeal to nature fallacy. [3] Natural things do not make it good or bad. This is bias thinking. Also, two more slippery slope fallacy. [4] There is no proof that everyone will become homosexuals and take over the world.
4. “Aye but many marriages come with families, and with those families come a population growth to make a future generation, this is what homosexuals lack.” Not all marriages come with families. According to this graph, there are couples that don’t have children. And again, marriage is not all about procreating. “Do you not think there is a reason why the can not reproduce? Because it was not meant for a man and man and a woman and a woman to get married.” You failed to show how procreating is needed in marriage.
5. “yet a man and a woman have so many different qualities, how can two of the same offer that? and if they adopt they will be taking someone else's child, the child will grow up lacking something, in fact some children brought up by homosexual parents have spoken against them.” Adopting a child is a choice, not a requirement. Before adopting a child, the orphanages usually do a background check on the parents to see if they are fit. 6. Plagiarism “I admit that some of my first argument was plagiarized but it was not from the site listed by my opponent. I only did it for times sake. "When a thing has been said and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it." R13; Anatole France” Not only did Con admitted he plagiarized, he also encouraged plagiarism.
7. “ok just the study made by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at The University of Texas at Austin, were different from the study that con's source made.” I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. 8. “I say the whole concept is wrong, how can nothing be wrong with it if it is unnatural and against morality?” Again with more appeal to nature fallacy [3] and unsupported claims. 9. “Yet if they are a secular institution then why are the so mixed now? today so many homosexuals claim they follow Christianity, even Catholicism has accepted them, yet in the bible that they say they follow it speaks against them.” You just supported my claim that religion shouldn’t interfere with marriage. Conclusion Con plagiarized his first round and committed a lot of fallacies on his second and thrid round. All of his arguments were flawed, unsupported, fallacious and sometimes strays away from the topic. I was able to prove that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage and marrying someone you love is right.
Sources [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... Vote PRO! |
 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
| scots | XLAV | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
