To support same sex marriage, Endorse incestuous marriage just the same
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Quite straightforward, Take one with the other. It's a package deal. You can demonstrate the differences and we can put them to the test.
We can find out whether these differences have to stand in the way of happiness. Why not support these two types of marriages? What exception could there be?
For clarity or questions, Please send a message or comment prior to accepting debate.
- Children matters in marriages, in most cases
- Incest-made kids are genetically less smart than other children.
- Incest-marriage is bad for the future of the family.
- Homosexual and incestuous marriages are different and should not be treated the same way. The former is nowhere as bad as the latter.
- My opponent has to either prove that homosexual marriage is bad, or that incest is not bad in order to win this debate.
- Incest-made kids are genetically less smart than other children.
- Incest-marriage is bad for the future of the family.
- Homosexual and incestuous marriages are different and should not be treated the same way. The former is nowhere as bad as the latter. "
- Marriage result in children, most of the time. With this logic, Incestuous couples would most likely reproduce.
- Children of incest couples often are of disabilities or defects
- Thus, incestuous couples would most likely be detrimental to the future of the family itself.
- Humans aren't meant to be incestuous with sex and marriage. The fact humans are hardwired NOT to develop attractions with relatives, and the fact children created in this way are more likely to be defects, supports my idea.
So no, incestuous marriage does not require sex.
Due to incestuous marriages not requiring children or sex to make them what they are, this whole section has been eliminated.
- If marriage usually results in intended children, then a choice that obviously results in defect children wouldn't be supported, endorsed, or encouraged, even if it could be possibly done.
Being that incestuous married folks can abstain from or engage in non-reproductive sex like same sex married people, it also induces no deleterious effect.
So there are no similarities whatsoever. Is that right?
If both of these type of couples wish to get married on the grounds of marrying who they love, how is that not the same thing?If you were to support both of these types of marriages for that one reason, how is that not on the same grounds?
Why would I ever in this exchange attempt to show same sex marriage is wrong when the premise is to support both of these things the same, incestuous and same sex marriage?
So you can answer that previous question I presented. Can we honestly say that the reason to support both of these types of marriage can't be the same? See it's all about the reason that tells you how they can be supported the same. Not so much about what's more right or wrong. It's not what's more justified. It's about SUPPORTING , SUPPORTING, THESE THINGS, JUST , JUST, JUST THE SAME. So how can I support one thing with the SAME basis as the other? I already presented one idea regarding love.
But I think the first thing you have to tackle is the meaning of incestuous. You're going to have to consider that it doesn't just have a "one facet" element to it.
- Even if it could be allowed, Incestuous marriage should not be supported and endorsed as it has a big risk of ruining the future of the family.
- Humans, sometimes are created to be Gay, but humans aren't even created to marry their siblings or family.
- Incest has a MUCH higher rate of defect children
- More than 90% of married couples have children.
- Children are valued in marriages and are considered responsibilities.
- Marriage does not equal love, and marriage has responsibilities.
- Avoiding the problem does not make the problem solve itself
- Because of claims 1, 2, and 3, Incest creating something that is bad for the marriage became a fact.
- Because of claims 4, 5, and 6, Incestuous marriage should not be endorsed due to the problem with children that my opponent avoided but didn't respond to.
Can you accept that an incestuous married couple not having children? Regardless of sex being present or not, can you actually accept that scenario?
That's step 1, step 2, if the couple desires to be married, each one wishes to marry who they love and your support is for that reason likewise to a sex same couple wishing to marry, how is this not supporting both of these in the same way?
Very clear cut down to the line here. No responses about unrealistic, not possible, what's expected, what you presuppose, none of that please.
- My opponent has dodged my reasons, and he did not make an effort to refute any of my reasons.
- My opponent has to prove that love is marriage, and both are equal.
- Otherwise, he must come up with a new reason that can explain and justify his stance, because he didn't.
I asked can an incestuous married couple exist without them having a product of themselves.I didn't get a yes or no.
You continue to state babies with birth defects and nobody's arguing against that. You're not facing the question above as it eliminates the scenario you continue to run to. Without it I guess you have no place to go. Nothing to argue except running back to the same point .It's either a yes or a no.
Also what you're misunderstanding here , this is not about a justifiable reason to support something. I'll probably say this for the last time. When you can support two things for the same reason, you're supporting them just the same. This debate is not about having a good reason. It doesn't matter what the reason is other than accepting the reason is the same. This debate is not about what marriage is suppose to mean. You leave that up to the married folks. It's NOOOOO business of ours. All I did was suggest one example one can support something on the same grounds. That's all there is to it. You don't seem to just leave it at that as this has you to go no where with your arguments.
You want to focus on the justification for support, which the debate premise never detailed at all. It simply introduced the thought of supporting two things in the same way. So your job would simply be to show that it's impossible to support these things on the same ground.
To support same sex marriage, Endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
It is possible To support same sex marriage and Endorse incestuous marriage just the same.
Bump
Y'all are welcome to vote.
Often these things go something like this:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/marriage-equality-not-slippery-slope/
How is this slippery slope?
I’m mildly curious if this rises above a slippery slope fallacy.
I would regulate consensual incest; with a vasectomy, an IUD, and a condom being mandatory in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
This guy was on DDO right...?