Instigator / Pro

Mall

1389

rating

413

debates

44.55%

won

Topic

#2117

To support same sex marriage, Endorse incestuous marriage just the same

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

User_2006

Tags

People

Parameters

Publication date: 06.19.2020 12:49PM
Last updated date: 07.04.2020 10:18PM
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

Contender / Con

User_2006

1470

rating

debates

40.0%

won

Description

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.

Round 1

Mall

06.19.2020 11:23PM

Pro

The description of the debate you can consider as first round argument. Basically can these two types of marriages be supported on the same grounds?

User_2006

06.20.2020 12:34AM

Con

BoP is on Pro, and if I type anything in this round I get the upper ground(That just rhymed).

Since Pro did not make any clear points, I will.

Same-Sex Marriage: One man marry another man, or one woman marry another woman. That should be clear.

Incestuous marriage: A person marrying his/her relatives.

I am in support of same-sex marriage, but not in incestuous marriage. Here is why.

1. Incestuous marriage must be activated by two relatives HAVING SEX.

The link in Wikipedia shows that incest is two relatives having sex, and Incestuous marriage would be the two, who are related and had sex with each other, marry. Marriage results in kids, obviously. Most of the married couples have at least one child, according to this data[1]. Only 9% of couples have no children at all, and that is just in the US. the average fertility rate in the US is 1.7 children per woman[2]

So, since Sex results in children(That shouldn't even need sources whatsoever), and most couples, no matter what type, have children, thus it is in question if the kids are healthy.

No, in fact, they aren't. According to this site[3], Incest-made kids are usually disabled due to their lack of variety in DNAs, and variety is good. There are examples in the good old days in which royal families in Europe, preventing having a king with the blood od a peasant, have sex with their relatives. Results are ugly, stupid princes and kings that are incompetent in the rule of the nation[4]. Again, This, everyone knows.

Conclusion:

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.

Unless my opponent can prove that children are not important to marriage at all, my point remains stable.

2. Same-sex marriage does not bring anything detrimental to the marriage itself.

Research shows that children of gay families did almost as well as those in heterosexual households[5], and because of the broken condition of Gay rights, they behave in the same manner as those who were in poverty, etc...(Broken heterosexual households). So in conclusion, Homosexual marriage does not equate to a bad future for the kids if they are taken care of.

Conclusion:

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.

Sources

[1]https://www.quora.com/What-percent-of-American-married-couples-never-have-kids

[2]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=US

[3]https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest

[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_intermarriage#Inbreeding

[5]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/

Vote Con!

Round 2

Mall

06.20.2020 02:09PM

Pro

"Since Pro did not make any clear points, I will. "

Of course, it's pretty much a neutral subject until someone offers something against it.

"1. Incestuous marriage must be activated by two relatives HAVING SEX. "

Well this is where we may have trouble with definitions. But it's up to you to accept this or not. Incestuous marriage doesn't require sex to make it incestuous. A product of that marriage is not needed to make it incestuous. One of the definitions for incestuous when googled is : excessively close in human relation. So you have to consider that this is multi-defined and consider how the person is defining something when using a term. First thing to do is to get clarity and understanding of all the language the person is using .

So no, incestuous marriage does not require sex.

"Conclusion:

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.

Unless my opponent can prove that children are not important to marriage at all, my point remains stable. "

Due to incestuous marriages not requiring children or sex to make them what they are, this whole section has been eliminated.

"2. Same-sex marriage does not bring anything detrimental to the marriage itself. "

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.

"Research shows that children of gay families did almost as well as those in heterosexual households[5], and because of the broken condition of Gay rights, they behave in the same manner as those who were in poverty, etc...(Broken heterosexual households). So in conclusion, Homosexual marriage does not equate to a bad future for the kids if they are taken care of. "

Anybody can possibly attempt to prove to be a good parent if they got what it takes. I do mean anybody of any sexual orientation. Even the sexual orientations YOU LOOK AT as disorders.

"Conclusion:

Homosexual and incestuous marriages are different and should not be treated the same way. The former is nowhere as bad as the latter. "

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?

"My opponent has to either prove that homosexual marriage is bad, or that incest is not bad in order to win this debate. "

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.

Now about children and health risks. There's all kinds of risks in any relationship. You know or should know that the key is to be proactive, have a protection plan and back up plan. It would be good and helpful to be resourceful.

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.

User_2006

06.20.2020 07:13PM

Con

1. Incest is genetically discouraging

My opponent had made zero effort refuting this set of true, evidence-backed, claims.

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.

I would also state that there is barely any reason for humans to commit sex with family members. The Royal families of the old European Nations did that is to prevent peasant blood in the royal family's future and in the cases of normal humans, they are hardwired to not develop sexual and romantic attractions to their brothers, sisters, and relatives[1].

So, the conclusion here:

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.

Rebuttals regarding this topic

So no, incestuous marriage does not require sex.

Yes, it doesn't require Sex, and a nation does not need a military, and a house does not need a lighting system, and an aircraft requires no safety mechanisms. Proving that there are cases in which incestuous marriage has no sex, does not bring a dent to my argument because 91% of the couples still have offsprings. This would imply that most couples, no matter the format, would have children.

And of course, most nations that thrive well have a military. Most houses that people could actually live in has lights. Most planes that people would actually fly on have safety mechanisms. One example does not alter the full picture, at least in this case, just like one nation having no army does not mean having a national army is overrated.

Due to incestuous marriages not requiring children or sex to make them what they are, this whole section has been eliminated.

Pro has, again, avoided my inquiry. The fact that some examples that incestuous couples does not have children does not mean that they aren't genetically bad. Avoiding doing the task does not mean the task will solve itself. I am not sure what Pro is thinking, but he has clearly avoided it.

2. Being gay does not mean a defect children

Incestuous marriage is not the same as gay marriage as I have previously explained, and my opponent has yet to construct a constructive claim against mine.

Genetically and behavior-wise, you could be Gay[2], and yes, you could be programmed to be Gay. However, Another reason for incest is that one of the two thought the other one has attractive traits of others, in other words, they didn't think that their sister/brother is their sister/brother. This is on top of that they will most likely give birth to defect children, something that can be easily prevented if they just slept with some other person.

And no, marriage is not just about love. Marriage usually results in children and most religions even list the priority of marriage as the future for the family; a child or more[3]. If a couple has a relationship that has a very high risk of having defect children, then it might as well be not supported.

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.

I have also stated that children of gay families does not suffer detrimentally in behaviors the same way the children in incestuous families do. My opponent has not responded to it, instead, he dodged the kicker.

Rebuttals regarding this section

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.

Dodging the problem won't make the problem solve itself. I have stated and I will restate. Incestuous-born children are of defects, at a MUCH higher rate.

As well, my opponent needs to prove why incestuous sex should be SUPPORTED and ENDORSED. I want my opponent to prove why a choice that results in defect children should be endorsed.

So there are no similarities whatsoever. Is that right?

No. Look above if you're still confused.

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?

I will repeat again: Incest result in defect children but Gay marriage does not. You might as well marry a cockroach and a refrigerator. I get that brothers and sisters could love each other, but marriage? not equivalent to love, and it means responsibilities[4].

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?

Because it isn't entirely different, thus it is the same! What sense does that make?

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.

It is not my opponent's job to show that one can support everything. I could support the Nazis as I support the US. My opponent need to prove why we SHOULD support both of them.

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 I use my opponent's definition, my points still stand as concrete.

Conclusions:

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.

Sources

[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolving-mechanism-avoid-sibling-sex/

[2]https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764

[3]https://www.foryourmarriage.org/meaning-and-purpose/

[4]https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/getting-married-overview-29966.html

Round 3

Mall

06.22.2020 11:14AM

Pro

I'm going to make this as simple as simple can be.

We don't have to go all around the world with this.

Clearly your main concern is with children.

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.

Just straightforward and honest. Answer as directly as asked.

User_2006

06.24.2020 03:35PM

Con

My opponent has made no response to these claims.

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.

My opponent agreed that same-sex marriage is not bad on its own, so there is nothing more to say.

Can you accept that an incestuous married couple not having children? Regardless of sex being present or not, can you actually accept that scenario?

See claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6

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?

This sentence would suggest that marrying a human should be treated the same as marrying an arbitrary object just because of love. However, marriage isn't love itself. It equals to responsibilities. If I marry a refrigerator does it do the dishes? If I marry a pencil does it take care of my children? If I marry a piece of paper does it pay the bills? Love may be vital for a marriage, but love isn't marriage.

I have proven that incest results in defect children in much higher rates and that could be bad for the marriage itself, and I have proven that people are not intended to love their siblings or family, based on studies. My opponent has made no response.

Very clear cut down to the line here. No responses about unrealistic, not possible, what's expected, what you presuppose, none of that please.

This argument is self-defeating because my opponent's scenario presented has less of a chance of happening than what I suggest. 91% of incestuous couples, more or less, are expected to have the risk of having at least one defect child that will be bad for the marriage, and a lot of money will be put for hospital fees. That's a no-brainer.

Conclusion:

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.

Round 4

Mall

06.27.2020 09:43PM

Pro

I believe you're not answering the questions as the honest answers would invalidate.

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.

See it's that simple. You've read too much into this and complexing it like the Dickens.

User_2006

06.27.2020 10:18PM

Con

PRO has used ZERO sources, and I believe I should get the sources points.

I asked can an incestuous married couple exist without them having a product of themselves.
I didn't get a yes or no.

I would answer YES. However, parents who are without children remain the minority and most parents make babies. Pro has never countered that since when I made this argument.

I cannot find any studies about incestuous marriages and children. However, I know that overall, the child-bearing couples versus the childless couples are in a ratio of approximately 10 to 1, and it is implied that in any group, the statistics would be similar. PRO has never brought any sources that show the majority of incestuous marriages have no kids, nor that they have little risk of defect children, nor that children are not important in most marriages. I have brought sources that show Children are common responsibilities in marriages, and Incestuous marriages will produce something that is clearly detrimental to one of the common responsibilities of marriage itself.

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.

PRO concedes that Incestuous marriages produce defect babies. However, PRO committed a fallacy in which he states, As long as incestuous marriages produce fewer babies, it should be endorsed. However, PRO has never argued against my reason that most parents have children, and he kept dodging the kicker.

Endorsed

Suppose I am in a state in which smoking weed is legal, should I support and endorse smoking weed? No! Even if it is allowed, endorse it would mean you support something that is proven to be harmful to our health.

As well, if you gon' support and endorse all types of marriages as long as it is love, then pedophilia-driven marriage should also be legal. In reality, both are detrimental to at least one responsibility of marriage.

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.

The Title is PRO's BoP. Homosexual marriage and Incestuous marriage should be supported on the same grounds. This paragraph suggests that PRO supports incest only in a certain condition. Unless I see a certain condition written in the "Homosexual" side to make it balanced, PRO's BoP is to prove in all cases both types of marriages should be endorsed, because there is no condition written. Unless PRO actually proved that not having children or having little or no defects in the mode for incestuous marriages, PRO failed to meet his burden of proof.

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.

PRO putting the phrase "It is certainly possible" in the beginning of the topic would deem him an automatic win. Sadly anyone who can understand English would mean if homosexual marriages are to be supported, Incestuous marriages MUST be endorsed like Homosexual marriages. It is not even a musty mill, it is clear that the words show that the two must be supported in generally ALL occasions instead of at least one.

I don't think I am playing semantics. The title is what it is and if somehow Mall can call the hacker, the original title before this round is posted is:

To support same sex marriage, Endorse incestuous marriage just the same.

PRO's resolution, according to my understanding, is:

It is possible To support same sex marriage and Endorse incestuous marriage just the same.

I rest my case.

Sources:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2117/to-support-same-sex-marriage-endorse-incestuous-marriage-just-the-same

User_2006

06.29.2020 04:44PM

Bump

User_2006

06.28.2020 01:21AM

-->

@RationalMadman

@Trent0405

@PressF4Respect

@Crocodile

Y'all are welcome to vote.

Barney

06.26.2020 12:15AM

-->

@User_2006

Often these things go something like this:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/10/marriage-equality-not-slippery-slope/

User_2006

06.25.2020 08:26PM

-->

@Barney

How is this slippery slope?

Barney

06.22.2020 03:03PM

I’m mildly curious if this rises above a slippery slope fallacy.

TheUnderdog

06.19.2020 04:42PM

-->

@Mall

I would regulate consensual incest; with a vasectomy, an IUD, and a condom being mandatory in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

User_2006

06.19.2020 12:53PM

This guy was on DDO right...?

oromagi

07.02.2020 03:29AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

PRO failed to make an affirmative case proving that an incestuous marriage is "just the same" as gay marriage. As far as this VOTER is concerned the conflation is oxymoron. Marriage is by definition a legal and/or sacred bond that must meet certain basic conditions, the most basic of which is proof of no incest. There's no such thing as incestuous marriage in any practical sense, right? CON explained the obvious difference between the two and even went on to make a case for gay marriage as an improvement on inbreeding. PRO says fine, let's side the question of children aside from the question of marriage (a mighty big ask) and just examine whether a childless incest is just the same as gay marriage. I agree with PRO that CON dodged the question but PRO is neverthless focusing on minority cases when "just the same" already stands disproved and undefended.

POINT: CON

I would have given SOURCES to CON as well as argument had this been a 4 pt debate.

Barney

06.29.2020 05:52PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

This subject is simply a false dichotomy, but to vote I must still evaluate it...

Pro had the BoP, but he seemed to merely try to defend against con, which can at best bring this to a tie. As the person making the claim against the status quo, he needs to do just that: make a claim.

In refutations pro denies that incest leads to children, but the sources con already brought into the debate pre-refute this. Further con's sources prove harm to future generations. Pro could not find similar harm from gay people adopting children.