Instigator / Pro
6
1420
rating
398
debates
44.1%
won
Topic
#2227
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
After 1 vote and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
Mall
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
4
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
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
You can support both of these types of marriages on the same grounds.
The most basic, the reason , the right to marry who you love.
What the world needs now is love sweet love .
The problem with incest is not necessarily only social, but scientific. "...it can keep so-called "bad" genes in the gene pool and compound their effects, said Debra Lieberman, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Hawaii. (https://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20incest%20is,of%20surviving%2C%22%20Lieberman%20said.) The chances are nearly 50% (
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest).Since it is evolutionary less advantageous than normal non-incestuous relations, I believe that incest relations encourage negative traits in babies.
The second problem is that the familial love and sexual love begin to compete against each other. Do you not agree, that family has obligation to help each other in their relation? But this natural secure and unconditional love has shifted to love based on attraction of personality and sexuality. Many say that even best friends should not risk sexual love, if they feel they cannot support each other physically in this manner. This would crack and endanger their original family relation. This is why incest is not good.
Finally, my opponent's argument falls empty even with homosexual marriage: why should you be able to marry anyone you love? What if a 30 year old man "loved" a 6 year old who "loved" him back? What if I loved a dead corpse? The line must be drawn somewhere, else the world is in chaos. Keep in mind that evolutionarily, again, homosexuals cannot reproduce, a clear showing that they cannot keep the world living. Kant has provided a way to judge if something is moral or not: if everyone doing it is okay, then it is fine. However, if everyone was homosexual, we would go extinct, unless we miraculously provided a way to fertilize women. Therefore, unless you can negate Immanuel Kant's idea, you cannot prove that even homosexual marriage should be allowed.
Round 2
If your only argument is the problem with offspring, I have a solution for this. It's similar to what same sex married folks do to avoid STDs, HIV, ETC .
That is the use of contraception or abstinence. That'll solve that problem . I hope you're for solving problems and not discriminating.
Same sex married people as well as incestuous married folks don't require sexuality to make them what they are.
Now once you Google the word "incestuous", particularly looking at the second definition, it shows technically what can qualify as such.
Now this debate is not about justification of a reason such as love. It's just demonstrated that both of these types of marriages can be supported with the same reason. Just these two types so it doesn't involve necrophilia. Not for this exchange but perhaps in another.
But basically both of these things can be supported on the same grounds. NOT only that but on top of that, the cons can be worked out in both situations to have the pros in both outshine, with the enjoyment of their fruit.
my opponent makes a decent point about preventative measures, however, he has still not supported the precise exact legality of marriage. Because of pre-concieved notions of people, "The results of this study demonstrate that living in a state that has just passed a marriage amendment is associated with higher levels of psychological stress for lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens," Rostosky said. "And this stress is not due to other pre-existing conditions or factors; it is a direct result of the negative images and messages associated with the ballot campaign and the passage of the amendment."" (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-sexual-continuum/200811/why-not-allow-gay-marriage). It seems too unreasonable to give people tax benefits, health insurance, so on and so forth, especially if they do not contribute to the natural cycle of life. That was why so many people argue for Civil union instead: It still allows the couple to be together and love each other, without competing for the same problems, gaining financial/legal advantages. They are still legally protected, but it is much less controversial than marriage.
In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that homosexual and incestuous relationships are as productive to the world as normal marriage, otherwise, Civil unions will suffice.
Round 3
"In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that homosexual and incestuous relationships are as productive to the world as normal marriage, otherwise, Civil unions will suffice."
But is this any where in the debate topic statement or description? I don't think I stated anything about it being a fact or it being proven that homosexual and incestuous relationships are as productive.
The language first of all , I used was SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE. I didn't get into productivity, societal contribution, the good or the bad, finance , taxes and these things can go up for a different debate at another time.
We're really just approaching this matter with a neutral and equal like attitude. Not swaying to one being over the other. That is supporting both things on the same cause.That same cause for example , simply equality. Now can this be done? That's all we're establishing here. Any issues after that going deeper politically or morally is taking this off focus. It'll get convoluted and lost in the point of the topic.
So again, the epicenter, if we can't support these things with the same cause, why not? What are the cons that are strong enough to defeat the possibility or purpose in doing so?
the cons are that they do not need the legal support marriage gives. My opponent conceded that incestuous and gay marriage do not need to give birth or take care of children. As such, they have less needs than usual marriages. My opponent must overcome the fact that normal marriage have a huge burden on them, with assumption that they have more offspring to take care of, as most people marry in order to have sex without worry (as it can end up with having children). As such, because they carry on the idea of society, they deserve tax deductions, better rates on home and auto insurance, so on and so forth. My opponent vouches for equality, but civil unions already give the legal protection they need to live on without worry. Why do they deserve the same amount of massive benefits?
Remember and consider the past, the history, established basis for marriage. "For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage." (https://www.cpjustice.org/public/page/content/marriage_not_civil_right) In contrary, this is not necessary in civil unions, as this is a more casual and generic bond. Most people support civil union for homosexuals, in contrast to gay marriage.
Because of established traditions, because of expectations of married couples, civil unions would still be fair and just as they allow gays to establish a legal and formal bond. Because of its more general purpose, more people support it, allowing for greater happiness among the people. My opponent has not pointed out any problems with civil unions over marriages.
Round 4
"the cons are that they do not need the legal support marriage gives. "
Regardless, it's true that both types of marriages can be supported with the same cause.
"My opponent conceded that incestuous and gay marriage do not need to give birth or take care of children"
What do you mean "conceded"?
I'm the one that gave you the solution to your problem with offspring. You started off your position with incestuous married folks that have children and I indicated not necessarily due to contraception, etc.
"As such, they have less needs than usual marriages. My opponent must overcome the fact that normal marriage have a huge burden on them, with assumption that they have more offspring to take care of, as most people marry in order to have sex without worry (as it can end up with having children). "
Why are you determining need? Your position for doing so is none. We don't have a part in people's marriages. Their reason is their business for marriage and theirs as far as a decision on children. Their purpose for marriage is between them.
"As such, because they carry on the idea of society, they deserve tax deductions, better rates on home and auto insurance, so on and so forth. My opponent vouches for equality, but civil unions already give the legal protection they need to live on without worry. Why do they deserve the same amount of massive benefits? "
Who knows? We know we can support both types of marriages on the same cause. Doesn't matter what the cause is for this debate.
"A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage."
Legally it's a marriage. That's not debatable.
"Most people support civil union for homosexuals, in contrast to gay marriage."
Enough support is available to legislate same sex marriage. People support same sex marriage and whether realizing it or not, that support is applicable to incestuous marriage as there would be no contradiction based on the cause.
"Because of established traditions, because of expectations of married couples, civil unions would still be fair and just as they allow gays to establish a legal and formal bond. Because of its more general purpose, more people support it, allowing for greater happiness among the people. My opponent has not pointed out any problems with civil unions over marriages."
Why would I? Is the debate about same sex couples in civil unions versus being married?
Hello, is this thing on?
So again, the epicenter, if we can't support SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE with the same cause, why not? What are the cons that are strong enough to defeat the possibility or purpose in doing so?
my opponent does not understand that most marriages lead to having children. Incest and homosexual does not have this same problem (at least one more person to take care of), thus, they do not deserve the same benefits. They are NOT equal because it takes much more money to support three or more people than just two people. My opponent has not come up with a way to counter this idea.
He has FAILED to counter the fact that people support civil unions far more, thus, it would cause far less unrest within the population or stress among the people. He has FAILED to counter the fact that Incest/Homosexual do not have as much people to take care of, and thus do not deserve the same amount of tax and financial assistance as normal married people. He has FAILED to contend my argument that it still gives them equal legal protection without overly committing and giving them extra money than they actually need. Legally and socially, Civil unions would be superior to marriages, and my opponent has NOT defeated this point.
Round 5
"my opponent does not understand that most marriages lead to having children"
The logic of this is like saying because many get a divorce , that's going to be me.
No I'm my own individual. You don't get to dictate my situation. So if ALL situations are not the same, can't use a cop out and discredit the exceptions no matter how right you desperately want to be in your position.
"Incest and homosexual does not have this same problem (at least one more person to take care of), thus, they do not deserve the same benefits. They are NOT equal because it takes much more money to support three or more people than just two people. My opponent has not come up with a way to counter this idea."
THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE. THIS IS NOTHING OF THE DEBATE.
Please find where I stated an argument for benefits.
THE EXACT REASON FOR SUPPORTING BOTH TYPE OF MARRIAGES IS FOR ANOTHER DEBATE. AS LONG AS WE KNOW WE CAN SUPPORT BOTH WITH THE SAME REASON, THE TOPIC STATEMENT IS NOT FALSE.
THE EXACT REASON FOR SUPPORTING BOTH TYPE OF MARRIAGES IS FOR ANOTHER DEBATE. AS LONG AS WE KNOW WE CAN SUPPORT BOTH WITH THE SAME REASON, THE TOPIC IS NOT FALSE.
THE EXACT REASON FOR SUPPORTING BOTH TYPE OF MARRIAGES IS FOR ANOTHER DEBATE. AS LONG AS WE KNOW WE CAN SUPPORT BOTH WITH THE SAME REASON, THE TOPIC STATEMENT IS NOT FALSE.
DO YOU FOLLOW NOW? SHALL I REPEAT?
"He has FAILED to counter the fact that people support civil unions far more, thus, it would cause far less unrest within the population or stress among the people. "
No disrespect but I'm debating a wall . This was responded to before . Please come to life and communicate. Hello, is anybody there?
" He has FAILED to counter the fact that Incest/Homosexual do not have as much people to take care of, and thus do not deserve the same amount of tax and financial assistance as normal married people. He has FAILED to contend my argument that it still gives them equal legal protection without overly committing and giving them extra money than they actually need. Legally and socially, Civil unions would be superior to marriages, and my opponent has NOT defeated this point."
So sorry, you're in the wrong debate. Somehow you got this confused with something else .
Now in this debate, the epicenter, if we can't support SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE with the same cause, why not? What are the cons that are strong enough to defeat the possibility or purpose in doing so?
You have given no arguments on the cons . You're preaching about tax benefits and disputing same sex marriage to be just civil unions instead. Separate topic and issue. Don't accept a debate doing this. Automatic disqualification.
my opponent has failed to realize that civil unions vs marriage is a very valid argument: Both offer equal legal protection, both offer a way that two can be together happily and romantically. However, he has continued with his endless argument that I have failed my burden of proof, while I offered many reasons why civil unions are superior, that because incest/homosexual do not need that much financial support, they should not have as much support as marry couples. In addition, unusual marriages causes unrest in the population and is very controversial. He has not negated the help to society by giving them civil unions. Vote for con.
Less than a day remains for voting.
A little feedback for the debaters:
I tried to get through this, but con's R1 conclusion about opposing same sex marriage via Kantian ethics, seemed to drift off topic. Then pro's R2, looked like it has been copy/pasted from another debate on the same subject, rather than replying to con's actual points.