Same-sex Marriage

[Mythbuster]

I often debate on the issue of SSM. As a homosexual, I fully support it. Here is something I see almost every time.

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Does this argument hold any water?


Ps, sorry if I seem to ask too many questions. I have a love of learning both sides of the argument.

Pss, if anyone can help me in the debate, I'd appreciate it.

[Broletariat]

The acceptable response to this debate.

1. if in person, a fist

2. if in internet, "lol"

[Mythbuster]

LOL! so true, but this is actually a serious and formal debate. I also need help rebuting my oppnen't rebuttals. I wish I ca. post links.

[Broletariat]

LOL! so true, but this is actually a serious and formal debate. I also need help rebuting my oppnen't rebuttals. I wish I ca. post links.

There's nothing serious about the argument presented tbh.

I mean, they're seriously arguing you need to incentivise people to marry the opposite sex? What the fuck kind of world do they live in.

[Mythbuster]

Lol. Anyways, my opponent states that I beg a few questions:
1. Why should we chamge the definition of marriage?
2. What shoukd we change it to?
3. Why is that definition the only or the best definition for marriage.

Ay help?

[WeAreReborn]

Lol. Anyways, my opponent states that I beg a few questions:
1. Why should we chamge the definition of marriage?
2. What shoukd we change it to?
3. Why is that definition the only or the best definition for marriage.

Ay help?
We shouldn't change the definition. The definition of marriage is sex neutral. "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship." Homosexual couples deserve the 1000+ benefits that the government gives to married couples. They also deserved to be equals, materially and under the law.

[Mythbuster]

We shouldn't change the definition. The definition of marriage is sex neutral. "Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship." Homosexual couples deserve the 1000+ benefits that the government gives to married couples. They also deserved to be equals, materially and under the law.

Ok, where at other than wikipedia? The legal definition applies a man and woman. He gives the dic.com definition

[WeAreReborn]

Ok, where at other than wikipedia? The legal definition applies a man and woman. He gives the dic.com definition
Ah I suppose you are correct. Well then that is what you can suggest to change it to. But why should it change? To ensure equality for all. Before interracial marriage was illegal, yet that was changed. Now is no different. The definition of marriage is consistently changing. Before it was to enslave the women to the man. Now it is based off of mutual love, or in theory is. It changes by the culture and time, now is no different.

[Mythbuster]

Ah I suppose you are correct. Well then that is what you can suggest to change it to. But why should it change? To ensure equality for all. Before interracial marriage was illegal, yet that was changed. Now is no different. The definition of marriage is consistently changing. Before it was to enslave the women to the man. Now it is based off of mutual love, or in theory is. It changes by the culture and time, now is no different.

Thanks. Can someone rep this post for me?

Anyways, I still need help rebuting his rebuttals of my case.

[WeAreReborn]

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).
Most heterosexual unions aren't solely based on reproduction. Not to mention a lot of LGBT couples adopt children, which is much more beneficial to society then reproduction.


2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.
What does this mean? Saying something is innately "special" is ridiculous. To some it may hold special sentiment to others it might not. Same goes for everything. This is not different.


3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.
Based on the same nonsense as above. And so are all the other questions. Why doesn't gay marriage hold "special value"? To homosexual couples it does. To people for homosexual marriage it does. Just because it doesn't to said person doesn't mean shit. He is basing the whole argument on his own perspective. It is a fallacious argument.

[Mythbuster]

again, thanks SO much. I love revleft amd have great respect for y'all. Here is the debate link
gosh, I wish I could post the link

[CommunityBeliever]

indispensable means by which humans come into existence

Here is how you dispute this:



There an infertile heterosexual couples.
There already is over-population so adoption is more beneficial then reproduction.
Heterosexual marriage isn't a purely practical relationship based on reproduction. Heterosexual couples don't just have sex to reproduce because sex != reproduction.

[DaringMehring]

I often debate on the issue of SSM. As a homosexual, I fully support it. Here is something I see almost every time.




1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).


O RLY? "Heterosexual union" is "the indispensable means by which humans come into existence"? So -- no children are ever born out of wedlock?

What about societies that did not have "heterosexual union" as we understand it today? For instance, polygamy, or communal mating? I guess they could not reproduce, so therefore they didn't exist?

What we call marriage today is a historically contextual social construct that is not uniquely indispensable to human reproduction.



2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.


It is already obvious that this chain is built on the faulty foundation of "we can only reproduce biologically via today's heterosexual marriage" (which by the way didn't always and everywhere exist and we have been changing since forever). But this is yet again a faulty continuation.

Who decides what is of value to society? Philosophers? Capitalists? Probably basically everyone but the majority. So in whose interest is it for the population to increase or decrease? Do we need to maximize population growth?



4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.


Hell yeah or there wouldn't be any point in them. Separate but equal is never equal.



5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

Does this argument hold any water?


No because it is predicated on two, if not more, false premises -- that heterosexual marriage is "indispensable" to procreation (tell that to the single moms) and that lots of procreation is highly desirable (who says so?).

It also totally ignores any type of framing, whereby you counterpose benefits of homosexual marriage -- eg social value of equality, removing stigma from 5-10% of population, etc. -- and compare their scale to the negatives the argument is (falsely) asserting. So even if the false argument stood, they'd still have to show, that it is more important than other considerations, which they don't even attempt to do.

Why? Because it's a bogus attempt at rationalizing a prejudice, not an honest attempt to determine social optimality.

[Mythbuster]

again, thanks. I am gonna post the link soon so everyone can help me rebut his rebuttals.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Not married, never been married, having a kid.

This whole debate is so outdated. Marriage has stopped having any significant notions in society at all, in my opinion. It is merely a relationship of economic contract, and one which is used to deny equal rights to homosexuals.

[Mythbuster]

ok. Thoughts on civil unions anyone?

[Mythbuster]

ps, here is the link http://www.debate.org/debates/Same-sex-marriage-SSM-Should-Be-Legal-in-the-USA/1/
I need help rebuting the rebuttals. Please?

[tachosomoza]

I don't even bother to debate with reactionary rabble anymore.

[Mythbuster]

I honestly do not blame you. It's like talking to a brick wall—But worse

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Why do you bother to debate with someone over this?

Being against gay marriage is flat-out oppression; it's disgustingly dehumanizing.

If I were you I wouldn't waste my time with someone trying to legitimize those views.

[Mythbuster]

canis is absolutely correct. I think this'll be my final debate.

[stageleft]

Civil Unions: the "colored only" drinking fountains of marriage.

[∞]

1. Let gays marry
2. Mind your own business
3. STFU
4.?????
5. Become a better person.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Civil Unions: the "colored only" drinking fountains of marriage.
I've never heard someone say that before. You're right. It's absolutely akin to the "separate but equal" days. Not a direct parallel as there are no "gay bathrooms" and "gay school systems" such, but ... metaphorically speaking.

[∞]

Not even equal.

[Aspiring Humanist]

As a bisexual anarchist I always say the state has no moral authority to be conducting or legislating marriages