Homosexual Marriage

He, as well, constructs coherent and well stated arguments. My opponent claims that my sources are tainted, be cited from the dreaded Wikipedia. However, you will notice that when I cite these sources, 1 of these three is a graph of the crime rate (how can that be edited? ), and the other 2 are simply pages about the fallacies I mentioned. The appeal to nature and genetic fallacy are much less common than the slippery slope fallacy, for example. I merely put those references so anyone who is not familiar with the aforementioned fallacies won't be confused on what it is (in other words, it was for my opponent and the readers' sake). There is nothing shaky about what I have done. ========== Con Claims: Homosexual marriage is contradictory within its own terms. ========== Again, my opponent is off-topic. The whole POINT of this debate, of this issue, is to change the definition of marriage! The definitions of words always changes, since the beginning of society. For example, the word attic used to mean vagina. Not only that, but new words are being created. Several dictionaries now have "Google" as a valid word! So for my opponent to argue that the definitions "collide" is to simply dissuade you, the voters, from what this debate is really about. ========== Gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage and create havoc in society. ========== Again, my opponent seems to be stuck in the muck of "it's not defined that way! ". Well duh, that is obviously the point. I am not arguing that polygamy and incest are currently part of the definition of marriage. I NEVER SAID THAT. Nor did I say that the only reasons people need to get married is to be consenting adults. I NEVER SAID THAT. I said it SHOULD. The key word is _should_. [quote]"People would begin getting married to their cars, just as long as they love them right? "[quote] Did you not read my two requirements? How is a car consenting, if it has no brain? How is a car an adult, if it can't grow? ========== Con Claims: Marriage is a fundamental order of family structure in society. ========== Again, my opponent's big paragraph basically begs one question: why does marriage HAVE to include sexual reproduction? He dodges my two fallacies I included in my previous argument. If he says marriage is for sexual reproduction because that was the original meaning of marriage, then he is committing the genetic fallacy. It doesn't MATTER what the original meaning of something was if the current meaning is changed (a marriage ring used to signify bondage and a man *owning* a woman). If he says that it's "natural", then he is committing the appeal to nature fallacy. You see why it was important for me to give those Wikipedia links to the fallacies I listed? You seemed to have not read them or understand them, because you wouldn't make this same argument. [quote]"All heterosexual couples who get married have the chance or opportunity to have kids and create a family. "[quote] And heterosexual couples can't have kids and a family without getting married? It would be ridiculous to say that marriage is the only way to reproduce - it's merely a label and an obtainment of rights for you and your spouse. [quote]"I just want to say this comes back to one of my main points. Gay couples naturally cannot reproduce, so wouldn't that send an alarm signal saying that gay couples aren't supposed to be together hence shouldn't be married? Gay men and gay women have no possibility of reproducing or leaving their "legacy" to their own child. Normal nature proves that gay marriage should not be. "[quote] Again, the appeal to nature fallacy. Refer to previous argument, and hell to the previous round. ========== Con Claims: Gay marriage will destroy the infrastructure of society ========== [quote]"The Skeptic then challenges me to describe how two men or women doing it privately will affect the infrastructure of society. Since The Skeptic did not refer to gay marriage in this rebuttal, I cannot infer what he was asking me to say or do. Hence, his argument should be invalid. If he wants me to answer him in the following round, he needs to directly address gay marriage. "[quote] EL-OH-EL! What a cop-out! So my argument/rhetorical question is simply dodged because I replaced "gay couple" with "two men or two women"? Where is this hidden debate rule where it states that you can't use synonyms? Here, to end any quarrel: what does the actions of a gay couple in the privacy of their bed have to do the downfall of society? [quote]"The acceptance of gay marriage leads people to believe that gay marriage is acceptable. "[quote] We are obviously arguing whether or not gay marriage is acceptable; if it's morally acceptable. [quote]"It will destruct the morals and ethics of society by leading people to believe and accept gay marriage, which is against the institution of marriage. Gay marriage will lead to the wearing down of the morals and principles of people in society. "[quote] Typical phrasing, but strip away the fancy words and you get an empty dish. You are committing the slippery slope fallacy if you don't show exactly how legalizing gay marriage will "[destroy] the morals and ethics of society". =========== Con Claims: Marriage is to become "sexually whole" or "one"/sexually reproduce. =========== My opponent COMPLETELY misses my main argument concerning this. Being married gives RIGHTS to the couple involved. A little more than 1000 federal rights, and several hundred state rights (obviously depends what state you live in). These include hospital visitation rights, and many rights involving taxes (usually resulting in more financial security). Has my opponent read past all my major arguments? [quote]"I am simply saying that if you look at the nature of gays, they cannot reproduce. .. Natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowable. "[quote] This. Is. HILARIOUS. The quote I present to you from my opponent is his response to my claim that if he says gay marriage is wrong because it isn't natural, you are committing the fallacy of appealing to nature. If you read his last sentence, he says "natural nature disproves that gay marriage should be allowed", which DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE FALLACY! I am seriously doubting my opponent has read the sources I gave for his own benefit. ========== Con Claims: The majority will of the people is against marriage, therefore society will be against gay marriage ========== My opponent accuses me of giving a counterargument, but he fails to see that his claim IS NOT an argument, but a tautology! You say that the majority of people are against gay marriage, therefore society (which is another word for saying the majority of the people) is against gay marriage. Well duh. This is a fact! A descriptive statement! This debate is about whether or not gay marriage SHOULD be legalized, a prescriptive issue. It doesn't matter what the majority of people believe. Now, if you argue that BECAUSE the society believe gay marriage is wrong, then it must be wrong, then you are a cultural relativist. Not only that, but you commit the ad populum fallacy. What the majority of people believe does not mean it is true, or that it should be so. ========= Legalizing gay marriage may influence people to become gay. ========= First, my opponent does not respond to my question of how legalizing gay marriage will make more people gay. Where is the science, I ask. Secondly, he misses the point. His argument begs the question: why is homosexuality wrong? He makes it seem as a dead end when he states it will make people gay. So yeah, let's say it will. SO WHAT? Why does it matter? My opponent needs to clean up his conclusion. ========= Conclusion ========= There hasn't been much new material in this round. My opponent needs to read my argument