Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
419
debates
44.75%
won
Topic
#5636
There is absolutely no contradiction in not being against "interracial" but against same sex marriage.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
9
debates
55.56%
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.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Pro
#1
We get many newcomers that are no shows so before I take time out to elaborate a point, let's get an introduction from you.
What is your general impression upon reading out the topic?
Con
#2
Hmm, not a bad idea to wait for a response first. I was about to debate someone else on whether or not LGBT is innate, but they forfeited. They were new, just like me.
I'm a simple student looking to sharpen my brain. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and could use a sharpener. I think debates are one of the most effective sharpeners around. I could debate in youtube or tiktok comments, but those are too volatile.
They also dont let you type out so many words. I could write a whole essay here.
When I saw the debate topic I thought you might be a christian. A biblical one, idk. I do agree with your position as a Christian myself. However, I won't get smarter defending a position I agree with. If I can debate well for a position I'm against, I think I will gain more from that.
Btw, if you do happen to be a christian, do you mind if I use bible verses as a part of my arguments? We could both sharpen each other on the Word, and gay marriage can be a religious concern, so hopefully it's still related. And I can learn from what you learned from Scripture.
Well, I don't know how this debate will be judged, but I wish you luck. I hope I will do alright.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thank you.
This topic is not a religious one. The topic is about there being absolutely no contradiction in not being against "interracial" marriage while being against same sex marriage.
You can take this position in the secular sense .
You can use anything you wish to refute my position in it being a contradiction.
People believe it is a contradiction. This would have to be your position or the opposing position in this topic.
I say logically there is no contradiction. The reason to be against or reject same sex marriage is basically based on sexuality.
Either that or obviously gender related.
This isn't a very deep or in-depth topic.
So I'll leave it there and you can ask questions and or draw up arguments in attempt to refute what I said .
Con
#4
Being ok with interracial but not lgbt makes no sense because being against either is discriminating someone. Why does it matter the gender of the person someone's dating and not someone's race? What is the harm of lgbt?
Round 3
Pro
#5
Ok I guess we get down to where rubber meets road is the harm of homosexuality.
Being against same sex marriage which presumably leads to homosexuality is not in conflict with being not against or neutral on so called interracial marriage.
That's because the basis is different with the sexuality.
The criteria is sexuality, not skin color, ethnicity or nationality. A person can be against same sex marriage regardless of skin color. The basis is different so it has no contradiction.
This topic is not about what's harmful so we'll stay clear of that. If you want to debate the harm involved, let me know.
Here we're focusing on the basis of a position versus another.
I yield.
Con
#6
Being against interracial marriages and same sex marriages are similar, if not the same, because those kinds of beliefs are founded on the principle that someone shouldnt marry another because of an arbitary and man made label put on them.
People are against interracial marriages because they think someone should date within their own race, it's not traditional, it'll dilute or ruin the bloodline, etc. Some, if not many, of these arguments can be applied to gay marriages. Arent gay marriages non traditional and could "ruin" a bloodline (by ending it and making it impossible to have natural grandkids)?
Race and gender are different, but aren't they both labels about somebody? Why does one label matter more when it comes to marriage rather than the other?
Race and gender have about the same value in a person's life (meaningless, its value and importance is overblown). Yes they're different, because they are different words labeling different things. But both do the same thing: labeling people. And to be against interracial marriages and gay marriages is to be adhere to a meaningless label, meaningless had society decided it didnt mean anything.
So when you're for interracial marriages but not for gay ones it's a double standard. You can marry whatever race you want because it doesnt matter. But you cant date any gender because gender matters. Why? Both dont reliably give insights into someone's personality.
You mentioned gay marriage not being ok or ok because it is a sexuality, being different from wanting to marry another race.
Can't it be argued that some (ok maybe a lot of people) are in interracial relationships because they have a preference for a different race, and that it can count as a sexuality? A sexuality doesnt just mean an attraction to a certain gender, but can mean sexual attraction to certain things and how you express your attraction to it. In that case, why must someone's sexuality be suppressed if they like the same gender as them, but not if they like a different race?
Sexuality means being attracted to something, including gender. What if there's a term for white girls that like black guys? Oh wait, there's already a term for it: snowbunny.
Snowbunny is a label for someone's sexuality, just like the word "bisexual" is. It doesnt have the word "sexual" in it, but it has a similar idea, that you are sexually attracted to a certain thing and have a preference for it (in this case, black guys, while being a white girl), while also identifying the identity of the person with that label as well (you cant be a snowbunny if you are an Indian girl that likes black guys, its for white girls). The word homosexual does the same. Bisexual indicates the person with the label is either boy or girl that likes both boys and girls. You cant be bisexual if you like all genders, including trans, genderfluid, etc.
So why are preferences for a meaningless label ok and preferences for another meaningless label arent?
Why let one thing get in the way of marriage and not the other, if it isnt about the personality of the person?
Round 4
Pro
#7
"Being against interracial marriages and same sex marriages are similar, if not the same, because those kinds of beliefs are founded on the principle that someone shouldnt marry another because of an arbitary and man made label put on them. "
I'd appreciate some actual counter responses and counterpoints to my points to actually stand valid on your end.
Now there's a more in depth basis for what you're saying here. First off the topic is not about being against so called interracial marriage.
Not being against it while being against same sex marriage. If I'm against same sex marriage due to sexuality but not against so called interracial marriage because it has nothing to do with sexuality in the same vein as a factor, how is this particular position contradicting?
Remember, the position is not against so called interracial marriage.
"People are against interracial marriages because they think someone should date within their own race, it's not traditional, it'll dilute or ruin the bloodline, etc. Some, if not many, of these arguments can be applied to gay marriages. Arent gay marriages non traditional and could "ruin" a bloodline (by ending it and making it impossible to have natural grandkids)?"
Off topic.
"Race and gender are different, but aren't they both labels about somebody?"
No. One is a socially constructed label.
"Why does one label matter more when it comes to marriage rather than the other? "
Apparently the social constructed label invented by man called race is insignificant to a person that is not against so called interracial marriage.
"Race and gender have about the same value in a person's life (meaningless, its value and importance is overblown). Yes they're different, because they are different words labeling different things. But both do the same thing: labeling people. And to be against interracial marriages and gay marriages is to be adhere to a meaningless label, meaningless had society decided it didnt mean anything."
Actually the social concept of "race" is arguably meaningless depending on who you ask.
"So when you're for interracial marriages but not for gay ones it's a double standard. You can marry whatever race you want because it doesnt matter. But you cant date any gender because gender matters. Why? Both dont reliably give insights into someone's personality."
As said or mentioned, it comes down to sexuality. Which I guess you will eventually address.
"You mentioned gay marriage not being ok or ok because it is a sexuality, being different from wanting to marry another race.
Can't it be argued that some (ok maybe a lot of people) are in interracial relationships because they have a preference for a different race, and that it can count as a sexuality?"
Counting as heterosexuality. A person that is not against one versus the other because of sexuality, namely homosexuality, it's not a contradiction.
What would be conflicting is a prejudgment made in both scenarios but only being against one for the same basis. That's conflicting. Do you follow?
"A sexuality doesnt just mean an attraction to a certain gender, but can mean sexual attraction to certain things and how you express your attraction to it. In that case, why must someone's sexuality be suppressed if they like the same gender as them, but not if they like a different race? "
It's because when people argue against same sex marriage, there's more than likely a homosexual element there to progress.
"Sexuality means being attracted to something, including gender. What if there's a term for white girls that like black guys? Oh wait, there's already a term for it: snowbunny. "
A person that is not against heterosexuality would reasonably not be against so called interracial marriage regardless of all this extra stuff.
"Snowbunny is a label for someone's sexuality, just like the word "bisexual" is. It doesnt have the word "sexual" in it, but it has a similar idea, that you are sexually attracted to a certain thing and have a preference for it (in this case, black guys, while being a white girl), while also identifying the identity of the person with that label as well (you cant be a snowbunny if you are an Indian girl that likes black guys, its for white girls). The word homosexual does the same. Bisexual indicates the person with the label is either boy or girl that likes both boys and girls. You cant be bisexual if you like all genders, including trans, genderfluid, etc.
So why are preferences for a meaningless label ok and preferences for another meaningless label arent? "
I don't believe the context is about preference. It's sexual attraction or sexual interest.
For instance, men can prefer thin or thick or voluptuous women over the other in pertinence to a sexual venture.
It doesn't mean they're only interested in one over the other as they're heterosexual.
"Why let one thing get in the way of marriage and not the other, if it isnt about the personality of the person?"
What somebody allows is up to that person. As far as being against same sex marriage but not "interracial " is not paradoxical.
Con
#8
Seems like you’re parroting the same point: that racial preference and sexuality are different things, and that race and gender are different things.
I guess I should’ve addressed that instead.
It looks like you believe sexuality is innate and something people have as a part of themselves (that can’t be changed). Can you prove sexuality is an actual thing with a biological basis, and not an excuse for somebody’s gender preferences in romantic relationships?
And can you prove gender isn’t a social construct also? This can also include transgender.
Think about it, how do you think humans referred to themselves before the words “male” and “female” were invented? It’s not like words have existed since the beginning of time, they had to be made up. Especially when other words like intersex, ambiguous gender, etc. had to be used when somebody doesn’t have typical features of either sex (or gender).
If those other words to describe gender are made up, why aren’t the words male and female made up too? What makes somebody male and somebody female?
If a man has his penis cut off, is he no longer male? If a woman can’t produce enough estrogen due to a hormonal disorder, is she no longer a woman?
Is there anything to prove gender isn’t a social construct at all (like race is)?
Even if they race and gender are different things, if they’re both social constructs, they shouldn’t matter in a marriage. They may not be the same social constructs, but my point isn’t that race and gender are exactly the same. The point is that the REASONING behind supporting one social construct and not the other that makes supporting one marriage over another a problem. Does one social construct matter more than the other, and if so, why? They’re both the same, and yet there’s a problem with the other? One reason for supporting one social construct cannot be applied to the other somehow, and it’s almost always the same reasoning (what someone is like on the outside doesn’t matter as much as the inside).
Think of a different scenario. Imagine having to choose between two friends, one is of the opposite sex, the other of a different race. Whatever friend is chosen, the most common reason most people would give for their choice over the other usually has to do with how the person is towards them, not because of what they are on the outside.
But lets say you are in this scenario and chose the friend of a different race instead of the friend of the opposite sex, and your reasoning is: “I don’t want to be friends with her because she’s a girl.”
What if you chose the girl instead of the other person?
“I don’t want to be friends with him because he’s (insert whatever race that’s not yours here).”
Yes, the reasons are technically different, but the main idea of both reasons is that there is something wrong with the friend on a surface level. It doesn’t have to map exactly in order for both reasons to basically be the same in ideals.
Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough in my previous arguments.
So in summary, can you prove gender is something that has existed since the beginning of the earth but without a name (like gravity) and not something humans came up with (regardless of whether or not the idea was based on physical characteristics), and thus prove that a preference for race and sexuality aren’t both preferences?
P.S: I think you also remember I’m in a debate with you on scripture, I’m still a christian, but I have made it clear earlier this isn’t my true position. I am aware of why gender is a thing.
Nonetheless, show me your reason for believing in gender not being a social construct. And sexuality not being one as well.
Round 5
Pro
#9
"Seems like you’re parroting the same point: that racial preference and sexuality are different things, and that race and gender are different things. "
Don't go by " seems like". Just go by the exact words I'm using. Then if you go ahead a quote me, you can demonstrate the accuracy of my point and you're dealing with the point appropriately.
I don't believe I made any statement about "racial" preference. If you think I have, QUOTE IT. We're towards the end so it's more so for the readers than me .
"It looks like you believe sexuality is innate and something people have as a part of themselves (that can’t be changed). Can you prove sexuality is an actual thing with a biological basis, and not an excuse for somebody’s gender preferences in romantic relationships? "
Now we got "looks like". We have to deal with the actual. I don't believe sexuality is innate. I have a knowledge that it is.
Yes I could prove sexuality is biological but I don't have to. Why? Our bodies prove it. Biology is the study of life . Our lively bodies are structured and configured the way they are of many biological organic properties. One being which the reproductive system which is referred to containing SEXUAL reproductivity organs. So that system that involves the use and function of these members is called sexuality.
All we have to do is observe our bodies to prove anything of our bodies. Society today has the agenda to drive away from the preset functions and many purposes that things have to make subjective arbitrary causes according to subjective personal whim .
"And can you prove gender isn’t a social construct also? This can also include transgender. "
Really depends on the definition of the word. If we're talking about what is physical, isn't the physical not proof already?
Too bad this was not flushed out earlier.
"Think about it, how do you think humans referred to themselves before the words “male” and “female” were invented? It’s not like words have existed since the beginning of time, they had to be made up. Especially when other words like intersex, ambiguous gender, etc. had to be used when somebody doesn’t have typical features of either sex (or gender). "
Really not of the topic. We can speak on this another time.
"If those other words to describe gender are made up, why aren’t the words male and female made up too? What makes somebody male and somebody female?
If a man has his penis cut off, is he no longer male? If a woman can’t produce enough estrogen due to a hormonal disorder, is she no longer a woman?
Is there anything to prove gender isn’t a social construct at all (like race is)? "
If you would have just demonstrated your point here instead of asking questions, I can see what it has to do with the topic.
Moving on.
"Even if they race and gender are different things, if they’re both social constructs, they shouldn’t matter in a marriage. They may not be the same social constructs, but my point isn’t that race and gender are exactly the same. The point is that the REASONING behind supporting one social construct and not the other that makes supporting one marriage over another a problem. Does one social construct matter more than the other, and if so, why? They’re both the same, and yet there’s a problem with the other? One reason for supporting one social construct cannot be applied to the other somehow, and it’s almost always the same reasoning (what someone is like on the outside doesn’t matter as much as the inside)."
I didn't realize sexuality and sex would be controversial. If you don't accept that sexuality and the two sexes are non socially constructed, you're in the wrong debate.
This was for any person that takes the position that sexuality is not socially constructed.
"“I don’t want to be friends with her because she’s a girl.” "
She is a girl . Why? Is it because there's something physical there?
All I'm dealing with is the physical. I thought that was clear from the start. Switching this thing into social constructs in all like that, we know what physicality is.
We know what a same sex marriage is because physically the sexes, the genders, whatever you want to call them, are the same , physically. No need to derail into a red herring outside that.
"So in summary, can you prove gender is something that has existed since the beginning of the earth but without a name (like gravity) and not something humans came up with (regardless of whether or not the idea was based on physical characteristics), and thus prove that a preference for race and sexuality aren’t both preferences?"
No I can't prove what was here at the beginning of the earth , let alone gender which I'm referring to as the physical. Nobody can prove what was before they themselves existed. Nor does it have any relevance. Lets not split hairs here with this red herring. We know there's what we call a sexual difference between what we call male and female. So all this social construct stuff doesn't fit the premise of the topic. Whatever you want to call the differences, whatever. But there are differences you can see with your own eyes and experience. That's proof for you.
As far as the preference thing, I use that term meaning primary interest over secondary. So this thing about preference is irrelevant and it's not for me to prove or disprove.
"P.S: I think you also remember I’m in a debate with you on scripture, I’m still a christian, but I have made it clear earlier this isn’t my true position. I am aware of why gender is a thing.
Nonetheless, show me your reason for believing in gender not being a social construct. And sexuality not being one as well."
Gender is whatever it is based on the definition. If you define gender as a social construct , it's obviously meant as that. In the context of this topic I'm using the term to mean the physical.
Two physical men married are presumed to engage in sexuality. I trust we both know what two physical men are and what sexuality are. Being against same sex marriage while not being against so called interracial marriage is not in conflict as the basis is on sexuality or you can say biological. Many people that are against abortion but not same sex marriage are in conflict.
Con
#10
Shoot, I forgot about this debate.
Unfortunately I cant give you a very long response.
You have said gender is physical.
So gender is determined by physical traits.
The same can be said for race.
If you're asian and have a yellow overtone, you'll automatically be labeled as Asian. Darker skin, afro hair? African or Black.
The reason why I bring that up in my previous argument is because if race, which is determined by physical characteristics, is a myth, then why is gender, also determined by physical characteristics not a myth?
You have said gender had biological basis because there are physical traits that nake them so. Cant the same be said about race?
Why is race not real and gender is when both are determined by physical characteristics?
Because if this isnt cleared up then it appears a double standard is made.
And this double standard would make acceptance of interracial marriage coinciding with a disapproval of gay marriage contradictory.
Its important to try to see if both gender and race are similar characteristics about oneself. After all, your case relies on the two not being the same in neither what its describing nor the "realness" of the trait (one being real, the other not).
If both traits are real or both traits are made up, then there is a double standard if someone were to take your position.
You did say you cant prove gender isnt a man made concept, so how can you prove it's really real like gravity?
You have said it has existed since the beginning of time, how would you know this? Since you said you cant prove it isnt man made, you cant prove it's been a thing since the beginning of the universe.
You cant prove its a man made way of identifying each other.
And I dont assume, so thats why I said "it seems like."
If i understood you wrong, the "seems like" is an invitation for you to correct me. If I understood it right, you dont need to do anything.
Also, I dont need to agree on gender being real in order to debate. In fact, me believing that would ruin my case.
You still didnt really prove it was real, not even with history.
So if gender isnt real, race isnt real, and approving interracial marriages but not gay marruages is approving one marriage differentiated by a social construct, but not another.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
In one line where I said "the word homosexual does the same thing," I meant "bisexual," not homosexual