The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
5 Points

Gay Marriage I

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,405 times Debate No: 23896
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized.

I have decided that I'm just going to keep debating this and reformulating my arguments until I start winning, or my point starts coming across more clearly.

First round for acceptance.
Second round is the only round to post arguments.
All subsequent rounds will be for rebuttals.


I accept this debate. :)
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you ScareltGhost, it’s a pleasure to be debating this issue with you once again! I will present my argument in the proceeding paragraphs, but first I’d like to point out a two things: I will not be defending the status-quo and I will not be defending a traditional conception of marriage. (That is to say, the history of marriage will be irrelevant to the case I am about to present) I will be arguing for a conjugal conception of marriage, between one man and one woman, from the ground up.

Our Biology and Individualistic Society

We, as people, are pretty self-sufficient. We can change food into energy and waste, we can move long distances, and we can perform tedious tasks and so on. In fact, nearly all of our bodily organs, such as our skin, heart, liver, kidneys, bladder, immune system etc. perform their functions perfectly well without interacting with any other human being. There is only one exception to this: Our reproductive organs. An individual, no matter how hard he/she tries, cannot operate his reproductive organs correctly without calling upon a member of the opposite sex. He/she requires another individual to perform coitus, the correct biological function of our sexual organs. [1]

Now let’s take a step back and look at an individualistic society, where the base units that comprise society are individuals. Individual units are indivisible and have an orientation towards improving their own quality of life, as demonstrated by natural greed. Also, as stated above, each unit is nearly self-sufficient, capable of doing any tasks that our biology allows for aside from reproduction within its unit. This is not the same as saying individuals are incapable of performing coitus; of course they are, they can come together at any time and commence in the act. But this isn’t a solution to the inherent lack of ability in the base unit of society.

Therefore I propose that the government, which oversees society, should condone a unit that would compensate for this lack of ability. It will be comprised of a man and a woman, who by their own natural (or society driven) desires would enter in the union, and be called a marriage. It would be an inseparable bond, only broken through infidelity or violence, and those comprising the union would work for the greater good of the unit. The government would be required to enshrine the union, as there is no social guarantee that the two would stay together through emotionally or economically tough times without force. But that is alright, because they willingly entered the union knowing that force holds it together. The union would also be oriented toward raising children, as evolutionary biology explains that parents have natural urges to see the continuation of their genes, or children. [2] So here is an overview:


Almost entirely biologically capable
Motivated by self-gain
Capable of raising children with/without help from another individual


Inseparable (aside from infidelity and violence)
Entirely biologically capable
Motivated by self-gain
Oriented toward raising children (two people raising their biological children; evolutionary ideas)

So that is the baseline case for establishing marriage, or a government established union between two people, in society. It does not necessitate tax breaks that are currently in place, or any other actions other than merely keeping the bond together through the governments sole ability; the application of force.

So what does this have to do with Gay marriages? Well, lets look at an overview of what a gay marriage is comprised of:

'Gay' Marriage:

Inseperable (aside from infidelity and violence)
Almost entirely biologically capable (cannot perform the function of our reproductive organs)
Motivated by self-gain
Capable of raising children

So, as we can see, a homosexual couple does not actually improve on an individualistcic base unit. My opponent then, in order to make his case, needs to establish why marriage should be recognized in the first place with reasoning that allows for homosexual couples to be included in the union. Until he does that, or negates my argument, I find it safe to say that since a union of two people of the same sex does not improve on an individualistic base unit, which is the entire point of marriage, they are incapable of actually forming a marriage and should be excluded from policy that aims to recognize real marriages.



Common objections:

Infertile couples!??!?!?!?!

The most notable one, and so I will start with it, is that infertile couples can't have children, and therefore cannot form real marriages. But my argument doesn't require couples to have children at all. It simply argues that there should be a societal unit that completely fulfills are biological functions, which is a marriage.

People who can't/don't have sex?!?!?!?!?!

Another to my case specifically is that people who can't/don't have sex can still be married. And I say sure, they can be married in the eyes of the government but they aren't actually married. Marriage policy is aimed at trying to recognize as close to real marriages as possible, units that are self-sufficient in exercising their biological practices. There will always be some exceptions, and whether we want to go far enough to check if males have penis's is up to debate. I don't think we need to stress the importance of sex in these relationships though, it has always come naturally to have sex with the person you are living with, at least in our society.


What about African-American miscegination? It fits in entirely well with my line of reasoning. It is true that during the 1940's-60's they used a lot of similar arguments against SSM, they didn't work because basing marriage policy on the color of the bride and groom didn't make sense. If they actually made sense, I'd be against interacial marriage. But they don't, so the point is mute.



I've said all that I want to say. Hopefully my point came across clear enough, and I anticipate a good (hopefully not copy/pasted) round from my opponent. Once again thank you for accepting this debate ScarletGhost, and goodluck!


I hope it doesn't disappoint my opponent too greatly to know that I will be making arguments similar to the ones made in the case before with some additions in the structure of the case. While my opponent's case seems to be centered only on practicality, my case will surround both morality (as perceived by justice) and practicality in order to reach the optimum in the scope of the betterment of society.

Contention 1: Denial of gay marriage creates second-class citizens.
The definition of second-class citizens is the following: "an informal term used to describe a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there. While not necessarily slaves, outlaws or criminals, second-class citizens have limited legal rights, civil rights and economic opportunities, and are often subject to mistreatment or neglect at the hands of their putative superiors." At the point where the government is limiting the rights of homosexuals when it comes to the marriage they can have, this is inherently discrimination by the state against a group of people, creating a set of second-class citizens. When a marriage is only allowed for a heterosexual couple rather than a homosexual couple, it implies that a heterosexual couple is more in worth than a homosexual one. Homosexuals have a right for protection against this sort of discrimination through the principles of social contract.

Contention 2: Gay marriage benefits society.
On a more practical level, the legalization of gay marriage can be beneficial for society:

Sub-point 2a:
The supplement to tolerance of the homosexual community as a result of legalization of gay marriage has helped to reduce negative statistics in the homosexual community.
The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: " Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.

As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explain, intolerance is greatly negative for the health of the gay community:

"Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can:
  • Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM
  • Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance
  • Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts
  • Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk
  • Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health

The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were:

  • 8.4 times momore likely to report high levels of depression
  • 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs
  • 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex
  • 4.0 times more likely to commit suicide

  • The very same report explains that social support is the key toward reducing the problems of homophobia in the country and hence reduce the problems that result from this.

Sub-point 2b: Legalization of same-sex marriage has been beneficial to commerce.
The following evidence of economy after the passage of legalization of same-sex marriage shows us that the legalization is a great supplement to commerce because of the increase of demand for products.

Debate Round No. 2


This round will be short and sweet.

R1: Second Class Relationships, more like

Homosexual couples are intrinsically worth less to society than heterosexual ones, my entire argument is based off of this truth. And it doesn't follow that since barring homosexual couples from earning the status of marriage (that is, a publicly celebrated relationship) we are in any way affecting the rights of homosexuals. If marriage was a public union with its basis in desire then my opponent would have a case. However, he has yet to justify such a conception of marriage, and the conception I provided justifiably excludes homosexual couples from participating in the publicly celebrated relationship, due to their inability to utilize our reproductive organs in their correct fashion.

Even given my opponents contention prevailed, it would also follow that pedophiles, zoophiles, and people afflicted by other forms of sexual perversion would also qualify as Second Class citizens, for they are not being protected from discrimination by "the principles of social contract."

R2 & R3: Does legalization follow?

As for R2, my opponent provides no sources backing up any of the claims or scientific studies. Also, the "Emory University" study is obviously biased and not up to par; my case demonstrates no intollerance towards homosexuals, but I still maintain that Gay Marriage should not be legalized.

But granted his studies are correct, what would legislation in favor of gay marriage entail? It seems that it would be the forcing of controversial moral views, upon the legitimacy of Gay relationships and the morality of homosexual acts, upon the juristiction there of, an attitude many gay marriage advocates criticize the social right of doing. All in all, his case doesn't follow through with his conclusion. Social stigma against pedophiles would be reduced upon abolishing the Age of Consent, but that doesn't mean we should dow it.

As for R3, this is the Broken Window fallacy. If money wasn't being spent on Gay Weddings, it would be going somewhere else, like improving the quality of life for the participants that would have otherwise wasted 6 grand on a ceremony. Also no sources.


When looking through my opponent's case, it isn't so much a case as much as it is an iteration as to what the burdens of my case are. I need to explain why marriage should be recognized in the first place with reasoning that allows for gay couples to be able to enter, and when going through his case, there are several things wrong with the reasoning therein.
Reproduction: One of the things that puzzled me about my opponent's logic is where he transitions between humans having the lack of ability to reproduce at an individual level and him proposing that government should condone a unit that would compensate for this. My opponent states himself that two individuals can come in at any time and commence in the act that leads toward reproduction, but he states that this is not a solution with absolutely no reason why. This entire blank area makes the entire thesis of his case shaky at best because his premise is that marriage should compensate for this lack of ability to reproduce, but there's no warrant explaining why this needs to be compensated.
Characteristics of Marriage/Gay Marriage/ Infertile Couples/People Who Don't have Sex: I put this all into one big category because it's the reasoning jumbled together in all of these main points from my opponent's case that really highlights the contradictions in my opponent's case. To reiterate, my opponent's main thesis is that marriage should compensate for the individual's lack of ability to reproduce independently, and when he outlines the characteristics of his idealized marriage and what a gay marriage is, it's come to my understanding that my opponent is trying to prove that there is no warrant for accepting gay marriage. My opponent talks about the objections that there are with infertile couples and states that his argument does not require children in a marriage, but this would mean that his entire thesis would be useless because it's dedicated toward upholding the biological function that reproduces children. If this is true, then my opponent's entire premise for being against gay marriage and upholding only heterosexual marriage is irrelevant. Not only this, but he stated himself that one of the objectives for marriage in his scenario is to raise children, and if infertile couples cannot reach this objective in his conception of marriage, they also should not be recognized under this scenario. My opponent then moves away from the argument he makes when he starts talking about people who don't have sex. He explains what a real marriage is, and beforehand states that this is what the government should accept, but then turns around and says that marriage policy is aimed at trying to recognize AS CLOSE TO real marriages as possible, meaning he's contradicted his own logic. In my opponent's logic of what constitutes a real marriage, gay marriage is not a real marriage and should not be accepted for this reason, but he states that people who have marriage not intended toward raising children (again, I emphasize, one of his key points about what constitutes a real marriage) does not constitute a real marriage, but they can still be recognized in the eyes of the government. This is a complete double-standard because it allows a leniancy toward such marriages but denies them to gay couples. In fact, my opponent even said himself that there are exceptions, but he in no way designates what these exceptions are and why they do not apply to gay couples.
African Americans: For now, this argument doesn't go against his logic in any way, and it doesn't go against anything I have in my case, so for now, I'll leave it be.

I'll move on to my case now.
R1: When going back to my opponent's case, he himself clearly allows leniancy toward marriages that are only warranted by desire considering the contradictions in reasoning between his thesis and his justification for infertile couples and people who don't have sex, but he tries to knock down my arguments because I'm somehow trying to make an argument with the idea of a marriage based on desire. Furthermore, he states that homosexual couples are intrinsically worth less than heterosexual ones and possibly it is because they do not use their organs in the fashion that my opponent specified, but this would also mean that the infertile couples and couples practicing celibacy or safe sex would also be intrinsically worth less, but he allows leniancy for them despite the fact that their marriages also contradict his standards of what a real marriage is and what kind of marriage should be legalized. It's becoming more and more apparent that my opponent's entire case is just discriminating against homosexuals with a double-standard. My opponent talks about how the reasoning in my first contention would justify other second-class citizens. It actually MIGHT (except in the case of pedophiles, who actually harm children and intake in the immoral action of taking advantage of a child, meaning they are out of social contract). My opponent pretty much begs the question in this argument by not stating why this would be a bad thing.
R2: I must've accidentally missed to put up my sources. My fault. I'll place those in the comment section before the end of this debate. My opponent also states that the Emory University study is biased but provides no reasoning as to why. If we look at history, we realize that governments beforehand have had to enforce certain moral views in order to maintain its legitimacy. From the American government's perspective, for example, the abolishment of slavery, which also had contrasting moral views. However, this is looking at a case from a practical level rather than a moral level. Social integretiy and welfare is among the responsibilities of government, and this includes the betterment of public health. At the point where my case proves that public health is benefitted, what government would be doing by allowing gay marriages is trying reach the objective of maintaining the social unit. From a moral level, both our cases inherently enforce a moral idea voluntarily or involuntarily. Denying gay marriage would also be forcing moral views about homosexual acts and legitimacy of gay relationships because this action would support the people against such relationships. At the point where both our cases could validate a moral viewpoint based on my opponent's logic and my opponent is trying to hit my case at a moral level, he would have to prove that the moral viewpoint he would be supporting with his own case is better than the moral viewpoint that I would be supporting.
R3: Their money MIGHT be spent in other establishments or resources, but there's a big gray area as to how much of that money would be spent. The official measure of an economy is the GDP (or GDI, which is equal to the GDP) and it only measures the amount of goods bought in one year. Over a period of time, a gay couple might spend X amount of money, but the economy's GDP is only specific to one year. The fallacy that my opponent accuses me of only depends on the assumption that these couples have the incentive to spend within this given year. A legalization would provide that incentive to increase the spending within that given year.
Debate Round No. 3


LibertyCampbell forfeited this round.


Conduct Vote/Extension of Case: For my opponent's forfeit, I'm definately winning the conduct point for my punctuality in this debate. Not only that, but my arguments have been extended across the flow. This is influential because my opponent has forfeited in the final round of the debate, meaning that no more arguments from his side can be made anymore. Since my opponent cannot make any more arguments and has not responded to everything I said about his own case, he essentially has no case at this point of time, meaning that regardless of whether or not I give a final rebuttal, I would be the winner of this debate. My argument against my opponent's case is pretty solid, so I'm just going to move on to the arguments from my side.
R1: We see the contradictory logic of my opponent over and over in this part of the debate. His case argues that homosexual couples are inherently less in worth than heterosexual ones but holds infertile and abstient couples to a higher worth although according to his own logic, these couples would be just as worthless as the homosexual ones. He completely supports the marriage for these couples, however. These marriages violate the very principles of marriage my opponent is trying to promote, but he says there are always exceptions. He doesn't explain what the exceptions are nor does he explain why they in no way apply to homosexuals. My opponent asks of me to provide a reason for the existence of marriage, but (1) doesn't respond to my question to his logic as to why marriage would be needed in order to compensate for human inability to self-reproduce (2) provides leniancy for couples whose only warrant for marriage is desire. He also begs the question in the case of other second-class citizens.
R2: Gay marriage in the context of bettering society would just be a governmental function in order to uphold its legitimacy, and whether or not it enforces a moral view is more or less irrelevant in this context. If looking from a moral context, however, I explained that my opponent's position also enforces a moral view from the opposite side, meaning that if my opponent wanted to charge at my case with such a moral context, he needs to provide a warrant to why his moral view enforced would be better than mine, which he doesn't since he forfeited the round.
R3: I already explained about the economy and how it functions. Broken Window Fallacy is not applicable because my opponent provides no evidence that gay couples will have incentive to spend more during a ban of gay marriage.
Summary: All of my points go unresponded, and my opponent in essence has no case because he has not responded to anything. At the end of this round will be my sources for the debate, plenty more than the absolute nothing of sources my opponent has provided. This means I have won the conduct, argumentation, and sources votes.

Davidson, Lela. "Gay Marriage Is Good for the Economy | Business Pundit." Business Pundit. 9 July 2008. Web. 20 Dec. 2011. <" target="blank">;.
Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009). 3 Sept. 2009. Web. <" target="blank">;.
Goldberg, Naomi G., and Michael D. Steinberger. The Williams Institute, May 2009. Web. <" target="blank">;.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
lol I agree with you, but prefer different wording.
Posted by LibertyCampbell 4 years ago
If they challenge the validity of my reasoning I will argue the competitive nature of nations and why it would be therefore a good thing, but it seems unlikely I'm going to get a reply at all at this point.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I think the case you used, liberty, is kinda subjective.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
That may be one of the mose intelligent arguments against gay marriage I've seen. Not infallable, of course, but the most intelligent.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EvanK 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It was well argued by both sides, but cons FF hurt him in R4. Overall though, the argument that marriage is for reproduction didn't pan out, because of infertile couples and couples who choose not to reproduce, as pointed out by Pro. In that sense, infertile and gay couples are the same. Pro used sources so he gets points for that. Overall, I wasn't convinced by con's arguments, pro refuted them well. Good debate.