The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,458 times Debate No: 23964
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (3)




This debate is dedicated to 16kadams. He r pretty c00l gai who debates gay marriage nd duznt fraid of anything.

As Con, I am affirming that gay marriage should not be legalized. Pro will be affirming that gay marriage should be legalized.

Burden of Proof is shared.

No semantics.

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Arguments

Con, best of luck to you!



And I also wish best of luck to me! :D
Debate Round No. 1


I am pleased that both Pro and myself have been able to establish middle ground in our unanimous wish of good luck to Pro! I look forward to a fascinating exchange.

In this round my primary focus will be on two crucial points:
        1. What marriage is.
        2. Marriage as a fundamental right.

I think that's enough introduction.

What Is Marriage?

Marriage is an elevated societal status that facilitates procreation and childrearing [1]. Therefore it is defined as a union between one man, and one woman, which constitutes a procreative-type union. While many argue that marriage is about promoting a loving and lasting relationship between two individuals, this is merely an aesthetic perk to marriage, and is not the primary purpose of marriage. The Institution of Marriage exists for the very reason that the State has an interest in procreation [2]. Seeing as how the State presides over society, and society is made of human beings, the further creation of human beings to further society is of paramount interest to the State. Therefore since it is in the State's interest to facilitate procreation and child-rearing, it is in the State's interest to create an elevated societal status that gives special recognition (which helps to facilitate procreation) to procreative-type unions.

This is the primary cause of concern in regards to same-sex marriage. The State has no interest in same-sex unions because same-sex unions are incapable of procreation. Anatomically, same-sex couple are entirely incapable of procreating. Thus the State lacks any interest in granting same-sex unions an elevated societal status because doing so does not further society.

Therefore we find that same-sex unions do not qualify as a marriage to begin with. Thus claiming that we are denying marriage to same-sex unions is inherently false, because same-sex unions are incapable of qualifying for a marriage. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. In fact, a bisexual man and a bisexual woman could get married and there wouldn't be a problem. They wouldn't be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation because while their sexual orientation would differ from the vast majority of most procreative-unions, they would still be in a procreative-type union and therefore their union could qualify as a marriage.

But What about Infertile Couples?

Inevitably, when making the procreation argument this objection is raised. While an old one, it has certainly not been abandoned and is often portrayed a knock-down blow to the procreation argument. So we have to ask ourselves, if marriage is about procreation, why allow infertile couples to marry?

The answer is that all heterosexuaul union have a special link to procreation by nature of being a heterosexual union. Procreation requires the heterosexual union of male and female chromosomes therefore all heterosexual unions have a special link to procreation. But what happens when this link is damaged? Well, we have to ask ourselves, has the link itself been destroyed? It would seem not. After all, an infertile couple hasn't suddenly ceased to be a heterosexual couple, and if a heterosexual union is what is required for procreation, then that infertile still technically has a special link to procreation. To illustrate, an arm is used to pick things up, throw things, etc. However, if an arm is damaged to the point where it can do none of these things, does it cease to be an arm?

Similarly, couples who choose not to get married do not negate the purpose of marriage. Consider a microphone that is bought but never used. Can we say that the purpose of microphones in general are consequently negated because of an unused microphone? Certainly it would be absurd to suggest that because Kathy didn't use the microphone she bought, microphones should cease to be made in entirety. Or, to suggest that microphones should no longer be made with the intent that someone will use them for singing.

Is Marriage A Right?
While both myself and Pro *probably* agree that marriage is indeed a right. The real contention is whether or not same-sex unions deserve an elevated societal status equal to that provided in traditional marriages. If so, then this would imply that there exists some right for any union between two human beings to be given the same elevated societal status as marriage. To contend this, I offer up the following argument (formulated by Contradiction of our very own DDO):

    1. Our rights exist to safeguard our flourishing.
    2. Human flourishing is determined by what is proper for human nature.
    3. Therefore, our rights derive from our human nature.
    4. Same-sex marriage is intrinsically contrary to human nature
    5. Therefore, there is no right to same-sex marriage.
I imagine that Pro will not contest the first premise as any utilitarian would agree with it. If safe-guarding human flourishing is a universal goal, then our rights exist for the reason of continuing that goal.
In regards to P2, human flourishing is not being determined merely by our arbitrary human nature, but that which is proper for human nature. Essentially, what is proper for human nature is that which furthers human flourishing. Therefore that which does not further human flourishing is not proper for human nature. Clearly, procreation indeed furthers human flourishing as A) It brings forth human beings into existence (no human beings=no human flourishing) and B) human beings are necessary for human flourishing as a greater population of human beings is directly correlated with an increase in technology and agricultural advancement which aids human flourishing [3].
P3 logically follows from P1 and P2.

P4 at first appears to be the weakest link in this argument until you re-examine the previous premises. Same-sex marraige is intrinsically contrary to human nature not because homosexuality is wrong (the morality of homosexuality is irrelevant in this debate), but because same-sex marriages do not further human flourishing. In principle, same-sex marriages do nothing to further human flourishing in that they offer nothing to society of anymore value then two human beings who are not in a union, therefore, they are intrinsically contrary to what is proper for human nature.
Thus, the conclusion, there is no right to same-sex marraige.

Finally, one must wonder, if the only reason for allowing same-sex marriage is because two individuals love each other, why not give friendships an elevated societal status? In fact, why draw the line at species? If procreation is irrelevant to marriage, what makes bestial relationships morally inferior to same-species relationships? Although these points are a bit of a side note to the main thrust of my arguments, I am curious to see how Pro will respond to these objections.
All-in-all, there exists no right to same-sex marriage, and the State has no reason nor interest in granting same-sex marriage.
Court rulings regarding the purpose of marriage:




Con makes a case for what marriage is by providing his arguments on what he thinks the purpose of marriage is. However, I think it's important to address what marriage really is in completely functional terms. I'm talking about legal rights. Most basically, marriage is a legal agreement to share property. But that's not all. There are also over 1,000 federal laws that treat married couples differently than those who are single, usually giving them favor. [1]

In completely practical terms, this is what marriage really is.


According to Con, the purpose of marriage is for "facilitating procreation and childrearing." Here's a few reasons why that's simply absurd.

Yes, infertility. Con addressed this. But I don't see that address as adequate. Actually, it didn't make much sense at all. He ignored the whole problem simply by proposing a "special link". He compared an infertile couple to an an unused microphone. Wait, what? A couple that is infertile CAN'T have a child, whereas a the microphone is simply being chosen not to be used. A more accurate example would be a broken microphone. So, then, we must ask Con's question once again. Is it still a microphone? Hardly. It no longer does what a microphone does. There's no magic going on to keep an infertile heterosexual couple valid under Con's standards of marriage. And the issue with the difference between choice and non-choice brings me to the next absurdity.

Choosing not to have a child. If it is true that the only purpose of marriage is to have a child and raise it, as Con would have us believe, then why allow couples to get married if they choose not to have a child? You really can't get around that. There is no purpose. It defiles the true purpose of marriage!

Perhaps most importantly, why marriage? If the goal here is reproduction, being so essential to the welfare of the state, then, in this age of modern science, why is marriage our tool for accomplishing this? Why not just automatically inseminate all the women? You could even send them to nice state homes where they'll be raised to be good non-thinking patriotic citizens. Win-win.


Con's arguments are centered around the fact that marriage, according to his dimensions, is beneficial to the state and this is why it should be in such a way.

I demand that Con must give sound reasoning for why the supremacy of the state should be our moral foundation here. Why not care about the desires of society in general? Why not care about individual rights?


Con posits the highly semantical argument that refusal of gays to marry is not discrimination because they can still become married to someone of the opposite sex.

Oh, geez, really? Forgive me for finding this completely outrageous. Maybe if I turn things around, you might understand where I'm coming from. Lets say some crazy gay nazi dictator took over America and made heterosexual marriage illegal and homosexual marriage legal instead. Stop and really picture it. Would you still contend that there is no discrimination involved? Again, speaking about this in practical terms, you ARE forbidding homosexuals from marrying. Forget semantics. Look at the practical consequences in society. It is discrimination.


Con argues that same-sex marriage is not a right because it is contrary to human nature. He argues it is contrary to human nature because it does not further human flourishing.

As it turns out, it is a medical fact that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. [2]

Even then, you might still say it is opposed to human flourishing. But if that were true to any impressionable extent, why would such a thing have survived natural selection? Indeed, there may actually be an evolutionary purpose for homosexuality. Seeing as the more children you have the more likely they are to be homosexual, it would be reasonable to suggest that it has a use as nature's form of population control. Having too large of a family will restrict resources.


This ties into the issue with the supremacy of the state. Over and over again Con made the same assertion that same-sex marriage has no use in society. Saying that it's all for the good of the state. But anyone who has ever gotten married can tell you what the actual purpose was. Yes, they love each other. They want to be recognized in a binding union. Here is the huge fact in this: If people did not love each other, there would not be marriage. Or at least not any form similar to what we have. People do not marry to serve the state. They marry for each other. Is that really something I am forced to point out? All homosexuals are asking for is to have the same privilege. No matter what semantical or politically correct way you try to get around it, opposition of homosexual marriage only exists because of opposition to homosexual love. Every conservative fiber of self-protecting fallacies built up in your mind may repel to it but, I ask you, can you really argue against it? What else can be done besides shoving it off as an ad hom or a strawman? Can you really face the fact that the SOLE PURPOSE of refusing homosexuals the same marital rights is anything other than plain homophobia? Could you really say with a straight face that same-sex marriage would still be illegal even no homophobia existed?

Here's how it is. If you want evidence, consult your brain. Same-sex marriage has the same worth as opposite-sex marriage. The worth is that the people wanting to be married are getting married and feeling happy about it.

2. [video]
Debate Round No. 2


A huge thanks for Pro for an intriguing response! While I expected this debate to be a vigorous one, Pro has completely surpassed my expectations.

The Definition of Marriage

Pro argues that marriage is, "most basically", a legal agreement to share property. Though Pro has forgotten to to cite a source for this, this point is largely irrelevant. Part of marriage *is* to agree to share property, but this does not speak of the primary purpose of marriage. Marriage entails much more then sharing property, as Pro's own source [1] reveals.

Pro then explains how there are over 1,000 federal laws that treat married couples differently. I agree. I also argue that these laws only make sense in light of marriage being an elevated societal position that facilitates procreation. It is absolutely inexplicable why the government would favor married couples over non-married couples merely because married couples love each other and have agreed to share property. After all, why not give roommates special rights? They have agreed to share property, and if they are friends, they certainly love each other. Why not just give special rights to everyone?

Why Love Can't Be the Purpose of Marriage

Love is arbitrary. Yes, I said it. Love, in context, is entirely arbitrary. After all, what level of love is required for marriage? How do you measure this love? Shall the government devise a "love meter" to make sure that all married couples love each other enough? There is certainly no special link to love, because love is something that is chosen. Therefore you could never escape this objection by hijacking my argument. Also, what about married couples who no longer love each other? Perhaps we should assign governmental love officers to check love levels at all times?

Love, in of itself, can not be the purpose of marriage.

Why My Argument Really Isn't All That Absurd

I think Pro is confused. If she will reread my argument, she will see that I compared an infertile couple not with an unused microphone, but with a broken arm.

However, Pro does raise one interesting point. Does an inability to produce effect negate beinghood? Pro would have us believe that a broken microphone isn't a microphone, and a broken arm is not an arm. These assertions may seem harmless at first glance, but this line of reasoning leads us to absurd conclusions.

The primary effect and defining characteristic of human beings is our ability to think rationally, or, to put it more simply, our ability to be conscious. Consciousness is the effect if being a fully-functional human being. However, what happens when we are unable to produce that effect? Let's imagine that Pro must be put into a medically-induced coma, or, be put under anesthesia for surgery. While in that coma, Pro would be unable to produce the effect of being a human, in that she will be unable to think rationally, or at all. In essence, during those few hours, Pro is "broken". However, I would ask Pro, what are you then, during those few hours, if not a human being? Do you cease to become a human being and turn into a loaf of bread? Or perhaps a duck?

Therefore I conclude that an inability to produce a procreative effect does not necessarily imply a lack of a special link to procreation. The union of male and female human beings still remains, and thus, the union is still procreative in type.

Pro then argues that if procreation is a State's interest, we should inseminate all women. Pro forgets that there are serious moral reasons *not* to essentially rape all women.

Supremacy of the State

Perhaps Pro doesn't understand what the State is. The State is, in essence, society. The State's interests are society's interests.

However, Pro makes a valid point, why not cater to the desires of the people? The answer is simple, it's frivolous and wasteful. In the words of President John F. Kennedy "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". [1] Shall the State hand out money to whoever asks for it? Should the State send armed guards to escort Pro as she goes to the grocery store? Should the government give Pro a lifetime supply of marijuana? If the government should grant homosexual couples special rights without any societal return, then it is inexplicable why the government should not grant anyone any special rights without societal return. If this mindset is adopted, society will collapse onto itself.


Here Pro makes an emotional argument that presupposes gay marriage as being a right. The next section will deal with this. I'd also like to point out that a sense of entitlement doesn't necessarily entail an actual right to something.

Human Nature

Pro equates what is natural as being that which furthers human flourishing. While Pro's source cites an unreplicated study regarding homosexuality and birth order [2], and is therefore unreliable, this is largely irrelevant. After all, cystic-fibrosis, hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia, and downs-syndrome are all natural phenomenon's that have somehow survived natural selection. Perhaps Pro thinks these crippling diseases have some evolutionary purpose? I also find it interesting that Pro asserts natural selection as having "a purpose". Even if we grant that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, it certainly does not follow that homosexuality is capable of furthering human flourishing. Merely asserting that it may have a purpose doesn't help Pro's case either. Finally, studies have shown that technological advances are directly correlated with an increase in population. Thus it would seem that increasing our population is a good thing. [3]

Value to Society

Homosexual unions offer no societal return, and therefore hold no special value to society. While homosexual individuals are still as inherently valuable as heterosexual individuals, this does not carry over into their unions. Unless Con can show that homosexual unions do offer societal return, then my "assertion" stands.

The rest of Pro's argument is largely an appeal to emotion. One particularly interesting point is when Pro asserts that those who oppose gay marriage do so only because of homophobia. While I agree that no gay marriage debate is complete without cries of homophobia, this objection doesn't stand. It is a bare assertion, hasty generalization, ad homonym, red herring, and correlation-causation fallacy all neatly rolled up into one statement. I find it interesting that Pro seems to know me better then myself. For I certainly neither hate nor look down on homosexuals. I happen to have a great respect and admiration for innomen, a member on this site who is homosexual. He reached out to me in a time of need, and I am extremely thankful to him for it. Unless, of course, Pro equates opposing gay marriage as being homophobia itself. In that case homophobia is a meaningless accusation.

Gay Marriage Devalues Homosexuals, and Everyone Else

The whole argument for gay marriage rests on the idea that homosexuals are valuable. I happen to agree with this. However, there's a problem. You see, if homosexuals are valuable, then procreation, the means of creating homosexuals (and everyone else), is also valuable. If procreation is not valuable, then it is inexplicable why somehow homosexuals are valuable. Gay Marriage essentially "proclaims", if you will, procreation as being of no special value to society. However, if procreation is of no value, then no one is of value! But if no one is of value, why give anyone special rights?

In conclusion, gay marriage demeans homosexuals.

Back to you, Pro!



Hey, I'm really sorry to SuburbiaSurvior and anyone watching the debate but I will not be able to continue it. I was hit by a truck last night and I'm in the hospital posting this from my phone. I'd really appreciate it if this debate could either be a tie or just deleted so we can redo this when I get back home. Thanks.

Hey, my first post on the site not being high.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm giving my opponent a chance to write an argument back. If she fails, please vote based on the material already written. If she writes an argument in the last round, judge the debate for what's written. However, I think it's obvious from the concession that conduct should be loss.

Good luck, Pro!


Platypus666 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Btw @ the video: the reasons those associations said its natural is because they where intimidated, threatened, meetings mobbed, and the gay movement said it was only the beginning until they changed their stance. Also let's look at the APA's vote:

APA members at that time: 17, 905
Number that voted(on gay naturality): 10,555
People who abstained: 367
People voted it was a mental disorder: 3810
Votes saying natural: 5854

Yes votes was only 32.7% of the APA, no votes is 17.7%. Firstly neither had a majority, second that's no consensus.

Further the APA changed its position from its natural too it's natural AND a choice after reviewing more evidence. If you look at facts more studies are against the born that way theory, and it's scientific evidences (mainly from early 1990s) are being discredited.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Seriously, SS? She says she got hit by a truck and your response is to milk the conduct point? Even if you can't necessarily trust what people say over the internet, that's a d!ck move.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
Pretty much a douchebaggery move, SS. Really?
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
turbo, sure! I've got a few that I need to finish up first, but I'll send you a challenge soon. OR, if you want, send ME a challenge, and I'll accept in a few days.
Posted by turbodriver430 4 years ago
Ahh foster but not force responsible procreation--good point! I can work with that! Suburbiasurvivor, Would you like to restart this debate? Unless you want to change your initial arguments, I would like to work through what you've written in round 2.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Darn I can't think of an analogy right now.

But the states interest is to foster and promote not force procreation. Fostering leads to a responsible procreation setting, which does many things:
1) raises a healthy society
2) preserves the family unit
3) promotes societies existence without over-population

In other words forcing it is not the states interest, promoting it is.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
It's an elevated societal position to facilitate and value procreation, not to force procreation, lol.
Posted by turbodriver430 4 years ago
How can we definitely say that the purpose of marriage, at least as far is the government is concerned, is procreation? If procreation was it's purpose, wouldn't it be one of the first requirements for getting a marriage license? Wouldn't couples be required to sign some sort of notarized document stating their intent to have children? Why does NO state in the US require newly weds to demonstrate an intent to procreate before being handed over the benefits of marriage?
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
How did she manage to type all that out? Did someone help her? If she got hit by a truck, shouldn't she be like massively medicated right now?
Posted by Ahmed.M 4 years ago
>>"I was hit by a truck last night and I'm in the hospital posting this from my phone."
a truck?? How are you still alive?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Last round FF did not help any. I though that Con made better arguements and had reliable resources. Pro did ok until her FF.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Tying it up. Pro did not get a chance to properly present her case and it is not her fault that she didn't. I suggest you guys just redo the debate, pasting the first rounds and starting from where you left off. Then delete the old debate.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided more convincing arguments and did not forfeit