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

Gay Marriage is morally wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 11/27/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,562 times Debate No: 41343
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always.


I would like to welcome my opponent and wish him the best of luck in this debate!

I will begin by refuting my opponent's claims.

The first problem we encounter is that my opponent commits a logical fallacy by appealing to tradition - this is how marriage has always been. In fact, this is not only a logical fallacy but also an erroneous statement.

My opponent asserts that "marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman" geared toward procreation and well-being. This is inaccurate. As stated by Professor Coontz at Evergreen State College, "the most culturally preferred kind of marriage through the ages was between one man and several women" [1]. Polygamy is far older than monogamy. The former even appears many times in the Bible - the most obvious example being King Solomon with his many, many wives. Thus the idea of "a man and a woman" is proven false. Additionally, as ABC News reports, Roman Emperor Nero was married to two men [1]. My opponent's first claim has been thoroughly debunked. Indeed, this even negates many of his later points regarding homosexual marriage somehow being different from heterosexual marriage. Both types are marriage - two consenting adults entering a legal contract and an expression of their love.

I challenge my opponent's "specific primary purpose of marriage." The purpose of marriage is not reproduction. First of all, if it were, why do we permit infertile and elderly couples to marry? The Center for Disease Control notes that around 6% of married women between 15-44 are infertile [2] - and this source only includes women, not men. Furthermore, what about couples who choose not to have children? Clearly the purpose of marriage cannot be procreation.

It is not my BoP to explain the purpose of marriage.

My opponent claims marriage is rooted in human nature. I challenge this claim as well. I have proven polygamous relations were around before monogamous ones, and they were certainly even more common before the Neolithic Revolution.

My opponent makes claims about human nature without sources, evidence, or examples. This is especially important because he goes so far as to imply that gay marriage is evil. If my opponent seeks to make such a claim, he has a heavy burden of proof. Even if I throw out my counter-arguments and concede everything else to my opponent - which I do not -he would still have to prove that gay marriage is morally wrong. Additionally, if man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him, then morality is subjective to the beholder. A gay man or a lesbian would then see gay marriage as moral. My opponent then contradicts this position by claiming that morality is an objective norm.

My opponent makes similarly unsubstantiated claims about natural law. I find it difficult to understand what he means by natural law. I can just as easily claim that natural law supports my argument. These are blanket statements that require support. My opponent has failed to do so, and I urge that the voters discredit these points.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" and a similar relationship (that is, a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law) between two people of the same gender [3]. Marriage is an expression of love between two consenting adults, not just procreation. There are many other reasons for getting married as well. For example, many couples enjoy the legal benefits associated with marriage. Unless my opponent claims that these marriages are also morally wrong or alters his stance, then his arguments fall apart.

I look forward to my opponent's responses in the next round!

Debate Round No. 1


Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [11] In April 2013, Slate published a plea for legal polygamy by writer Jillian Keenan: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults."Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse"s health insurance policy. On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. Matthew D. Staver, JD, Dean of the Liberty University School of Law, explained: "The unifying characteristics of the protected classes within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 include (1) a history of longstanding, widespread discrimination, (2) economic disadvantage, and (3) immutable characteristics... 'Sexual orientation' does not meet any of the three objective criteria shared by the historically protected civil rights categories." [62]


My opponent's entire - I hesitate to say argument because there really isn't one in his latest posting - argument consists entirely of quotes from uncited sources. He has no argument in this round, so there is nothing to support - the voters have nothing to vote for; the evidence hovers in empty space. Nevertheless, I shall try to refute these quotes.

The first source is unreliable for two reasons. First of all, it comes from an Op-Ed and thus bears the weight any opinion would bear. I took the liberty of researching the organization. The Alliance Defense Fund no longer exists - it has changed its name to the Alliance Defending Freedom, and it is a conservative think tank attacking the separation of church and state as a myth. I believe Thomas Jefferson would disagree (common knowledge). I shall link the website for the voters to peruse if they so choose, and I ask them to remember the extreme bias of the source when voting [1].

My opponent never criticizes Slate's plea for legal polygamy, so I am unsure what he seeks to prove with this point. Simply listing it and never doing anything else does not constitute an argument. In fact, many of the points raised actually benefit me - "heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage" and all the benefits for gay couples, for example.

My opponent's report from the Congressional Budget Office is the closest thing to an actual argument. However, it is apparent that my opponent has slanted his information. Sure, paying out Social Security and employment benefits and the like might cost a little money. But my opponent forgets to mention how the government also makes money. In fact, in 2004, the CBO found that legalizing same-sex marriage would actually increase revenues by a tiny amount - a little less than $400 million [2]. And of course, the marriage industry stands to gain a tremendous benefit. The Williams Institute found that gay marriages in Washington State would boost the economy by $88 million - through wedding ceremonies alone - over the course of three years [3]. And in New York City, gay marriage boosted the economy by $259 million in a single year [4]. Clearly gay marriage has plenty of economic benefits.

My opponent's final quote attempts to divorce sexual orientation from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by claiming that sexual orientation does not meet any of the three criteria. I disagree.

Criteria 1: A long history of widespread discrimination.

Gay marriage has been frowned upon for a long time. Homosexuality has existed throughout history, and many societies have discriminated against homosexuals by forbidding them to marry, experimenting on them, attempting to change their orientations (which has been proven to be harmful and ineffective), and even murdering them, as in the case of Matthew Shepard. And let us not forget the infamous pink triangle worn by homosexuals in Nazi Germany's concentration camps. Nazi Germany clearly persecuted homosexuals [5], and they are neither the oldest nor the newest group to do so. One simply has to look at how homosexuals are treated in the Middle East. Clearly there is a history of widespread discrimination.

Criteria 2: Economic disadvantage

In 29 states, people can be fired because of their sexual orientation [6]. That seems like a clear case of economic disadvantage.

Criteria 3: Immutable characteristics

Sexual orientation cannot be changed. The many failed attempts to do so, emphasized by the apology and planned shutdown of gay-to-straight conversion group Exodus International [7], emphasize this. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic.

I anticipate my opponent's points in the final round and ask the voters to vote CON!

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent misunderstood my point when I presented the report from the Congressional Budget Office. My point is that people who do not believe in Gay marriage such as mormons should not pay taxes that may be funding stuff for same sex couples.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On one of the websites in which you provided, there is a sentence that i want you to read.
'Lesbians were not regarded as a threat to Nazi racial policies and were generally not targeted for persecution. Similarly, the Nazis generally did not target non-German homosexuals unless they were active with German partners. '
So as you can see, Nazis did not target every single homosexual in Germany.
Dr. Martin Luther King was known widely to be one of the most prominent civil rights activists. In a Interview with ' The Christian Post', Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, founder and president of The Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny said that studying King"s speeches, he could not conceive the civil rights leader heading a gay rights movement.
"King was a man sent by God to do His will and there is no way that you can have that type of relationship with God and accept wrong as right," Peterson told CP. "In the scriptures it says that homosexuality is an abomination against God." So as you can see, even Dr. King was against gay marriage.
I am going to present some quotes.
' If a man is a homosexual, either in the sense of having homosexual attractions or in the sense of having had practiced homosexuality, there are no laws against him getting married " to a woman. A homosexual man has the exact same rights as a heterosexual man; they both have the right to marry a woman. Likewise for women, there is total equality. All women have the right to marry a man. I am not being flippant about this issue. Like it or not, that is the definition of equality.'
'In the case of racial segregation, people were banned from exercising the same rights people of a different skin color exercised; those were immoral laws. But let us not confuse that with this issue. There is already total equality in marriage. Again, as far as I know, all adult human beings have the legal right to enter into marriage.

What people do NOT have the right to do is call any union they want, "marriage." Here are a few unions that cannot be accurately called "marriage," there are certainly many more:

A union between a person and an animal is not marriage. Just because a person has a sexual attraction to an animal does not give him a right to call a union with that animal a "marriage."
A union between a person and an inanimate object is not marriage. Again, just because a person has an attraction to an inanimate object does not give him the right to legally join himself to that object and call it a "marriage."
A union between two men or between two women is not marriage. The concept is the same; just because they have an attraction to one another does not give them the right to call their union with one another a "marriage."'
These quotes were from
You can not compare the suffering of the black people with gay marriage. The black community went through tough times. They were beaten, raped, tortured, and laughed at. Do you know that a group of christian black americans protested against gay marriage? You can find the story at I rest my case.


As this is my final round, I will refrain from bringing in new arguments/sources, as my opponent would not have a chance to refute them.

If my opponent's point regarding the CBO is about people not having to pay taxes for things they don't believe in, then his point is irrelevant to the resolution that gay marriage is morally wrong and should be discounted. He also conceded my points about gay marriage's economic benefits.

My opponent cites the first amendment for no clear reason.

I was aware what the source said about lesbians. I apologize if I wasn't clear that I was referring to gay men. Ether way, it is still a blatant example of discrimination.

We do not know if Dr. King was against gay marriage, and a quote from a Reverend studying King's speeches certainly does not tell us if he was. However, I remind my opponent that Coretta Scott King, his wife, was a huge advocate for gay rights. I promised not to cite sources in this round, but I think is common knowledge anyway. A quick Google search will verify this for any doubters. I think King's wife would know much more about King than a Reverend.

There are many interpretations of Scripture, and not all of them are against homosexuality. Any appeal to Scripture is faulty.

No, a homosexual man does not have the same rights as a heterosexual man. Heterosexual men and women can marry the one adult they love. Homosexuals cannot. Marriage is not about gender. This is not total equality but blanket inequality.

My opponent makes several faulty analogies using quotes. A union between an animal and a person is not marriage because an animal cannot consent to marrying a human. The same goes for the inanimate object. But both parties consent in both heterosexual and homosexual marriages - there is no difference.

The LGBTQ+ community has been raped, tortured, laughed at, driven to suicide, demonized, tormented, discriminated against, and murdered. I can certainly compare one atrocity - the suffering of blacks - with another - the suffering of gays. Even if the two are not equal in scope, both are travesties.

My opponent dropped my counterpoints to his Criteria 2 and 3. We must conclude he concedes them.

My opponent never defends his first source. We must conclude he agrees that it is unreliable and dismiss it from the debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for providing this opportunity to debate, and I ask the voters to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ThomasTownend 3 years ago
The sanctity of homosexual love means more than the faux sanctity of a disillusioned interpretation of a tradition, that has been re-defined throughout history for practical reasons. Marriage is malleable - equality for love is not!
Posted by harredash 3 years ago
I'm going to respond to the first argument by paragraph.
Marriage is defined as a union between two people who pledge to spend the rest of their lives together.
Whether those two people are both males, both females, or one male one female shouldn't matter. Marriage is based on love and trust, not whether you have a penis or a vagina.
If your argument is simply "two men shouldn't get married because they can't reproduce" then you lose already. People in their 60's get remarried all the time, and do you see them having any children? People who are sterile and can't carry children are allowed to get married, they adopt and save the lives of orphans around the world. How is it any different for two men or two women?
What you think is "morally" right is completely different than what is actually right.
Bigotry, hate, and discrimination is what's wrong with the world. And denying someone one of their rights because of the person they love is not only unfair, but that is what's actually morally wrong.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ndedo 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a poor attempt at defending his position. Numerous grammar issues on his side compared with Con's impeccable writing. The fact that one of his sources was called "" is hilarious, given that he had already been called out for poor sources.