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

Gay Marriage should be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 6/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 902 times Debate No: 76386
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




I will be going for the position that gay marriage should be legal,
I am willing to have a fun and knowledgeable debate to anyone who is willing to debate me :)
First round will be acceptance of the debate
Looking forward to debate :)


I accept. Looking forward to it!
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate :) hope to have a great time
1. Gay marriage isn't hurting anybody and therefore should not be illegal
I don't think i can stress enough about why this is even an issue when nobody is harmed at all, Con would need to present how keeping a victim less preference on who you love be kept banned.

What will the effects of gay marriage be?
It will mean that two people of the same gender who love eachother would be able to get the state to recognize there commitment to spend the rest of their lives with eachother.

I would like to here from Con what is so bad about this happening and why it should be banned. For right now Con needs to show why loving people need to be barred from getting married. The reality is thousands of gay couples have been basically married just without state recognizing it they have been together for years now and just want to be treated like equals to straight couples.
2. Marriage is always changing and you have to look at history to see that this is true.
Con i assume will bring the question of "Why should we change the definition of marriage since we always had it between one man and one woman, why change it now?"
The fact is that we need to define one man and one woman, plus in fact in the 1960's people were against interracial marriage but now its legalized! Used to be one white man and one white woman now that's not true. Used to be that you had to marry based on your social status or how much money you made or job you had but that is not true anymore. IN fact in the past we had non consent marriages such as "Arranged marriage" where the parent decides who you marry but we gotten away with that but why is it that two same gender couples who want to be together and truly love eachother should be barred from getting married? As society evolves marriage evolves and we are now in a civilized 21st society society where we don't bar two loving people from marrying eachother.
3. Denying gay marriage is a form of denying civil rights and a form of discrimination
In the USA we are all equal under the law and no one should be treated unjustly discriminated against. By law makers making laws strictly prohibiting and discriminating against gays. Under the Constitution in the 14th amendment we are under Due process of the law and because a set of consenting adults can get married but another set can not is seen as the denial of gay people's constitutional civil rights and is a form of discrimination. Con needs to show why denying consenting adults the same rights that other adults are already doing should be allowed. No adult should be disallowed from doing something that other people are allowed to do. No lesbian or gay person need's to be treated less than full citizens when it comes to their legal and civil rights.

I have some other arguments i will present in my next round for now i will present Con with these three arguments for same sex marriage.
Good luck and have fun :)


Thanks Pro.

I will use this round for both arguments and rebuttals because my case directly answers each of Pro's points. Thus my contentions will serve as both my own points and refutations of my opponent's arguments.

Pro's case is outlined as such:

1. Same-sex marriage isn't harmful
2. Marriage is changing anyways
3. Denying it is discriminatory

I challenge 1 and 3, which I will elaborate on in my case. As for 2, Pro asserts that I will indeed ask why marriage should be changed when it is better for it to be the older definition. I would never ask such a thing because it is an appeal to tradition and is begging the question of what marriage really is. It is obvious that societal views change, but whether they should is what is up for debate.

Defining Marriage: What is it Exactly?

As stated by Pro, denying one's civil right is a form of discrimination. On the contrary, I shall argue that same-sex couples do not fit the criteria for marriage is, thus they should not be allowed to enter into such a union.

If I can show that my view of marriage is more sensical than my opponent's, then the resolution is negated.

Let's look at an example. Is denying people under the age of 18 the right to vote a form of discrimination? If it is, it's a worthy boundary to have because people under 18 are less likely to vote properly, thus they do not fit the criteria for the right to vote. They are being denied it, yes, but whether that is a bad thing is up for debate. This analogy will be similar to my argument as to why marriage should logically be between one man and one woman.

In order for marriage to be recognized by the government, it must first have a reason to do so. Otherwise, it has no business in regulating marital unions. The revisionist cause believes that marriage should be between two people who love each other, because that is what equality really is. Immediately we see a problem: why should the state care whether or not two people love each other? Why regulate marriage when other relationship such as friendships also contain love? Marriage isn't unique in this regard, and the government obviously doesn't recognize those other unions, so for it to recognize a marital union as special makes no sense.

This view of marriage is also too broad. If mutual emotional fulfillment is the only reason behind marriage, then it's discriminatory to disallow three people from marrying each other, for incestuous couples to marry, or for a person to not be allowed to marry a pet. Pro can choose to argue in favor of any of these, but to do such would be to ignore the nature of the nuclear family in society.

Instead of this revisionist view, which is both flawed and nonsensical, allow me to provide a different definition: "Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children."[] This is the conjugal view, which holds that a marital union is to promote a common goal. This goal is for two spouses to share a domestic life oriented towards child-bearing and child-rearing. The ends of the mean is procreation, and the children produced are reflective to union at hand. Naturally, only a man and a woman can complete this comprehensive union, which creates a biological unity that fulfills intrinsic procreation. Marriage points couples in that direction, and brings them together in unity that is unlike any other relationship.

This intrinsic link to children is what the government is interested in, for there is no other reason for the government to regulate this union. The state recognizes the good that this union brings, and provides benefits that promote this union. It demonstrates a proper view of what marriage is and what its purpose in society is. Procreation in itself most often largely benefits society through having more workers, scientists, military personnel, entrepreneurs, government laborers, medical staff and overall more people to support the economy and the nation. The government wants to push forward this end goal so that it can benefit society.

What about infertile couples?

This is a common objection that I have encountered every time I've debated this topic. If marriage is about procreation, why should infertile couples be allowed to marry? I have the answer: heterosexual unions are still of the procreative type whether or not they can act upon that characteristic. Just encouraging these couples to enter into marriage create a likelier chance that procreation will occur, so that it can bring a benefit to society. The state wants to provide a view of what marriage really is, not just as a means to end. For example, if I went out into the forest to hunt for some animals, but came back empty, I would've still considered myself "hunting" regardless of whether or not I was successful.

The harms of same-sex marriage

Pro challenged me to show how legalizing gay marriage would harm anyone at all. This is his entire first argument, so if I can successfully show at least one then this point is knocked down.

1. Because allowing marriage increases the chances of adoption, and many studies confirm that heterosexual couples as a group are better parents than all other couples, then children will not be parented as well as they could have, thus they would be harmed. The American College of Pediatricians has affirmed that children do best when raised by the biological mother-father parents as opposed to single and same-sex couples. As they put it, "there are significant innate differences between male and female that are mediated by genes and hormones and go well beyond basic anatomy. These biochemical differences are evident in the development of male and female brain anatomy, psyche, and even learning styles. Consequently, mothers and fathers parent differently and make unique contributions to the overall development of the child."[] Biology matters, and that is part of why upholding traditional marriage is important for society. Thus, children will be harmed. I could further argue the effects of same-sex parenting but I believe the point has been made.

2. The legalization of same-sex marriage has come with a price: the loss of freedom of speech and press. An example of this is in Canada, which has SSM legalized for a while now. There, "it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training."[] Many have been accused of hate speech for speaking out against SSM, which is sadly the outcome of legalization of it. It harms people's right to practice their freedoms they are entitled to, which I find shameful.

3. Marriage has been sliding the slippery slope in Canada, having legalized SSM in 2005 and recently seeing polygamy cases coming into court and consideration. Polygamous marriages weaken the family. With them there will be an increase in crime and as well as an increased cost placed upon employers and the government[].

Same-sex marriage is contrary to the purpose and societal goal of marriage, harms children, lessens freedoms, and weakens the family. Thus, it should not be legalized.
Debate Round No. 2


Thanks Con :)
Con has suggested that there are in fact two definitions of marriage and that the "Revisionist" is the wrong one and that the "Conjugal" one is the right one. If i understand correctly i'll define on what they mean
Revisionist - Marriage is a union between certain persons who are emotional attached to eachother
Conjugal - Marriage is a union for the sole purpose of creating children.
There are some things wrong with the conjugal view, and that is firstly if the government specifically made marriage just for the purpose of creating kids then polygamous marriages should be legal and not monogamous ones because polygamous marriages would result in even more children. Nothing wrong with marrying more than one person but if the main purpose of marriage is to just make kids, having more than one wife seems to be the better solution than to not allow same sex marriage. Now i was going to say "What about infertile couples?" but Con beat me to it, Though he says that it would still be allowed he compares it to hunting and says that infertile couples could not catch anything but since catching was the goal of hunting in the first place but even though they didn't catch anything they were still hunting. Though i still could make the argument that even though they can fit to make children they should still be denied marriage because they can't make kids doesn't matter if they could make kids but if Con position is that marriage is for kids than infertile couples would still be denied the right to marry. Next, Same Sex couples could adopt children and raise then to be productive adults. If the purpose of marriage is to raise kids in a stable household why cant a loving same sex couple adopt some children and raise them to become productive adults? Surely Con wouldn't say that leaving these kids in some foster home with no parents is better than kids being raised in a stable loving household with a same sex couple?. Now what if a man and a woman have sex before marriage? what if they never marry and just raise kids without the marriage part would that count? Suppose a man and a woman get together and get married but never want to have kids would that be ok? or should the state meddle in their lives and force them to divorce because there not doing what marriage is supposed to be for. Plus incest couples could get married and raise kids, What's stopping them from getting married and raising kids? Nothing wrong with it but if we should follow Con's view of marriage it would be allowed.
So what is the definition of marriage? "The legally or formally recognized union of partners in a relationship". By going by this view we can allow people to marry who they want with consent and everyone will not have the bondage of society and there freedom restricted because of it this will at the end of the day bring joy to everyone who wants to show there affections to eachother

Con says in order for a marriage to be valid by the government it needs to have a reason to do so.Here is my rebuttal. Yes, marriage will have to be recognized by the government, for marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults claiming that they would like to claim themselves as a dependent on each other. That would mean they depend on each other for everything...finances, social survival, moral support, hospital consents, medical records, and so forth. They show society, and by relation the government, that they are legal dependents of each other and must rely on each other. But not only is it an issue of sharing wealth and over all safety/health, but it is also a psychological issue instated after countless years of reinforcement and importance. Marriage has become a goal in life, something to achieve and something to strive for, and to keep working between the consenting parties. The government, the state especially, should take interests in those that want to take part of this contractual agreement. Because not only does this involve extra taxes for the consenting parties to have to pay, as well as financial stability for even more tax payments, but it also gives better mental and emotional health to the populace. This does not reach into other relationship fields such as courtships or friendships. These fields do not require legally binding contracts to be enforced and take little or no actual effort to make or sustain. Nor do they run on dependence. And it would be ludicrous to try and institute that, as even children in elementary, and even before, can form bonds of friendship, and those bonds are flimsy at best.

Now for some rebuttals to the harms that Con brought out that might come from legalizing Same Sex Marriage.
1. The first case is that adoption will follow from same sex marriage and that kids will suffer from it. Well i have a study that shows that in fact kids do better with same sex parents than with regular parents
With that i have to say, what about the single moms and dad's who raise children? Studies show that support Con say that a bond between two people raise kids better than a single mom, Though i don't see Con saying that we need to ban single parents from raising children, Plus i know plenty of friends who were raised with a single parent or same sex couple and they ended up just fine. I think legalizing same sex marriage helps kids because it brings them into a household of loving parents instead of leaving them in some foster home with no parents at all. Simply put better to have a loving parents even if those parents are same sex than no parents at all
2. It saddens me that Canada is doing these things, though lets not forget america has a strong sense of protecting freedom of speech,
Protecting Nazi's, Racists, And hate speech,
Im pretty sure any bigoted view that people will hold will be protected by the supreme court since our nation is build on strong freedom of speech rights and the court has shown this than say a country in Europe which censors extremists. Im simply trying to expand freedom and giving loving people a chance to marry eachother but i will also protect the speech rights of people who for some reason don't want these people to get together. The only thing i see happening in the future is less hatred and more tolerance towards gay people and this would counter the discrimination faced by Gay's and thats something i cant help the Anti-gay community about. But i will reaffirm that people have a right to say what they want regardless on what it is.
3. The next argument is basically the slippery slope argument and this can be debunked here
In this article is shows that not a single country that has legalized same sex marriage has legalized polygamy and the countries that do have polygamy legalized they are the most hostile toward gay marriage such as in the middle east.
However i don't think its wrong to marry more than one person but that's just my opinion but even so if same sex marriage led to polygamy whats the point? We are focusing on the issue of same sex marriage not the other types of marriage. we can talk about if we can legalize the other types of marriage in another debate perhaps but no country has so far legalized polygamy after legalizing same sex marriage.
Here is a interesting video we i think you will enjoy :)

Lastly a little thought experiment, What if when you woke up one day you woke up in a world where being gay was the norm and being straight was seen as a "Deformity" How would that make you feel? You know that you just want to love another girl and marry her and be seen as a union by the government, nothing is wrong with you yet many people don't think straight people should be married in this world. Now reflect back and see how gay's feel in this real world.
I want Con to see this video as well as everyone else who is reading through this debate to give an idea on what gay kids go through.
Hope to see Con's reaction and rebuttal to my arguments.


Thanks Pro.

Defending Conjugality

Monogamy and Polygamy

The misconception that I believe lies in Pro's argument is that marriage is about producing the most kids as possible. This is not true. In the conjugal view of marriage, "the unifying good of a marriage relationship is procreation...Marriage stabilizes homes, and provides a natural reason for both fathers and mothers to remain committed to the domestic life into which they bring children. It cultivates a climate where permanence and fidelity are expected of married partners." [] The ordering toward procreation is what makes marital unions unique, and we must recognize that biological parenting is what is best for children.


As stated earlier, marriage should not be treated as a means to an end, with procreation as that end. Infertile couples still serve procreative interests, even if they are not actually successful in directly completing the end. Recognizing their union as a marriage encourages norms permanence, exclusivity, and monogamy that serve the interests of children. Setting the public norm shows off an image of what marriage ought to be, and incentivizes it with benefits, to promote this view, which encourages more couples to partake in the public end.

We see another scenario in the American voting age limit, with people required to be 18 or older. Could minors vote efficiently? Sure, but we don't let them. Are some adults immature enough to vote improperly? Yes, but we don't exclude them. The reason for this is that general propositions are made on the connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired. And so it is with marriage.

If we were to accept that infertile couples shouldn't be included in marriage, it is unlawful to screen couples for infertility because that is privacy invasion and an abuse of state power. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and is not a reasonable base for making such a conclusion. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman does not warrant such a measure, making it a better option.

The same challenge can be levied against any view of marriage. Should revisionists exclude those who aren't really in love, or are emotionally compatible? If mutual fulfillment and love of the spouses is the requirement for marriage, can we guarantee that all marital unions are actually in love or emotionally compatible? If not, then the accusation of infertility becomes a moot point, which makes the revisionist view suffer no more than the conjugal view does.

More objections

Pro's argument becomes a bit unclear after this point...marriage is in place because the government wishes to incentivize the common goal that is uniquely carried out by heterosexual couples. This does not mean that same-sex couples should be barred from adoption services, for that would be hurtful to children who had to choose between same-sex couples and no parents at all.


My opponent states that there's a different purpose to marriage than what the conjugal view offers, but is a bit unclear on what that purpose is. He mentions that marriage gives benefits to couples, and that is reason enough to regulate it. But what kind of rationalization is this? Couples don't need marriage to get ahold of benefits because of the existence of civil unions. If the government wants to give a tax deduction to members of a union, there should be a good reason for it because the government *wants* to receive more taxes in order to function better, so to give out free benefits to couples seems just ludicrous. Relationships don't bring a benefit to society unless there is a purpose behind them which serves the interests of the community and thus deserves government attention.


Biological Parenting

1. I am not arguing that children should be disallowed from being adopted into unions that are not marital. If a heterosexual couple is not present, then there isn't a reason to keep children from being adopted by single and same-sex parents.

2. Pro says he "knows plenty of friends who were raised this way and ended up just fine". This is anecdotal evidence, which is logically fallacious []

3. The study that was cited doesn't give long-term evidence of child health, it just used children that were in their young years and didn't have much time to develop and show effects that would have been altered by biological couples.

Loss of Freedom

Pro concedes that this is happening in Canada, and I would say that it could happen in America as well. In fact, I would go as far as saying that it is already beginning to happen. Private businesses are already being harmed as some new laws have been going up which force bakers, florists, and photographers to cater to homosexual couples for weddings when their religious beliefs dictate otherwise. This is an infringement on religious freedom because it forces people to go against their will, and has been happening ever since SSM has been getting legalized. I can show some examples if Pro requests, but it should be clear what is happening. It also violates the Thirteenth Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits involuntary servitude. []

Slippery Slope

I've shown that polygamy cases have been going through in Canada as well as have shown how polygamy harms society. Pro dropped these arguments.

Pro then links to a video that has nothing to do with marriage... I am aware of the challenges that gay people face, but it doesn't seem relevant to whether they should be allowed into marital unions when the definition of marriage is clearly otherwise.
Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Con :) To Con's request i will space my paragraphs a bit more so it can be easier to read.

Con has to produce why first of all that his view of marriage is the correct one in order for the rest of his argument to make sense.

His view of marriage is too raise kids but that is not what marriage is, He states in a earlier argument that
"It is obvious that societal views change"

And so has marriage and so what is the real definition of marriage?

Marriage - "A legal binding contract between People who love eachother"

Debates could be raised on who can be in a marriage and im guessing that this can be one of them which is debating if same sex couples should get married but Con has so far not shown why we should go by his definition of marriage and not the real definition.
His entire argument falls apart if asked why children need to be the center of marriage, Couples who cant make kids get married and so do couples who don't want to have kids. Marriage at the end of the day is just a contract between people who love eachother and i have seen no arguments as too exclude same sex couples from it.

Now what if it was his definition? the argument presented is that they don't fit the criteria of making and raising children?

Well First off gay's in a stable, loving household can raise kids as good as straight parents can so like the infertile couples that cant make kids and who adopt which he allows i see no reason for gays to be allowed to adopt children and raise them there basically like the infertile couples which Con accepts but by accepting them he needs to accept gay's as people who can raise kids just as well, here are the links

Now Con has a view that all straight couples are some picture perfect nuclear family from the 1940's this is not true, A lot of straight couples have drug problems, abusive problems, always fight with eachother etc yet They could still get married, We allow people who just met to get married, We allow people who divorce a few months later to just remarry later on but yet a gay couple who wants to live together under a government contract (marriage) for the rest of their lives are denied that?

To me that seems wrong.

Con has failed to present how marriage is nothing but a contract the only argument that can be brought up is if its some 'Sacred union blessed by some god" but i don't see any argument that Con has brought up to support this view

Con also says what is the alternative to his view of marriage which is centered around children?
This is the definition of marriage as what im going by,

"Marriage is a government/society recognize contract between consenting parties (whatever society may find acceptable at the time) that declare dependency upon each other. It is a social claiming of each party to the other, and allow an easier way of dividing assets as well as evolving the growth of families as well as making a society closer together. It is an economic and health agreement also, since the consenting parties will typically share resources and allow for stability and longevity within a cohesive unit."

Rebuttals to "harms"
1. Con forgets to mention that same sex people who get married might not want children nulling that it might harm children and that even if they do adopt children that in the links above i show that gay's can raise kids as good as straight parents and Con doesn't show why a couple that is straight but is always cheating on eachother and fighting is better than a loving gay couple.

2. Just saying that all kids aren't going to end up gay just because they had gay parents

3. Alright, Check out my new article's showing gays can raise happy kids as well as straight parents.

Freedom wont get lost
I accepted at face value that what is happening in Canada from Con's view which he has yet to cite his source on if this was even happening but if it was happening he then asserts that freedom is getting lost in america which i will debunk.
First of all back a round he said that we might be losing free speech rights cause of it

Lets take Wesbro Basbist church

If they can say stuff as stupid as this and still have free speech, im pretty sure a few people who want to stay with the traditional view point would be able to keep their free speech.

Now his main point is that forcing religious business to do stuff that goes against there religious beliefs violates the 13th amendment and takes away their freedom.

Well we already have federal laws prohibiting laws discriminating against race, color, national origin/ancestry, sex/gender, religion/creed and disability (physical and mental).

So is my freedom lost? What if my religion hated people of different races and i wanted to refuse service? In fact doesn't refusing service to gay's make their freedom get worse?

We can go on and off about refusing service to gay's but that's for another debate, But Con needs to show why not allow sexual orientation as another part of who you cant discriminate against, if you can refuse service to gay's cause of your religious beliefs , why not race or people of different religious beliefs?

But doesn't that FORCE me to work for someone? No, Your getting paid for it. The 13th amendment applies to real slavery, and slavery is broad and if you define slavery as "forcing me to work for you when you pay me" then we should just outlaw business

3. Con has failed to show any sources that polygamy is getting legalized in Canada but has shown one article saying that polygamy is bad, However the slippery slope is irrelevant since were only talking about gay marriage here not polygamy.

If Con wants we can discuss Polygamy in another debate and as i have said before marriage changes all the time and so maybe later in time we can discuss polygamy marriage but for now we are talking about gay marriage. Im not dropping them im saying there not relevant.

Like say, "Should we legalize marijuana" and Con says well Heroin is bad and... You see how it is not relevant to the argument? We can discuss polygamy as another issue,

Maybe in another debate?

The whole point of the video was trying to create a thought experiment to someone who is straight and try to see how the anti-gay arguments would feel to them. Trying to show that in that different universe that if he was born in it his arguments would say that even though he loves the opposite sex so much he cant marry. Gives thought and reflection upon his own life.

Conclusion: Loving same sex couples should be allowed to form a contract (marriage) and as society progresses and marriage changes in the 21st century we must show our advancement in culture and allow two loving people who love eachother to get married. Again marriage means

"Marriage is a government/society recognize contract between consenting parties (whatever society may find acceptable at the time) that declare dependency upon each other. It is a social claiming of each party to the other, and allow an easier way of dividing assets as well as evolving the growth of families as well as making a society closer together. It is an economic and health agreement also, since the consenting parties will typically share resources and allow for stability and longevity within a cohesive unit."

Vote Pro! for expanding loves horizons and expanding freedom and tolerance into the 21st century!
Thank you Con for a most interesting debate :)


Defining Marriage

Since the definition of marriage is up for debate, I'm going to present why my definition is more logical than Pro's, and that you should buy mine over his. Both of us agree that a definition must exist, and that it's either mine or his.

My view

I have shown that the government has an interest in marriage. Marital unions, in the conjugal view, are the only relationships that have an intrinsic link to procreation. The state recognizes this unique unifying good and incentivize marriage in order to encourage couples to enter into the union. This doesn't mean that unmarried couples shouldn't have children, but rather that they should marry. Biological parenting is also something that all children should have a right to, since biological parents are needed to stabilize homes for children to be raised in.

Pro's view

The major issue with Pro's view is that it is too broad. If marriage is just about fulfillment then there's no reason to exclude all kinds of unions that include fulfillment, whether it be between two or more individuals or not even between just people at all. It extends so far across that it doesn't give proper boundaries as to what marriage is. Pro's definition is way too vague and laid back that it seems to have been redefined just to appeal to outside groups that want to change the definition of marriage to gain social recognition.

Pro's view also does not provide a purpose of marriage - no end goal is in sight, and no outcome is meant to be reached. In fact, Pro doesn't give us a single reason as to why marriage should be recognized in the first place, thus self-negating his argument. He is basically saying "yep, marriage exists because it should exist". This is circular logic and self-defeating, rendering his view too contradictory to be logical.

This definition also suffers from a basic flaw that Pro never responded to in the last round: if marriage is about personal fulfillment, then couples in marriage who are not engaged in fulfillment and are lacking an emotional attachment should be barred from marriage. Pro could've argued that this definition isn't correct, but has already conceded that it is, or that this definition is correct but for some reason these couples shouldn't be disallowed entrance into this union. Pro has argued neither, thus admitting that this view is flawed.


Pulling out a dictionary and using that to define marriage is irrelevant because the definition is up for debate. I could just find an older dictionary that hasn't updated it's definition from a man-woman union to something else. This is just a distraction with no logic provided.

"Con has failed to present how marriage is nothing but a contract the only argument that can be brought up is if its some 'Sacred union blessed by some god" but i don't see any argument that Con has brought up to support this view"

Pro strawmanned my case. I never argued that marriage is nothing but a contract nor that it is a "sacred union blessed by some god".


I've already shown why infertile couples should not be barred from marriage, which Pro never responded to. I even presented multiple analogies to prove my point, but Pro restated that "marriages without kids mean marriage isn't about kids". This is ignoring everything said in the last two rounds by me. I also showed that it's unlawful and invasive to screen infertile couples, which was dropped. Public norms are what ought to be held and recognized as essential in the conjugal view.


I'm going to cut this relatively short due to time restraints, but I'm pretty sure my conjugal view arguments alone debunk Pro's case. I'm also the only one to show that marriage of one view is harmful, while Pro hasn't shown how my views contains any harms, meaning that if I lose the harms argument I've really lost nothing.

Religious Freedom

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. Yes, there are laws that exist that are against discrimination, but this is only discrimination made at face value. One still ought to be able to deny service as long as they don't have to explain who they are denying it to and why, which is why it can be easy to edge around that law.

Slippery Slope

Pro statss that this argument is irrelevant but it is perfectly relevant. I've shown how polygamy is harmful, which has gone uncontested by Pro, and that polygamy cases have already gone into consideration in Canada, which means that it *is* a reality and could happen.

Thnaks for the debate Pro! The outcome should be clear here.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SummerLover19 1 year ago
Round 2

Conduct- Both had excellent conduct. Both of them used little to no personal attacks.

Spelling and Grammar- Pro has made many spelling and grammar mistakes on several occasions in this round, such as saying "here" instead of "hear", "society" instead of "century", and placing words together that are meant to be apart like "each other"... 3 times. Con has made no spelling mistakes in round 2 so far.

Reliable Sources- Con provided the most reliable sources in this round since all if his sources are scholarly by how they are written by Ph.D.'s, professors, or experts in their professional fields. Pro did provide some reliable sources (such as,, and but his other sources were a blog, an open-source encyclopedia (wikipedia), and a magazine website that publishes children from ages 13-19, making them unreliable in expertise.
Posted by SummerLover19 1 year ago
Round 3

Conduct- Both had excellent conduct. Both of them used little to no personal attacks.

Spelling and Grammar- Pro has not improved in his poor spelling and grammar; he mostly did not capitalize his I's when referring to himself. He misses an apostrophe in the word can't, placed a period and a question mark together, and unnecessarily capitalized "same-sex couple" when it wasn't the beginning of a sentence. Con has once again shown no spelling or grammar mistakes.

Reliable Sources- In round 3, both Pro and Con lacked in reliable sources. Most of Pro's sources were blogs based on personal opinions of writers and unnecessary youtube videos that had little relevance to the debate; they weren't at least recorded documentaries or news reports on the issue at hand, instead, one was a gag video on a polygamous lesbian marriage and the other a surrealist short film. As for Con, instead of using scholarly sources like he did in the last round, he used a blog, an open-source encyclopedia, and a website that wouldn't be considered credible due to it not being a dictionary or scholarly source to define logically fallacious.

To Continue>>
Posted by SummerLover19 1 year ago
Round 4

Conduct- Both had excellent conduct. Both of them used little to no personal attacks and neither forfeited.

Spelling and grammar- Once again Pro has failed to improve in his spelling and grammar. He is, again not capitalizing his I's when referring to himself, and not finishing his sentences by not adding periods in many parts in his arguments. The one mistake I saw Con make in this entire debate was misspelling "states" and "thanks" in this round. Con shall receive all the points concerning his grammar.

Reliable Sources- Con stated his last thoughts in the final round in the debate and explained his arguments from previous rounds so there were no sources to provide. Pro, on the other hand, since he was second to last to finalize the debate, continued to make arguments (with sources) for Con to rebuttal. Most of Pro's sources in this round are considered credible due to WashingtonPost, InsideTucsonBusiness, and Salon being newspapers and Ijreview being peer-reviewed. The only unreliable sources he had in this last round was wikipedia (a site that anyone can change) and GoldenCradle (an opinionated site with no author or references, and not exactly a research site; it's a hotline website).

To Continue>>
Posted by SummerLover19 1 year ago

Convincing Arguments- Above all, despite Pro's poor grammar, Pro had the most convincing arguments because of the points he provided. Instead of refuting Pro's claims on why single parenting isn't banned (since Con claimed that two parents were a better for kids), Con talked about Pro's quote,"I know plenty of friends who were raised this way and ended up just fine", which had nothing to do with Pro's question. When speaking of infertile couples, Con didn't prove how infertile couples would "benefit to society" by having a "likelier chance to procreate" when infertile means unable to reproduce. Also, since Con's view on marriage is mostly about procreating, Pro questioned him on the couples that were married but didn't have or want any children and whether or not the law should force them to divorce; Con didn't rebuttal this. Plus, Pro gave the most reliable sources. Most of them were peer-reviewed, newspapers, scholarly, and credible by expertise, making his arguments more convincing and trustworthy. Pro has my vote.

Overall Result

Conduct: Tied
Spelling and Grammar: Points to Con
Convincing Arguments: Points to Pro
Reliable Sources: Points to Pro having 8 reliable sources out of Con's 4 reliable sources
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Go4thegold // Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con utilized arguments that have been refuted in the past, and have no objective basis behind them. Pro has managed to refute con's arguments with responses similar to how others that have been presented with arguments similar to con's have responded in the past.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of specifics. Can be copy-pasted to any debate. Makes no mention of what those arguments are. (2) No explanation for sources.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Henceforth_Truth // Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro repeatedly ignored parts of Con's contentions, even when asked to refute them. Pro also engaged in straw man arguments frequently.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) No explanation for S&G, Sources, and Conduct. (2) Arguments point lacks specificity. Can be copy-pasted to any debate and still make sense.
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
sorry i misused a word when i said
"i see no reason for gays to be allowed to adopt children and raise them there basically like the infertile couples"
What i meant too say was i see no reason for gay to not be allowed. i forgot the not part, A little spelling error. Hopefully Con can read that the correct way now.
Posted by AdventurerExplorer 1 year ago
Ok, I'll try in my next argument. thx :)
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
If you could space your paragraphs more to make it a little easier to read that would be fantastic.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Yeah, well, the difference is procreation and child-rearing which heterosexuals are best at...but I'll get to that in my arg. I just don't like it when people assume that I oppose gay marriage because I don't like homosexuals (I've been asked whether or not I hate gays before), so yeah. I consider myself asexual anyways so personal bias isn't at all an issue I don't think.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SummerLover19 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments