I will be arguing that Marriage rights should be given to Homosexuals, but that parenthood should be defined as being between one Man and one Woman, one Father and one Mother, in line with nature. I will be arguing that Marriage is a concept thought up by humans, that marriage is both a religious act and a legal contract, but that it is not a natural act, as parenthood is.
So my side is, legalize gay marriage as there is nothing "unnatural" about gay marriage, as marriage was invented by humans, but that parenthood be defined as being between one Man and one Woman, meaning gay people cannot adopt, because children need both a Mother and a Father for a stable environment to grow up in.
I look forward to this debate with 16kadams. Good luck!
"The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."
My opponent is arguing to legally redefine marriage to a different version, in which he must define later in the debate. As the current definition in which we agreed upon is on my side, it is his BOP on why it should be changed and what the new definition should be. In other words, he has the BOP.
My opponent stated his view on the subject, so that is what I am going to do as well. My view is the conjugal definition of marriage. Marriage is a legal union in which one man and one woman commit to each other for the purpose creating children. To form a procreative type union that fulfills the states interest in propagating society. In other words, marriage is a union which helps facilitate and encourage procreation.
 Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
I will separate my arguments into X parts, 1-What Marriage is, 2-Why Gay Marriage should be allowed, 3-Why Parenthood should be limited to one Man and one Woman.
1-What is Marriage?
Marriage is a social and religious tradition dating back centuries, even millenia. It is said that marriage was derived from everything from a Man's responsibility to his children, to Women being seen as property, owned by Men. Marriage has undergone so much change over time, since it's beginning dating back to before recorded history. Men have been allowed one wife, sometimes many wives. Sometimes these women had rights, other times, none. In certain cultures, no religious or legal ceremony was necessary for a marriage to take place, just a mutual agreement between the couple.
My point is, there has never been a good definition of marriage at any point during history. It has undergone many, many changes, from the ancient Egyptians, Israelites, and Greeks, to the Judeo-Christian definition, to the Protestant definition. Our views on marriage now are greatly different from what they used to be. So why can't we change it today? There is no set origin of marriage. It is unknown whether it was originally a social or religious ceremony, as it goes back to before recorded history. There is no reason it cannot be altered today, especially in a country where we do not (or at least try not to) discriminate against people. I see no reason why we cannot change marriage to allow Homosexual people to marry.
Large changes to marriage have happened in the past few hundred years. In the days when the Catholic Church ruled a lot of Europe, divorce was almost never allowed. You had to have your divorce approved by the Church. But after the Protestant revolt, marriage was changed, thereby allowing divorce to happen a lot easier than the Catholic Church permitted. So marriage has faced large changes before, and there is no reason it cannot undergo more change today.
But the thing about marriage is, it is all made up! We humans, invented marriage some millenia ago. It is not "natural", per se, as it is a ceremony. A Man and a Woman can live together, and have children together, without a legal or religious marriage. And so to say gay marriage is unnatural is silly, and cannot be backed up by any scientific evidence, as marriage is man made!
To sum up this section, marriage does not have a known origin, it is unclear whether it is a social or religious ceremony traditionally, although it would appear to be more of a social ceremony. It has always undergone change, depending on the culture, and so it can be changed again. It is also a man made idea, with no relationship to nature. Families can exist without a legal or religious marriage.
2-Why Gay Marriage should be allowed.
It has been determined that marriage is a man made creation, not at all related to nature. It is a ceremony celebrated by religions, as well as recognized legally. But it has not been around since the dawn of man. Early humans had no such thing as "marriage", but they still reproduced. There is no reason why reproduction relies on marriage, and vice versa, that marriage determines reproduction.
Most arguing against gay marriage argue that it hurts the family, but all that marriage is, is pledging to spend the rest of your life with another person. Nowhere does it say that you must have children if you marry. So what does it matter if the people vowing to spend eternity with each other are a Man and a Woman, two Men, or two Women? It has nothing to do with the traditional family. Gay people do not invade that. It simply allows them to have a legally recognized marriage by the state.
In a nation such as ours, which allows freedom of religion, as well as freedom of speech, it is hard to see why gay marriage is not allowed. Because marriage can be a religious celebration, and so if someone does have the religious view that Homosexuals can marry, why shouldn't this view legitimately be recognized by the state? Marriage is not even 100% religious, so where are we getting are legal view of marriage from, exactly?
Even if you wanted just a legal marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution saying you cannot
We are not a nation bound by Christian morals. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state this, and so the Christian view of marriage should not be the only one recognized by the state.
Most people against gay marriage are against it because it hurts the family. Because children shouldn't grow up in such an environment. And I agree. That is because parenthood is biologically between a Male and a Female. Two Men cannot create a child, and neither can two Women. Naturally, a child has a Mother, and a Father. And there is nothing that the rule of law can do to change this, as this is nature. Science. There is a reason that only a Male and Female can create life. It is in our DNA, as well as the DNA of other creatures. Whether it is because of Mother Nature, evolution, God, etc, it cannot be changed.
And so I propose to limit parenthood solely to, one Man, and one Woman. Meaning, to adopt, you must be a married, Heterosexual couple. Not single, and not a Homosexual couple.
You may ask, isn't this discrimination? No, it is not. It should be limited to one Man and one Woman, due to nature. Same reason we should not allow Bestial relationships. Medicine backs me up, as well. Children raised by Homosexual couples are not as healthy or well raised as those raised by a tradition Heterosexual couple in a traditional family. You can check the links at the end of my argument, under references, under  and 
So, to sum up, I believe that parenthood should be defined as being between one Man and one Woman, one Mother and one Father, and that Homosexuals, as well as single people, should be banned, for the sake of the children.
I have shown that there is no real definition of marriage, that marriage has undergone many changes, some quite dramatic as that which took place during the Protestant reformation, and so there is no reason why it cannot undergo more change, to allow Homosexual couples enjoy the same benefits of marriage that Heterosexuals do. Especially in a nation that is supposedly free. I have also shown how marriage is man made, and so gay marriage cannot be determined as "unnatural" as it has no relation to nature.
However, I do strongly believe, that children benefit much more when raised by Heterosexual couples in a traditional family setting, and that only Heterosexual couples should be allowed to become parents. This idea is backed up by both nature and science.
I have shown that it can be legal, and that it also cannot harm traditional families.
Burden of proof
Due to the fact most countries still ban gay marriage, and my opponent is pro, it is proper that he has the burden of proof. Therefore my only obligation is to refute his argument.
What marriage is
My opponents point on the surface looks convincing, but in reality is extremely unconvincing. In round one we agreed marriage was a legal institution, not a religious one. So in arguing this on a legal perspective, the religious argument fails to be convincing. Saying “this religion said so” would not be indicative of the law. In other words in a debate where we agreed marriage is a legal matter this point is irrelevant.
So what really is marriage? Marriage is not a friendship as much as it is a comprehensive union linked to procreation. That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society. Marriages characteristics structure actually shows it is oriented towards procreative type acts. DOMA was passed under this exact argument, the congress notes, “at bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”
As we can see, the states interest in marriage is what legally defines marriage. Not any religious aspects. Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society.
A sexual relationship is part of, and inherently linked too, marital unions. The state gives out many very costly benefits to married couples, meaning there is some legal or societal interest they have in the institution. Unless my opponent can prove some other type of interest plays a role in what marriage is, he loses this point.
To conclude, we see religious aspects have no effect on legal matters and based on the definition is a really weak argument.
Why it should be allowed
My opponent’s argument here is rebutting the argument he anticipated which I presented above, procreation. But refuting an argument is not a reason to allow something. For example, saying a gateway theory for marijuana is false does not mean marijuana should be legalized. So saying one argument is false is not a reason to legalize something. His main theme is people can reproduce without marriage. Though if you look at the actual procreation argument, I said I was for responsible procreation, not just procreation. Monogamy helps enforce/encourage this idea, as it is beneficial for society to do something this important right the first time. In ancient times, when procreation was not responsible, it would not be a states interest, as it does not fund a healthy society. Therefore this objection fails.
The second objection is irrelevant, refuting a theory does not mean something should be allowed. Anyway, it is a fact that allowing homosexual marriage would hurt the traditional family structure (which by social science is the best type for the children, by the way) would be harmed. When SSM (same sex marriage) was legalized there was a decline in heterosexual marriage rates, and the rate of flash divorces rose tremendously . Although this point was irrelevant, I thought a rebuttal was needed.
My opponent brings up religion, which is irrelevant under the definition of marriage provided. Religion should have no effect on laws.
In the constitution it says marriage should be left to the state, I am arguing the states ought to ban Same-Sex marriage. I would also like to note this is irrelevant unless you can prove SSM bans violate the constitution.
This is an SSM debate, not an adoption one. And if you think adoption should be banned off of nature, then SSM should too as marriage in nature is a heterosexual union.
Most of my opponent’s case works on tearing down theories which fail to prove his point, or are irrelevant. He has not given one reason to legalize SSM. Vote CON.
 William C. Duncan, “The Tenth Anniversary Of Dutch Same-Sex Marriage: How is Marriage Doing in The Netherlands?” iMapp Research Breif (2011)
I'll start off by noting that my goal here, plain and simple, is to show you, my opponent and the rest of DDO, that gay marriage can and should be allowed, legally in the US. I am aiming to show you that what is viewed as "marriage", really isn't true. By bringing religion into the discussion, I merely aim to show you all that marriage has no definition, or known origin. It has been both religious and legal, and still is both religious and legal. But there is no known origin, meaning there is no reason why it cannot be changed.
1-What is marriage?
In your round one argument, my opponent says: "Marriage is not a friendship as much as it is a comprehensive union linked to procreation." This may be true in our definition, but in the past definitions, they could vary greatly. Women used to be slaves to their husbands; some husbands used to have many wives. Further more, as I showed in my round one arguments, marriage is not in any way necessary for procreation. How many thousands of children around the world, or even just in the US, are born to unwed parents? The number is not known to me, but the fact is, the children are in fact born. So marriage isn't necessary to reproduce, so why should marriage be kept solely to parents?
My opponent goes on: "That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society." Again, as shown in my arguments from round one, marriage is not a natural occurrence, it is a man made ceremony. There is nothing "natural" about it. Humans got by for thousands of years without it, and every other species get by without it, so marriage is not, by definition, "natural".
"As we can see, the states interest in marriage is what legally defines marriage. Not any religious aspects. Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society."
You say that it is the state that defines what marriage is, and that it is geared towards their interests. In other words, discrimination to further an agenda? A legal marriage is simply a legal document saying that two people are legally together, their money now belongs to both of them, etc. Nothing about raising good moral people or creating family structures or whatever. Furthermore, allowing gay people to marry does not prevent any of that from happening. It will not prevent heterosexuals from marrying and raising kids the way they see fit.
To sum up this section, I have shown why my opponent is wrong by saying that marriage is for procreation only, that it is natural, and that the state can say no to gay people simply because they think it will hurt society.
2-Why it should be allowed.
"I said I was for responsible procreation, not just procreation." All a matter of perspective buddy. Two people can responsibly procreate without a marriage. You are assuming that everyone who bears children out of wedlock are irresponsible. This is very much untrue. Furthermore, marriage doesn't make people responsible. Divorce rates are through the roof right now. Nearly 5 out of every 1000 people are doing it , the highest rate in the world. So marriage doesn't make responsible people, parents or otherwise.
"Monogamy helps enforce/encourage this idea, as it is beneficial for society to do something this important right the first time. In ancient times, when procreation was not responsible, it would not be a states interest, as it does not fund a healthy society."
First off, it doesn't "enforce" this idea, especially with the no fault divorces. Secondly, "encouraging" can be done in ways other than legislation. Oh, and to say that procreation wasn't responsible in ancient times, I find that actually rather silly. How do you think we got this far? More than today, Men would stick with their families, legally married or not, and they raised them responsibly, without an authority of some sort telling them they had to. If people were raised back then the way they are today, with Fathers leaving their Wife and children like they do, we'd be worse off as a society. Responsibility was taught without laws, once we start trying to enforce responsibility, that's when it leaves. Modern America is an example. That isn't to say it didn't happen, because it did, but it wasn't like today.
"When SSM (same sex marriage) was legalized there was a decline in heterosexual marriage rates, and the rate of flash divorces rose tremendously." You got this fact out of a book, and I couldn't find it on the web. But, the book essentially appears to be about foreign marriages, specifically the Netherlands. This argument is specifically for America, but I will refute this nonetheless.
 First off, demographically, their population went up less than half a percent the last census. Their fertility rate is low. Point? They're aging. According to a chart found under , the majority of people are 40 years old on up. Most people marry under 40 years old. SSM was legalized in 2001. In a chart in 2003 (found under the same link) guess how old most of the population was? 30 years old on up. In other words, they're all getting old, most if they are going to marry and have a family, have already done so.
So this statistic you gave is false because 1(It is for the Netherlands (at least I assume, by the title of your book), it could very well differ here in America, and 2(The reason your statistic shows heterosexual marriage dropped in the Netherlands is due to population and fertility rate drops taking place far before SSM was legalized.
So why should SSM be legalized? Because it is discriminatory to ban it, as it prevents homosexual couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexuals. It is in no way harming to society, as my opponent claims, and all of his reasons for banning it are false, as I have shown.
Summing up, I have shown that marriage does not help breed good people, and that my opponents assertions are false, as well as his statistic on SSM's affect on traditional marriage. In short, there is no reason to ban it, as it is discriminatory.
I brought this up as a means to show you that there is a solution to save the traditional family. A sub point if you will. Since nothing was refuted, I'll leave it as is.
"In the constitution it says marriage should be left to the state, I am arguing the states ought to ban Same-Sex marriage. I would also like to note this is irrelevant unless you can prove SSM bans violate the constitution."
It violates the constitution to ban something simply because we don't like it. There is no good reason homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to legally marry, so I am saying let's do it! As for the state matter, I agree. I am not saying we legalize it nationally and strip away states rights, I am showing in this debate why it should be allowed. It is up to the voters to decide who has more convincing arguments.
I have shown that there is no reason to continue banning gay marriage, because it discriminates against gay people by not allowing them to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals, and I have shown why all of my opponents reasons for banning it are wrong.
What Marriage is
My opponent agrees the current definition of marriage is a comprehensive union, but past definitions are different. But this is indeed irrelevant, as current legal standings of marriage and future ones are the only ones that should affect public policy. The current definition as explained is a procreative relationship, when looking into law rarely would we use definitions from past civilization unless those where the definitions we have adopted. And, legally speaking, since the creating of this nation, marriage is a comprehensive union between a man and a woman in the purpose of procreation .
My opponent then plays a semantically structured argument upon my “nature of marriage” argument. Nowhere did I claim the institution of marriage was inherently natural, rather that once marriage was created it was natural for it (the norm) to promote procreation. The right to marriage is often debated amongst scholars. And many of them argue the only reason a right to marriage exists in current society is because “Acknowledging that the purpose of marriage is inherently normative—
To foster a certain kind of sexual union between men and women characterized by caretaking, sharing of resources, procreation, and longterm commitment in order to encourage the protection of children and the reproduction of society …” So marriage itself is not a product of marriage, rather the man made institution natural spews marriages purpose. For example, a nuclear reactor is man-made but naturally spews radiation. And the natural purpose of a nuclear reactor is to create energy. In other words, my opponent has failed to understand my argument.
My opponent then agrees the state defines marriage based on their interest. He and I agree on the point that marriage, based on the definitions of the debate, is a legal institution regulated by the state. But his argument is claiming some discrimination is occurring. This, in a legal debate, rests on two things. 1) Is the discrimination unjust? 2) Is there even a right to the thing in question? In other words, for my opponent to prove some right is being deprived he must prove some rights are being deprived and that the discrimination is unjust. And so far, he has failed to do so.
This is the only point my opponent has brought up that is actually relevant and/or convincing when discussing a legal situation. The other arguments, in reality, have no effect on the overall public policy and are unconvincing on a legal level. This is the only point, which could put the debate in his favor. And, luckily for me *;)* it is easily refutable.
In a legal situation involving the constitution, the debate is fundamentally over what marriage actually is and whether or not marital rights apply towards homosexuals as well. As Girgis, George, and Anderson note:
“Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. [Emphasis added] That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.”
In other words, unless under a current legal situation the marriage law is not defined as X or Y, we cannot assume any rights are being taken away. In more words, it is unlikely it is unconstitutional unless my opponent can provide a compelling states interest that requests the state define marriage any other way.
Why allow SSM?
My opponent takes the phrase responsible procreation too responsible parenting, which is irrelevant as studies showed married couples are more stable then otherwise and children are raised best by their natural mothers and fathers connected through marriage . Further, one must ask what effect same sex marriage would have, as I described last round. Further, divorce is not an essential part of marriage like procreation; it is a defect of it. The fact we have liberal divorce laws does not mean the essential property of procreation should be changed. In other words, these laws do not represent the public function of marriage, and if anything may hamper its ability to be effective.
Secondly, the point about enforcement is flawed. And yes, it can be enforced otherwise. But how is this relevant to the debate? The point of law is the government exerting its specific influences/wants to certain areas of public policy. As marriage has a public purpose, marriage law is part of the proper purpose of government. There are, indeed, other ways to encourage/enforce procreation but: 1) just because the presence of other means does not mean legislation should be passed, and 2) it doesn’t follow the government should use the other means of encouragement, as those might not be in the proper domain of the government.
And to the points that marriage isn’t needed for responsible procreation seem sound, but aren’t. As the public purpose of marriage is unchanged even if procreation is possible outside of marriage.
My opponent then criticizes my source, it is online here: (http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.May2011-rev.pdf) Further, citing foreign evidence is relevant as it shows that the effects of SSM is not good. Foreign evidence is not frowned upon in “America only” debates. My opponent claims the reason rates fell was due to population drops and fertility rates before the ban, but he cites no evidence therefore it’s a bare assertion.
I never cited the public purpose of marriage is family, and if I did it would be a lie. I have proven, however, the public purpose of marriage is procreation and the point stands. I shall leave the point as is as the “family structure” is irrelevant to the legal purpose of marriage.
(text got weird (italics)...)
My opponent has the Burden of Proof, yet still has failed to give a legal reason to allow same sex marriage, therefore failing to fulfill the resolutions terms. A CON vote is warranted, as his case is good if we assumed it was a religious or societal institution, but we have agreed it is a legal one.
 Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
 Maggie Gallagher, "What is Marriage For? The Public Purposes of Marriage Law," Louisiana Law Review (2002)
"Nowhere did I claim the institution of marriage was inherently natural, rather that once marriage was created it was natural for it (the norm) to promote procreation."_16kadams, round 3, paragraph 2.
"That is, it is a relationship which nature calls for the union to have procreative type acts to encourage procreation, in principle, to help further society."_16kadams, round 2, paragraph 3.
My opponent didn't claim it was inherently natural, but he did claim nature has something to do with it, which it does not, as it is a man made institution. He also says that "once marriage was created, it was natural for it to promote procreation". But as I have pointed out, marriage has not always been for procreation.
To quote from my opponent's previous argument: "'The right to marriage is often debated amongst scholars. And many of them argue the only reason a right to marriage exists in current society is because “Acknowledging that the purpose of marriage is inherently normative—To foster a certain kind of sexual union between men and women characterized by caretaking, sharing of resources, procreation, and longterm commitment in order to encourage the protection of children and the reproduction of society.' So marriage itself is not a product of marriage, rather the man made institution natural spews marriages purpose. For example, a nuclear reactor is man-made but naturally spews radiation. And the natural purpose of a nuclear reactor is to create energy. In other words, my opponent has failed to understand my argument."
First, these scholars argue that the only reason marriage still exists is to foster a sexual union between men and women. This is false. Here in America, marriage is simply a legal union, with some benefits. Nothing in the law requires children. That itself suggests that SSM should be allowed, on the basis that it discriminates against gays by not allowing them benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals, which are not relevant to procreation.
Secondly, my opponent appears to say that legal marriage in the US is simply a denomination from the man made institution. That man made marriage spews natural marriage purposes. Again, false. Man made marriage has no origin, or definition. So basically, we got our idea of marriage from an ancient tradition, of which not much info is avalible. What does this have to do with SSM? It shows that there is no reason not to allow it. There is no evidence that it harms traditional families, or procreation, and furthermore is discriminatory.
My opponent asks if the discrimination is unjust and if there is a right to marry in the first place. He also claims I have failed to back either point up.
First off, in my last argument, I pointed out that the discrimination that occurs is preventing homosexual couples from marrying and enjoying the same benefits that married heterosexual couples can enjoy. Is it unjust? Yes, because as I have shown, there is no reason not to allow SSM. So why is it being banned? Because of an idea that it destroys the traditional family. Is there a right to marry? Yes, because there are benefits that heterosexuals can enjoy if married. Which, by the way, are too many to list here, but a few include  assistance if a spouse is serving in the military, tax free property transfer upon the death of a spouse, and right to inheritance of property. These are all federal, by the way. And the only thing couples have to do to become eligible, is get a legal marriage. None of the benefits require a couple to have children, some only come in to play if children are present, like custodial laws and such. But there is no requirement. So why should homosexuals be discriminated against?
"'So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.'
"In other words, unless under a current legal situation the marriage law is not defined as X or Y, we cannot assume any rights are being taken away. In more words, it is unlikely it is unconstitutional unless my opponent can provide a compelling states interest that requests the state define marriage any other way."
What this means is, the state can define marriage however it wants to, as long as it meets the criteria the deem necessary, and can say no to anyone else. At face value, this seems ok. But really, it isn't. To say that marriage is for procreation and can only be a heterosexual union, and then to go around and offer benefits that have nothing to do with procreation is wrong, and unconstitutional.
SSM should be allowed because there are benefits of marriage that homosexuals will not be able to enjoy, like heterosexuals, simply because they cannot have children, while heterosexuals can enjoy them even without children. That's like giving men certain benefits because they can impregnate women, even though they don't have to, or give benefits to women because they can bear children, even though they don't have to. It's wrong, and unconstitutional.
My opponent goes on to claim that marriage serves a public purpose, but this is false. It promotes procreation while offering benefits not able to be enjoyed by homosexuals, and not necessary for procreation.
A few points I'd like to refute-
"In other words, these laws do not represent the public function of marriage, and if anything may hamper its ability to be effective."
They do not in any way hamper it's ability to be effective.
"My opponent claims the reason rates fell was due to population drops and fertility rates before the ban, but he cites no evidence therefore it’s a bare assertion."
I showed statistics that show birth rate drops and an aging population. This easily explains the drop of the marriage rate, and is much more logical than the legality of SSM.
"I never cited the public purpose of marriage is family, and if I did it would be a lie. I have proven, however, the public purpose of marriage is procreation and the point stands. I shall the leave the point as is, as the "family structure" is irrelevant to the legal purpose of marriage."
"Now this states interest serves many purpose, chiefly being responsible procreation creates good morals, family structures, and a growing and functioning society."_16kadams round 2.
So actually, you did. And I refuted those claims in round 3.
I have shown that not allowing SSM is discriminatory, because it prevents homosexuals from enjoying the benefits of marriage enjoyed my heterosexual couples. I have shown that marriage is not necessary for the process of procreation, but that it simply gives benefits to heterosexuals, simply because they can reproduce, and discriminates against gays.
We also agreed to vote tie.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||0|