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

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 546 times Debate No: 43106
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




I am excited to debate this topic as my second debate ever. I am fully aware that this topic is very overdone, however I felt that a majority of debates on this topic were poorly constructed and resorted to personal attacks and poor conduct. I also will find it an important matter to discuss as long as its not legal in some states.

I am PRO, and are therefore for gay marriage being legalized in all fifty states in the Untied States of America. CON will be against such a law.

Meaning of gay:
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

Meaning of marriage:
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, and in some jurisdictions, between two persons of the same sex, usually entailing legal obligations of each person to the other.

Rules: No religious arguments shall partake in any part of this debate.

No personal insults or attacks. No sarcasm or rudeness.

A calm, intelligent, thought-provoking debate.

Forfeits shall result in a 7-point loss to the offender.

Burden of proof is shared.

10,000 characters allowed. Three rounds. Three days to respond.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Core Case (No rebuttals allowed in Round 2)

Round 3: Rebuttals (No new arguments in Round 3 by either PRO or CON)

Thank you in advance to whomever will accept.




I decided to accept this for a challenge. Although I am personally a lesbian, I also know the opposing side very well and will be arguing against something I am normally a huge advocate for
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Tacklethedog, for accepting. I look forward to a good debate. I tried to keep this short and to the point. Without further ado:

My Thesis; Freedom, Equality, and Justice:
I will start this off by saying that I believe that it is morally wrong to forbid an entire group of people from marrying who they want. This contradicts the common American dream of equality, freedom, justice, and liberty. As a free country people should be able to make their own decisions unless it infringes upon others. Overall, the biggest key to my argument is the key term that is called equality. Because of equality being the biggest belief on why I think same-sex marriages should be legalized, the common argument that all marriages, straight or gay, should be civil unions, is irrelevant. I believe as long as straights can be married, so should gays. As the Declaration of Independence states every person deserves and should have the right for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Contention #1: It is major discrimination:
I think we can all agree that this country (the United States of America) was founded on freedom, equality, and justice. I will, in this argument, add that the fact that gay marriage isn't allowed contradicts these terms. Not allowing an entire group of people to marry is a violation of humans rights. This encourages discrimination in its own right. As a country founded on these characteristics I suggest we bring justice to the LGBT community by allowing them the freedom of marriage which will result in marriage equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Contention #2: Being Gay/Lesbian isn't a Choice: Studies and research suggest that sexuality is determined at a very young age, possibly even at conception. Regardless, all of these studies suggest that everyone's sexuality is beyond their control. The fact that they can't marry someone that they love because of something that is determined at birth and is beyond their control, shows striking similarities to back when blacks were considered slaves to white masters in the 1800s, as well as back when women were seen as a lesser person than men some decades ago. Just as one cannot decide their ethnicity and gender, one cannot decide their sexuality. Gays and lesbians are simply the biggest group being discriminated against currently just as blacks and women used to be. Allowing them to have all of the same rights as straight people will bring justice and equality among all people no matter who they are.

Proof that being gay isn't a choice: The brains of gay men are more similar to the brains of women than they are straight men.

The Hypothalamus is roughly the same size as women. Same goes for lesbian women with straight men. You don't choose how big your organs are... gay men don't choose to have similar brains to straight women and lesbian women to straight men, it is beyond their control.

The question is, did you choose to be straight? This validly shows that our sexuality is not a choice.

Also, lesbians sex hormones react differently to straight women as do gay men to straight men. Again, this validly shows that our sexuality is not a choice.

Contention #3: Civil Unions are Unequal to Marriage:
First and foremost, civil unions don't even bear the same name as marriage itself. This alone will give the LGBT community the feeling of being outsiders. This shows inequality. Civil unions are not the same as marriage in the other following reasons:

[1]: Civil unions are not officially recognized, therefore the rights granted by the union will not travel from state to state, in contrast to actual marriage. This is a grave injustice that should be prevented.

[2]: Civil unions are not recognized by 14% of employers. Therefore, 14% of employers will deny their LGB employees full, legally guaranteed marriage benefits. Again this is legally discrimination. Bearing the name 'marriage' will prevent this injustice from happening. (Figures come from New Jersey).'t_enough

Contention #4: It does not harm or infringe upon others:
How would gay marriage affect straight people? It doesn't. Enough said. It's none of your business. This country allows people to make their own decisions unless it infringes on others. I think this fits that description.

Contention #5: Parental Ability of LGBT People:
Research has repeatedly shown that same-sex parents are able to parent children just as fine as their heterosexual counterparts. They even have a few advantages. [1]: Studies spread over an entire decade, included 260 children that had both heterosexual mothers or lesbian mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, socialization skills, parental stress, etc., in fact, parts of the studies suggest that in a few places, children of heterosexual parents show more problems. Children who have parents of the same sex did better in the following areas: discipline, self-esteem, less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school. [2]: Another study of 37 children of 27 divorced lesbian mothers and the same number of heterosexual mothers found no difference in behavior, adjustment, gender identity, and peer relationships.

Contention #6: LGBT People Already Married are Doing Fine:
Same as above. Statistically speaking, gays are equally likely to have a long lasting marriage as straights. It would be foolish not to allow that.

Take this into consideration: Massachusetts, the first state in the United States has the lowest divorce rate in the entire country! Seems like gays are doing fine!

Contention #7: Society will Continue to Function Fine:
As stated above, this law will benefit the LGB community. It does not harm nor benefit straight people, therefore it will not harm society in anyway.

Contention #8: Many Orphans and Foster Children will be Adopted:
Contention title says it all. Imagine all the orphans and foster children who will get adopted, thus getting better lives once gay marriage is allowed.

Contention #9: Gay Marriage will Help Boost the Economy:
Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.”

Six. Hundred. Eighty. Four. Million. Dollars. On. Wedding. Services.

Think of that. That can happen so long as people vote for gay marriage.

During the three-year period, the researchers project that about half of the state's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married and another 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel to California to exchange vows. The nuptial rush is expected to create some 2,200 jobs.”

Thousands of jobs opened should gay marriage be legalized!

The study estimates that over the next three years, gay weddings will generate $64 million in additional tax revenue for the state, and another $9 million in marriage-license fees for counties.

Sounds great!

Contention #10: Most American People are in
Favor of Gay Marriage: Some studies suggest that slightly more than half of the population of the United States would be in favor of such a proposal. The percentage ranges from 52 all the way up to the sixties.

Footnote: Something I feel I have to say: spouses who are married receive so many benefits that are only allowed to married couples. It is a major violation of human rights to not let same sex couples receive these benefits simply because of their sexual orientation.

I hope this wasn't too long. Thank you for reading. I eagerly await your response, CON.

Case closed.



Tacklethedog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has unfortunately decided to forfeit this debate. I was afraid something like this would happen.

Extend all arguments.


Tacklethedog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
There's only one ethical Con debate position that I can see, and that is to debate marriage in general.

Well, if we're to be creative you could debate debate, debate language, debate definitions, debate the label "gay," debate laws, debate government, debate capitalism, debate in another language, debate that the debate is ethnocentric, etc lol.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
Con, why would you take on a position so bad for the cause? I know it sounds weird, but I'm kinda glad you FFd. It would have hurt me a little to see you debate this ignorant position when you know better, especially since you have first hand knowledge, even if it were as a "devil's advocate" so to speak.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
@JustAnotherGuy: Sure she could. It is easily refuted, however as marriage doesn't necessarily have to be correlated with religion. You can get married without the church. Religious marriage is merely a subset of marriage.

@Tacklethedog: My apologies that I referenced to you being straight a few times in my debate as I had written most of it before you accepted. Thanks again for accepting the debate!
Posted by JustAnotherGuy 2 years ago
Actually, you can use separation of church and state to argue against gay marriage, since marriage is a religious thing.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 2 years ago
@sungod97: Some people are against gay marriage, although most seem to be for it. I started the debate to see some arguments against it. It was for fun, and as instigator I decided to do this topic. If you're trying to say this is overdone, I agree with you and stated that in Round 1, however most of the debates aren't very well done. I also want to do my first few debates on subjects I feel strongly about before I go on to lesser known topics. It was simply to improve my debating skills. It's not necessarily an easy topic as you say, either.

@JustAnotherGuy: Nah. It would be for my side anyway. Separation of church and state should have probably been added to my rounds. It's just a more legal way of rejecting religion from this debate.
Posted by sungod97 2 years ago
Oh come on another debate where I agree with the instigator on an easy issue.
Posted by JustAnotherGuy 2 years ago
Would separation of church and state be a religious argument?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: So much for a "huge advocate"
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro explicitly stated that forfeiture shall result in a 7-point loss. I was undecided on S&G, but decided to go with the pre-specified conditions anyway.