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

Gay Marriage

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: 12/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 66925
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Love is love.

First round for acceptance and brief statement.


I accept.
My short statement:
If love is love, then that is an argument against all marriage, and subsequently against gay marriage.
I love my mother. I don't marry her. I love my daughter. I don't marry her. I love my cat: I don't marry him.
Love is - especially when not differentiated - not a reason for marriage.
Debate Round No. 1


"I accept. My short statement:If love is love, then that is an argument against all marriage, and subsequently against gay marriage. I love my mother. I don't marry her. I love my daughter. I don't marry her. I love my cat: I don't marry him.
Love is - especially when not differentiated - not a reason for marriage."
- Well, you Love your wife.. why can you marry her?

Here you have pretty much said participants of Incest and beastiality are not able to get married so why should homosexuals?

I believe Gay Marriage should be legal because it poses no threat to society. States allowing gay marriage have not seen a collapse in society. How can you refute this and why do you believe it should be illegal?


My dear opponent misrepresents or misunderstands my argument.
Even if I did not love a woman, I would be allowed to marry her. My opponent declared in round 1 that he sees love as a general and sufficient justification for marriage. He stated "Love is love", which then must mean that ANY love would be the grounds for marriage. By that logic, a loving sister and brother would just as much be allowed to marry as a man who loves his work would be allowed to marry that.
Hence, IF "love is love" indeed, and love alone would be the legal basis for marriage, then marriage would be a void and detrimental institution, some kind of bizarre joke, where the expression of love - be it one-sided or to something imaginary - is sufficient grounds for a marriage.
Hence, my opponent's argument that "love is love" and that's justification for legalizing gay marriage is refuted. If he pleads for gay marriage by that particular logic, he would have to endorse incestuous marriage as well. We all know that incest leads to genetic defects in children, so that would be very detrimental.
He would also endorse any stalker demanding to marry their victim, out of love.

So, it is pretty clear that "love"is NOT "love". There are many different ways of love. Thus, my opponent's opening argument is refuted.

My opponent goes on to infer that I made any statement about gay marriage, comparing those to incest and bestiality. I want to note that this was HIS argument, since he argued that "love is love". With him making that discernment now, he has dropped his own argument.
To correct his misrepresentation of my argument: I said that "love" as a general concept does not exist, there are many different forms of love, yet my opponent claims they are all the same but defends only gay marriage, but not the marriage of a baby to their favorite toy. Or if he did so, this debate would just be ridiculous.

My opponent now offers a new argument that is entirely incompatible with his opening argument: Now he says there is love that poses a threat to society and love that does not pose a threat to society. Which means he concedes that "love" is NOT "love", but indeed needs to be differentiated.

Now, as I said in the comments already - I do not oppose gay couples, or any couple based on mutual consent. I oppose marriage as a whole. All marriage poses a threat to society, and the reason I believe it should be illegal is mercy and love.

Allow me to produce some facts about the often-overlooked downside of marriage: divorce.

"45-50% of first marriages end in divorce. 60-67% of second marriages end in decline. For subsequent marriages, there is a failure rate greater than 70%. Couples without children are significantly more likely to divorce (66% as opposed to 40 %.)

Divorce rates rose each year through the early 2000’s. In 2002 the numbers peaked at 955,000. After 2002 there has been a steady decline in the number of divorces. In 2010 there were 872,000. It is arguable that there are fewer divorces because many people, especially of the younger generation, are choosing to cohabitate rather than get legally married.

On average it takes a full year for divorce proceedings to be finalized and agreements such as alimony and child support to be worked out."


Divorce is a traumatizing experience in and of itself, adding further emotional stress on the couple than a simple separation after a period of cohabitation and shared sexual intercourse.

"the psychological ramifications of the divorce process are considerable, and one cannot overlook the potential traumatizing effects of divorce on the children involved. [...] from:

This site lists several factors that are specific to divorce trauma, especially for any children - and we all know that one reason for gay marriage is the adoption of common children:

"In divorce proceedings, the most difficult aspect for children (as well as parents) to overcome is the issue of which parent is going to maintain custody. This thorny issue is the single area where mental health professionals (often psychologists) are called upon for expert testimony."
"Since the parents are not in agreement about either custody outright, or some idiosyncratic aspects of custody/visitation, then it is safe to assume that the participants are in conflict about most other aspects, and are not likely to readily agree to terms such as who pays what percentage to the evaluator; which psychologist should conduct the evaluation; and scheduling of appointments. Essentially, the conflict that goes into scheduling meetings with professionals only serves to exacerbate an already established dysfunctional process that is not well understood by the children involved."

There are further examples in that very interesting article.
Then take into account the considerable costs of divorce, the splitting of common possessions... the list is almost endless.

If an unmarried couple breaks up, there's enough emotional stress as it is. But a divorce forces both partners to expose themselves to the public, not rarely leading to severe PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), specifically due to the divorce process. There's even a specific mental disorder for that, the "Post traumatic stress DIVORCE syndrome"! See:

Now, dear opponent, why should we ever legalize something that will in 40-50% of all cases traumatize the participants?
Marriage should be abolished, and hence gay marriage should not be legal, either.

Marriage is more likely than not to traumatize two or more (children included here!) people to the very core of their existence.

The constitution grants the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of unhappiness. Now, since according to my above source one out of ten US citizens has been victim to a divorce, how many thousands more would you condemn to a possibly horrifying fate?

Why should marriage be legal, if it tends to inflict only pain once it does no longer work out?

Gay marriage does not particularly raise this problem on a broader scale, since there are not as many gay marriages, even in the states where they are allowed. And I say: why deny gay couples the bliss of splitting up without divorce?

Marriage and divorce are old-fashioned, unnecessary and mostly unrewarding. Introducing gay MARRIAGE would be a step into the past, instead of into a bright future where people no longer need a certificate to prove that they love each other. For that is all that marriage is. A certificate without inherent value, which causes terrible pain once you try to dissolve it.

So, that is why gay marriage would be wrong. We would punish those people for being in love, fooling them into thinking that marriage is something desirable. But it has no value, and a 40 to 60% risk of getting emotionally scarred for life! What kind of an uncaring, cold and cruel person would support gay marriage, unless it is someone who wants to see all gay couples suffer? And that would be an illegal goal!

Debate Round No. 2


"Love is love" Is a common slogan for marage equality.. if you wan't to nit pick it that can be done for almost any slogan. Example: Barack Obamas "Yes We Can".. Can we kill, rob, and rape?.. No, we can't. I rest my case.

Con is against not only gay marage but marage as a whole. He believes marage should be abolished for its potential traumatizing effects. Given this logic we should abolish, cars, airplanes, Friendship, electricity, the internet, fire places, swimming pools, candles, stairs, rope, all medicine, trains, cruise ships, bicycles, and so on.. a completly rediculious statement.

"emotionally scarred for life" but yet some divorced people go on to be remaried and live happy lives with their new spouce...

Con says it is unfair to children to go through a divorce as if mariage is the only reason parents split and without it would stay together forever.. a complete fallacy. At the end of the day, the problem is "Why doesn't mommy love daddy" and vice versa.. Would be interesting to see con rebute that..

Unless Con can prove a world without mariage would promote happier relationships and offspring he has been uterly defeated in this debate.


My opponent has just proved that all "common slogan"s are basically pointless, as they say nothing at all. This includes his empty opening argument that "Love is love". Love is not a sufficient justification for marriage, as I have shown above. So, the "slogan" he used as his opening argument is shown not to be a proper argument.

We are not debating the abolition of cars (air pollutants, fuel wasters, cause of many lethal accidents - there's ample reason to abolish them) or planes (air polluters, fuel wasters to boot, potential terrorist weapons - never forget!). I would easily defend why they could and should all be abolished, at least in inhabited areas. But those are not our topic.
Friendship is not something that can be regulated by law, it is not a legal institution like marriage, so this comparison is totally missing the point, and deliberately so.
Electricity does not need to be abolished, technical advances can make electricity safer to use. So this comparison is missing the point, too.
The internet does not inflict harm on people. It is only a medium. People insulting others via internet is illegal already. Fraud via internet is illegal. All harmful internet activity has been outlawed. So, this is actually a point for my case.
Fire places are not our topic, but I could build a VERY strong case for their abolition. Same goes for candles.
Swimming pools can be totally secured to prevent children from drowning. AND SO ON.

Marriage cannot be compared to any of these things. Cars, planes, trains, rope etc. all serve a PRACTICAL PURPOSE. Marriage does not, it is nothing but a formal rite pertaining to religion or a fiscal advantage program. Taxes can be reduced for all registered couples, and religion is not a subject of the law. There is literally no legal reason for marriage. It could easily be abolished.
Actually, my above source states that marriage is becoming less popular among heterosexual couples already:
"many people, especially of the younger generation, are choosing to cohabitate rather than get legally married." from:
This is a testament to the fact that marriage is not in and of itself something that the younger generation wants at all costs. Gay couples only want to be allowed to get married because heterosexual couples are allowed to do so. They see it as a sign of equality. But abolishing marriage altogether would do just the same.
Hence, marriage serves no purpose, becomes less popular and could be abolished without a lot of problems, resulting in the marriage equality my opponent desires. Why make costly and complicated legal changes to a system that is already beginning to become obsolete, when a simple abolition will do the same? The tax payer will have to pay for the complex law work needed to figure out how gay marriage can be reconciled with the existing system. A quick and clean abolition of marriage will be swifter, cheaper and obviously following a trend that has already begun.

"Some divorced people go on to be remarried and live happy lives": My source agrees, but the percentage of these "some people" is horrifyingly low: "60-67% of second marriages end in decline. For subsequent marriages, there is a failure rate greater than 70%." from:
This means that the more marriages a person has endured, the less happy they become in marriage. And the divorce number does not show us the actual number of unhappy couples! A great number of couples remain married despite being unhappy together, for fear of the costs and consequences of a divorce!

This is something my opponent totally overlooks. A recent study says that 20% of married couples are unhappy but feel trapped and do not divorce out of fear of the costs: "Millions of Brits are stuck in unhappy marriages but will not walk away for fear of financial or emotional hardship, a report revealed yesterday. A study of 2,000 married people revealed a fifth feel ‘trapped’ and would end their marriage today if their future financial security was assured." From:

So, of those couples that remain together after a first divorce (33 to 40%), another fifth is most likely unhappy and fears another divorce, leaving us with less than 30% of happily remarried couples AT BEST. And for their sake we should condemn a great number of gay people to the dire fate of the majority? Is that how we should make laws? By cherry-picking the few examples we find pleasing and ignoring the VAST MAJORITY of the real cases?

"Con says it is unfair to children to go through a divorce as if marriage is the only reason parents split and without it would stay together forever.. a complete fallacy."
Let's have another look at the statistics. Couples that separate without a divorce:
"According to Census data released in 2010, a little over 2 percent of the population claimed to be separated from their spouses. This statistic is less than the number of people claiming to be divorced from their spouses (over 9 percent), and further less still from the percentage of people over the age of 15 who have never been married (30 percent)." from:
What does this tell us? 70% of US residents marry at least once. 9% of these 70% get divorced.
But only 2% of ALL US citizens live separated from their partners, which includes married and non-married couples, obviously. So we can assume that only around 1% of couples separate without marriage, while 9% divorce and around 1% of married couples separate without divorce. It is thus evident that marriage increases the rate of the split of couples dramatically, from 1% average to 10%, which is an increase by a factor of 10.
So, the statistics clearly say that I did not commit a "complete fallacy" of any kind.
It is also fairly irrelevant, since I provided a source that clearly states that many children are traumatized specifically by divorce, not separation, as divorce has very specific qualities producing additional stress, those being the legal procedures of sharing custody etc. Unmarried couples have less trouble that way.

I have already proved that 10% of all US citizens have been divorced once already. You do not go through the stress of divorce because you're happy with marriage. Hence, theses 10% of the entire population have been made unhappy by marriage.
Roughly 20% of married couples are unhappy but fear divorce (given, this is a UK number, but I assume these to be a human factor, not a national one - if you disagree, prove me wrong). They are thus unhappy AND scared, and feel trapped. Since 70% of all
US citizens are or were married, this makes 14% of the entire population, estimated.
All these people would not be as unhappy if it were not for the traumatizing and expensive divorce procedure, which only exists because of marriage.

We have thus more than 20% of the population of the US (and/or the UK) made unhappy by marriage at some point in their lives. Anything that makes 20% of the population unhappy should be frowned upon.

A major source for depression in the US is given as "recently divorced"! See:
Depression is heavily on the rise: "the rate of antidepressant use has surged 400% over the last decade, according to the CDC" according to .This is a major source of public health concerns. Sine divorce is exclusive to marriage, the world would be better off without marriage beyond any reasonable doubt.
My opponent is only beating around the bush. So far, the only vague argument he has presented for gay marriage is "marage equality", and I do not even oppose that. I just believe that abolishing marriage is the only true way of achieving marriage equality.
Debate Round No. 3


DrizzyDrake forfeited this round.


Well, this debate sadly turned out to be a disappointment.

I extend all my arguments, and want to point out that my opponent basically didn't provide any argument.

Thanks everyone for reading this.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
Dear SarcasticMethod, you're very welcome.
Posted by SarcasticMethod 3 years ago
WOW. I found a gay marriage debate where CON did not say "euh de Bibbel sez dat homofags ar dumed to hellll" but actually provides a valid, convincing argument. This is a happy day in the history of humanity, and I thank you, BoggyDag, profusely.
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
For the record: I DO love my wife. There are two reasons I cannot marry her.
1) Obviously, to be wife and husband, one must already HAVE married, or else she wouldn't be a wife to begin with. So - that makes no sense at all, dear opponent.
2) The reason for not mentioning her is her passing, just a little over a year ago. So, yes, I do love her. But still can't marry her.
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
Redspectre, I disagree wih every point you make. You are just homophobic.
Posted by Redspectre 3 years ago
Gay marriage should be illegal because it is discriminatory against religion. It allows the government to force places of worship to marry gays. It is not only unconstitutional but also breaks seperation of church and state. Gay marriage also leads to other activities such as allowing gay adoption. Gay adoption allows gays to control a kid's life. Imagine the struggles that kid will go through. Being labeled an outcast for having 2 gay parents and not having a proper family to raise him/her. Gay marriage will also cost taxpayers millions in order to support benefits for gay couples.
Posted by DrizzyDrake 3 years ago
I'm going to have a field day with this tomorrow..
Posted by chanman_123 3 years ago
this person has made a very good statement. from a social standpoint, you do not have to necessarily be in love with the person you are marrying. you may be doing it to gain financial benefits from the government or something.
Posted by BoggyDag 3 years ago
For the record: I'm just against marriage, not against gay or heterosexual couples of any kind.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round.