The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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: 3/18/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,373 times Debate No: 71929
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)




Hey all. First, I apologize if this is against some sort of rule, or if this isn't the sort of thing that should be posted here. I'm very, very new. Anyways, I'm giving a speech on why gay marriage should be legal in a conservative Christian speech and debate league, so it'll be a tough audience. Please rip the following speech apart as best you can. I definitely want to have some back and forth, too.

"" I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
These words were written by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.

Why was Jefferson so adamant about the separation of the church and state? The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
In order to guarantee an atmosphere of absolute religious liberty, this country's founders also mandated the strict separation of church and state. Largely because of this prohibition against government regulation or endorsement of religion, diverse faiths have flourished and thrived in America since the founding of the republic. Indeed, James Madison, the father of the United States Constitution, once observed that [QUOTE] "the [religious] devotion of the people has been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state."[UNQUOTE]
Americans are still among the most religious people in the world. Yet the government plays almost no role in promoting, endorsing or funding religious institutions or religious beliefs. By maintaining the wall separating church and state, we can guarantee the continued vitality of religion in American life.

Now, I like to think that everyone is on the same page about the separation of the church and the state, so I can"t persuade anyone of it, per se. What I do intend to persuade you of is that gay marriage should be legally recognized in the United States. First, I want to make it very clear what I am actually advocating.

I am not advocating homosexuality in and of itself, and I clearly recognize that the Bible says it is wrong. Currently, in states where gay marriage is not legal, gay marriage is not actually illegal. Gays can get married in every state- they can have a wedding ceremony and have a stable, long-term, romantic relationship. What"s wrong is that? This marriage is not recognized by the state. This nonrecognition policy denies homosexual couples thirty-three rights and privileges that straight couples would get in their situation purely based on sexual orientation.

I could go on, but I"ll spare you any more boring details. Just know that this is only about
twenty five percent of benefits that gay couples are denied based purely on their sexual
orientation, as heterosexual couples in their position would receive these benefits. It is
my stance that while homosexuality is morally wrong, the state should abolish its
nonrecognition policy of gay marriage. One thing I want to make very clear: freedom of religion
goes both ways. Churches should not be required to marry gay couples, instead they may be
married by the Justice of the Peace if a willing church cannot be found.

Now that it"s clear what I"m actually advocating, I will present my three arguments in favor of
gay marriage, and finish up by refuting all secular arguments against gay marriage.

My first argument is that of no harm caused. As I have already pointed out, gays can
already marry, it just isn"t recognized by the government. Because of this, recognizing gay
marriage won"t actually do anything bad. My arguments for gay marriage are qualitative
in nature, and hinge on constitutionality and the elimination of discrimination, whereas
arguments against gay marriage are quantitative in nature and talk about the weakening
of society, and thus won"t actually come about because of the recognition of gay marriage.

My second argument is that of constitutionality. The defiinition of discrimination is treating two people differently in the same situation. Since a straight couple in the same situation as a gay couple is treated differently than the gay couple, the nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

My final argument is an appeal to democracy. I researched over 20 public opinion polls dating from 2012, to January 2015, and found that anywhere from 56% to 67% of the total population support gay marriage. While America is not a true democracy, it is a representative republic. The theory is that the law of the land reflects the will of the majority. While gay marriage is illegal, this is not upheld and is a violation of the fundamental ideals the United States was founded on.

Keeping these points in mind, let"s talk about the five main objections people have to gay marriage, and why they are all invalid.

First, I want to refute any arguments having to do with the wellbeing of children.

I have three responses to all child-centric arguments: First, child-centric concerns cannot apply to all cases of same-sex marriage, as there is no guarantee a gay couple will decide to have kids. To deny the right of marriage to all homosexuals, even those who do not intend to raise children, on this rationale is unfair, discriminatory, and illogical.
Second, these are not inherent problems with recognizing gay marriage. Why? Because unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children. What does this mean? This is not a unique argument against recognizing gay marriage, as gays will have kids regardless of if they can marry.
Third, bad parenting should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents. We don"t ban marriage because of that, instead we deal with it on a case by case basis, as we should with gay marriages.

Moving right along, the second augment I wish to refute deals with gender roles in marriage.
This argument states that straight relationships are inherently stronger than gay relationships, and thus gay marriage should not be legally recognized.
While it may be true that straight relationships are stronger on average, this is an invalid argument against gay marriage, for three reasons. First, some statistics says that yes, marriages often work in certain ways when traditional gender roles are followed. What it fails to prove is that this is a reason to legislate against gay marriage. It is non unique, since gays can already get unofficially married and adopt children.
Further, the non recognition of gay marriage does not cause homosexuals to suddenly turn into heterosexuals and start traditional families. What this means is that we gain nothing from not recognizing gay marriage. Just because one structure may be optimal, we cannot disallow other structures.
Finally, we do not legislate against nontraditional heterosexual families, so to do so exclusively for homosexuals is blatant discrimination and logically inconsistent.

Similarly, third argument I will be refuting is that the purpose of marriage is procreation. This argument claims that the sole aim of marriage is procreation, and reasons that because homosexual marriages do not bear children they should be disallowed. I believe this is incorrect for two reasons:
First, since gays feel no sexual attraction to the opposite sex, disallowing gay marriage won"t make them go have children with the opposite gender, so legislating against gay marriage on this premise makes very little sense.
Second, this thesis is blatant discrimination with no logical consistency. We let bot


I accept. Since Pro has put his opening arguments in the first round, it is clear that the first round is not for acceptance. Thus, I will commence in presenting my case and responding to my opponent's objections. Since the resolution is normative in nature, I'll assume that the burden of proof is equally shared.

It appears that my opponent has chosen to present three arguments of his own and five "refutations" of supposed arguments against gay marriage. However, one of his arguments is simply: "there's no reason is to not allow it" and some of his arguments/refutations are stances that I don't necessarily oppose. I will proceed to rebut my opponent to the best of my ability while staying within the character limit and and also presenting my case.

Since Pro's case cut off (it was continued in the comments section but was cut off there too), I will respond to what is there. I would remind Pro that a character limit disables very long arguments to fit in one round, so it is necessary that arguments are more brief in each round. I will now advance my case against gay marriage, assuming that my opponent is referring to legally allowing homosexual couples to receive marriage licenses under the states, and not under religious circumstances.

= Case =

What is marriage?

There are two views of what marriage is[1]. The common view, which has been increasingly being adopted into society, holds that unifying good of the marital union is the personal fulfillment of the spouses. From this perspective, marriage is solely about love, mutual affection, and romance. The only difference between this union and others is that it holds legal status and is recognized by the state. While that may seem good from the surface, we immediately run into a problem: many relationships exist through love, yet the state does not recognize them. In order for marriage to be regulated, it must have a unique purpose and goal that makes it distinct from all other unions. Although love is essential to marital unions, it is not enough for it to be legally recognized and regulated by the state. Love can exist between friends, yet the state does not recognize friendships. Now we see that the revisionist view of marriage does not hold a legitimate base. It does not provide a purpose for the state to regulate it nor does it promote the common good. If this is not the secular definition of marriage, then what is it really?

Allow me to provide a new definition of marriage. “Marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children.”[2] 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.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports the fact that children need both fathers and mothers. A child learns different things from both parents and can be most properly raised by heterosexual couples. The American College of Pediatricians states, "Social scientists in the last 20 years have come to recognize another important resource: the significant effect the marital status of the child’s parents has on children. The positive impact of a married mother and father on a child’s development has been scientifically verified across all measures of well-being. It is now acknowledged that the married mother-father parent unit significantly and positively impacts how a child will do in every important measure of well-being and maturity."[3] Children raised by heterosexual couples have more healthful measures of educational attainment, physical and mental health, protection from poverty, protection from physical abuse, and even more benefits in varying areas[3]. Marriage not only contains an intrinsic link to procreation but the *best* manner in which a child can be raised. Thus, marriage is about child-bearing and child-raising, of which heterosexual couples are the most efficient sources of doing this. Allowing homosexual couples into this status will be harmful to not only the ideal family structure and to children but to marriage's role in society. I will now provide six premises that further illustrates my case against gay marriage (credit to jzonda415).


P1: The state regulates marriage.

P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.

P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.

P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.

P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.

Defense of Premises

P1-P3 are just and sound. If my opponent has any objections to these, he may make them in the next round.

P4 is elaborated in my opening paragraphs, the good of society must be promoted through this common goal, of which can only ideally be met through heterosexual couples. Although other groups and unions can properly raise a child, they do not have an intrinsic link to procreation, so there is no reason for the state to recognize them as marital unions. Social science agrees that children need both a mother and a father, and this is what a marital union provides.

P5 is quite logical, since unions that do not fit the definition of marriage will only distort the meaning and purpose of marital unions and will not benefit society in any way.

P6 thus holds.

= Rebuttals =

Now I will turn to objections made by my opponent.

"It is constitutionally illegitimate to pass legislation based on religious morality"

Agreed. This issue should not be focused on religion, neither should it have any bearing whatsoever in the issue. Homosexual, polygamous, and other unions can perform religious wedding ceremonies that are unrecognized by the government. However, we are not talking about those.

"Recognizing gay marriage won't actually do anything bad"

In my case above I clearly showed how gay marriage will harm children and erode the proper family structure.

"The nonrecognition of gay marriage is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional."

Discrimination can only be seen as legitimate if a couple who fits into the proper criteria of marriage is not being allowed into it. Since homosexual couples do not fit the criteria for marriage, they are not being discriminated against. You have to be eighteen years old to vote, so does that mean seventeen-year-olds are being discriminated against for not being allowed to cast a ballot? Of course not.

"The law of the land reflects the will of the majority."

This debate is about whether gay marriage should be legal. If 60% of the nation wants it to be legal and the vote goes through, then obviously there is no stopping democracy. However, just because the popular opinion is in favor of it does not mean it is right, nor does it mean it is correct. If we are arguing on moral grounds over whether it should be legal or not, it should not have to reflect what other people think. There are still many countries where gay marriage is illegal and the people there are not in favor of it. Thus, in these situations my opponent must concede that gay marriage shouldn't be legal there. Subscribing to the Ad Populum Fallacy does not support either side.

"unmarried gay couples can, according to US law, adopt children."

Of course. Child adoption is and should be available to other unions. Marriage, however, provides a view of how children ought to be raised and the ideal way of raising them. Other unions lack a connection to intrinsic procreation and are less efficient in the areas of raising children the best they can be raised.
"There are plenty of straight couples who are neglectful, abusive, and straight-up bad parents."
Indeed there are, but these couples do not reflect the efficiency of the majority. Heterosexual couples are, on balance, better parents than homosexual couples. Regardless of how good or bad parents may be, heterosexual couples still fulfill the link to intrinsic procreation that makes marriage unique. Case-by-case basises ought to be dealt with on an individual level but it does not define marriage as a whole. This argument is similar to the infertile couples one, which I will now address.

"We let both old people and infertile people get married."

The government is interested in the comprehensive relationship heterosexuals pursue, and not the means to the end of that relationship. Infertile couples are still of the procreative type even if the members cannot act upon that characteristic. The state takes an interest because it wants to promote marriage as it really is, not just the means to an end.

= Sources =

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has presented six premises that his case hinges on. I will be dissecting these premises, then I will be defending my case. At the end of this round, we will know that con"s case"s logic is broken, that gay marriage bans are indeed unconstitutional, and that recognizing gay marriages yields a net societal gain.

Con has presented six premises:
P1: The state regulates marriage.

P2: If the state regulates marriage, it must have a purpose for the institution of marriage and a proper definition for what marriage is.

P3: Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society.

P4: The definition of marriage, when dictated by logic, must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions.

P5: Unions contrary to this union must be forbidden from entering into the union.

P6: Therefore, same-sex marriage must be forbidden.

Before I attack his logic, I would like to present a question about your sixth premise. You say that same-sex marriage must be "forbidden". You mean that it should be forbidden from being recognized by the state, as opposed to not allowing gays to have marriage ceremonies at all, correct?

Now, the central problem with Con"s case lies in his 4th premise. This premise is flawed in that it assumes marriage only has one societal purpose: procreation. In reality, marriage has four other societal advantages. Once I prove this, his logic obviously falls apart, as banning gay marriage gives society a net loss.

First, data shows[1] that homosexual individuals not in a recognized union have an inferior psychological state to those that are. This logically contributes to higher rates of depression and suicide, as well as simply having society made up of less stable individuals. Thus, nonrecognition of gay marriage is detrimental to society.

Second, according to the Williams Institute[2], states that recognize gay marriage get a significant boost to their economy. Now, Con made a very big point of the state needing to have an inherent interest in recognizing marital unions. To put it bluntly, unless Con wishes to claim that states don"t want money, gay marriage obviously fulfills this standard. Further, a boost to the economy is a societal benefit in and of itself. Therefore, nonrecognition of gay marriage yields a net loss to society.

Third, Con conceded in his last statement that gays will have families regardless of if their marriages are legally recognized. Now, families are the smallest social unit in society and trends in the family inevitably affect trends in society as a whole - and vice-versa, of course. Allowing gays to marry will help better integrate them and their relationships into society. Ensuring that gay relationships are stable and receive support will benefit the stability of society overall. Now, logically, nonrecognition of gay marriage achieves the opposite: it further delegitimizes gay families, reduces their stability, and thus harms society. See a pattern here? Recognizing gay marriage yields society a net gain.

Fourth, recognizing gay marriage actually helps children (and furthers the goal of effect procreation presented by Con). Con conceded that "Of course. Child adoption is and should be available to other unions. " Obviously, this means that gays will have children whether or not they can marry. Con argues that "Marriage, however, provides a view of how children ought to be raised and the ideal way of raising them. Other unions lack a connection to intrinsic procreation and are less efficient in the areas of raising children the best they can be raised."
My argument is this: Children of married couples are shown to be overall better off than children of unmarried couples. Therefore, children of married couples will be better off than children of unmarried gay couples. I believe that causing tangible, objective, positive impact on children"s lives should be valued above "setting a good example". For the last time, recognizing gay marriage yields society a net gain.

Now, I would like to show that nonrecognition of gay marriage is indeed unconstitutional, via legal precedent. There have been many[3] previous legal cases in which gay marriage bans were considered unconstitutional. Now, with all due respect to both parties: we"re a couple of guys that like politics on the internet, whereas there are multiple court rulings declaring same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. Therefore, even if everything in this (I don"t know what to call it) speech up to this point is blatantly false, gay marriage should still be recognized, as the constitution must be followed.

What do we know about gay marriage? We know that recognizing it yields society a net gain. We know that banning gay marriages has been declared unconstitutional. For all these reasons, we can see that gay marriage should, objectively, be recognized.



= Rebuttals =

Pro seems to have dropped my refutations of his argument and my initial case that the conjugal view is superior to the revisionist view of marriage, besides using a bare assertion to cast doubt on the purpose of marriage. Instead he makes new arguments, with the help of, to try to advance his case under a different light.

As clarified above, this debate is about the secular and governmental view of marriage, not wedding ceremonies that are irrelevant to the state.

What is the purpose of marriage?

My opponent uses a straw man fallacy to contend that I am arguing for one societal purpose of the marital union, which is procreation. As clearly indicated in the first round by my fourth premise, the purpose of marriage "must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions". Procreation is not the only thing that dictates what marriage is; ideal child-upbringing is another crucial part of it. A third purpose of the state taking interest in marital unions is to promote what marriage actually is, and to encourage people to enter into this union to raise up and support the upcoming generation.

Although societal advantages come as a result of marriage, they don't define what marriage really is. In the next refutations, I will show why Pro's additional contentions have issues with them.

Psychological states

Pro's study from the American Public Health Association makes the claim that homosexuals who were denied marriage suffered higher stress. However, the study states that the reason for this was that homosexual couples were being denied benefits that come from unions. Pro seems unaware of the concept of civil unions that grants homosexuals the same rights as marriage but doesn't distort the legitimacy of marriage. Not only are homosexual unions recognized by the state, they are provided the same benefits as marital unions[1]. The study that Pro cited does not put domestic partnerships as a variable, so it doesn't measure human rights from the angle of other unions available. Thus, it is an unfair experiment.

Further, this is not a very strong argument for entirely changing what marriage really is. If a study found that seventeen-year-olds that were denied the right to vote because of their age were more distressed than eighteen-year-olds, does that mean we should lower the voting age? No, of course not.

The Economy

Again, this argument is a weak one. As Pro pointed out, homosexual couples can already wed in states where gay marriage is not allowed, so money is being pumped into the economy regardless.


This contention is also easy to knock down. The acknowledgement of domestic partnerships provides stable relationships just as marriages can. Pro cites no evidence to prove his point that homosexual couples are "integrated better into society" through marriages, nor that they are delegitimized. He also doesn't show the connection between instability and societal harm. Without evidence, it is logical to dismiss this point.

Child Adoption

Pro yet again makes another bare assertion that "children of married couples are shown to be overall better off than children of unmarried couples." Where is the evidence for this claim? If there is evidence, are same-sex marriages a factor in the study? In the first round I provided proof that children need both a mother and a father, and that children with both do well in various areas, such as social status, physical and mental well-being, and chances of being in poverty in the future.


Pro argues that because gay marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional, then the judges must be right. However, Pro has provided no evidence as to why these judges are right, or how these bans are unconstitutional. Thus, there is no reason to take this argument seriously. There have been instances in which SSM bans have been upheld, so does that mean the judges are right there too? This logic really doesn't make much sense.

In sum, my opponent has dodged my argument over what marriage really is and tries instead to argue that because there are supposed pros to same-sex marriage, then it should be legalized. However, I've overturned each of his arguments and have called him out when he has dropped them, and thus conceded them.

= Source =

Debate Round No. 2


I believe that due to misunderstanding on both sides of this debate, the previous two posts have been rather muddled. I will first be clarifying my stance and intentions regarding my so-called new arguments and my alleged stawman fallacy. After that, I will be providing multiple sources and logic to back up the four additional societal benefits of marriage.

First is the issue of the Strawman fallacy. Based on this statement:
"My opponent uses a straw man fallacy to contend that I am arguing for one societal purpose of the marital union, which is procreation. As clearly indicated in the first round by my fourth premise, the purpose of marriage "must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing, which is only present in heterosexual unions".
I believe that the confusion has arisen from my wording in the first rebuttal. I was using the term "Procreation" to encompass both child-rearing and ideal child raising, as in my mind procreation has that connotation. This is entirely my fault, however this should have no bearing on the round, simply because my logic works regardless of whether or not his stance is that the purpose of marriage is solely procreation, or also ideal child raising. This brings me to my next point: that of the alleged new arguments.

As I'm sure you know, in order to make a true logical statement, all logical premises used to draw this conclusion must be true. These four points were not new arguments in and of itself, but counterpoints intended to disprove his fourth premise. To ensure there is no further confusion, I wish to clarify why I stressed the societal benefits of gay marriage.

I wholeheartedly agree with Con"s first through third premises, taking particular interest in premise three: "Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society."
Con then jumps to the assumption that marriage has only two societal benefits, or at least only two that he mentions in this debate round: "To promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing"
This is the heart of my refutation of Con"s case: with these four counterpoints, I endeavor to prove that there are additional societal benefits to homosexual marriage that the state has an interest in. Therefore, following Con"s own logic, gay marriage should fit at least part of the definition of marriage. Furthermore, this shall prove that allowing gay marriage is overall good for society. Now, I suspect that Con would refute this statement by repeating himself on this point: "Although societal advantages come as a result of marriage, they don't define what marriage really is." However, this demonstrates blatantly inconsistent logic on his part, and here"s why: Con uses the term "what marriage really is". This obviously implies that there is one correct definition of marriage, presumably his. Now, let"s examine for a moment the third premise he uses to justify his definition of marriage: "Because the state is regulating this union, the purpose must be to promote a public end for the good of society." Assuming for a moment that homosexual marriages promote societal good, then working from this premise, it is in the state and society's best interest to allow homosexual marriages, and they obviously meet the definition of marriage.

Now, I shall be defending my four counterpoints, then proving that nonrecognition of gay marriage is, in reality, unconstitutional.

Psychological states
Con has two responses to this counterpoint: 1) Civil Unions, and 2) It"s not a strong point.
To his first point, that of Civil Unions, I have two responses.
First, Civil Unions do not address the psychological harm that comes with not being able to marry, specifically, and they are therefore unfit replacements to marriage. [1][2]
Second, being offered a Civil Union over a recognized marriage "strongly contributes" to the phenomena of Minority Stress.[3] According to the APHA (I can provide many more sources if Con so wishes) Minority Stress has significant and recordable negative health impacts on it"s victims. Indeed, it is theorized that the overall worse health of gays is due to Minority Stress. In fact, it has been found to be probable that it contributes to the higher suicide rates of sexual minorities. This is not some trivial issue to be brushed off, and Con is vastly downplaying it"s impact. Civil unions are not just as good.

To Con"s second counterpoint, which is essentially that his doesn"t matter that much, I have two responses.
First, the voting analogy Con uses is entirely inapplicable. As established, marriage"s purpose is of societal benefit. Voting"s purpose is to protect the right of citizens to peaceably change their government. In voting, since it at least in theory impacts government, it is crucial to ensure that participants have some level of maturity, so that it can responsible fulfill it"s goal. The distinction between this and gay marriage is that marriage should benefit society and it"s individuals. Increased suicide rates, more deceases, and overall worse health certainly does not benefit society.
Second, Con attempts to belittle this argument by referring to it has higher stress, and essentially trying to persuade you to push this under the rug. However, as demonstrated by my discussion of Minority Stress, this is, in reality, and extremely important issue.

The Economy
Con had one, critically flawed, response to this counterpoint. He stated that "As Pro pointed out, homosexual couples can already wed in states where gay marriage is not allowed, so money is being pumped into the economy regardless." However, this completely ignores the empirical data I provided stating the opposite. All evidence[4][5][6][7][8][9] points to the indisputable fact that recognizing gay marriage has a gigantic positive impact on the economy. I would like to remind you: Con claims that the state should have a vested interest in marriage, and that marriage must have societal benefits. Gay marriage obviously does.

Under this point, Con essentially stated that I need to provide evidence. This is what I seek to do. Multiple sources[10][11] show that gay marriage stabilizes society. Now, Con would likely lead you to believe that Civil Unions are "just as good" in this respect too. However, this is argument is flawed because it insinuates that Civil Unions should be used instead of marriage, and as I proved above, Civil Unions are, in reality, extremely harmful.

Child Adoption
Con"s entire refutation of this point consisted of saying I don"t have evidence. Here"s your evidence.[12][13][14] I have provided three pieces of evidence that explicitly deal with homosexual unions under this point. Con has provided none. In fact, Con has not refuted this point, simply said I need to prove it. Well, it has been proved, once again, that same-sex marriage benefits society.

As you can clearly see, nonrecognition of Gay Marriage is extremely harmful to society, whereas it"s recognition is beneficial to society as a whole. Now I"ll move on to the defense of my own case.

Under this point, Con stated that I am using inconsistent logic and have not sufficiently proven this point. My logic is that of the recent court rulings about same-sex marriage[15]. Instead of explaining in my own words, allow me to quote a few judge that ruled in a recent same-sex marriage case.
"After careful consideration, and applying the"law as it must, this Court holds that Texas" prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the"United States Constitution"s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Texas" current"marriage laws deny homosexual couples the right to marry, and in doing so, demean their dignity"for no legitimate reason. Accordingly, the Court finds these laws are unconstitutional and hereby"grants a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing Texas" ban on same-sex"marriage,""United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia said"

Finally, I would like to draw attention to one crucial aspect of this debate: the Burden of Proof. I have provided a plethora of empirical data supporting my points, thus upholding the burden of proof, whereas Con has not.

To conclude, we know three things: First, not recognizing gay marriage is detrimental to society. Second, recognizing gay marriage is beneficial to society (and thus fulfills my opponent"s third premise of what marriage is). Finally, we know that I have proven my points using both expert studies and sound logic, whereas my opponent has done neither. In light of these things, we are left with one conclusion: that recognizing gay marriage is the right thing for society.



I thank Pro for this debate. It's been quite interesting to do and I'm glad my opponent gave me a challenge :)

To finish I will point out the issues in my opponent's arguments, and show him that my side is indeed more logical.

Purpose of Marriage

"Procreation" is defined by "to beget or generate (offspring)", "to produce; bring into being" [1]. This means to give birth to children, not to raise them, so the reason my opponent's analysis of my argument seemed like a straw man was because he had a different definition of procreation in mind. Regardless, I will excuse this and continue to examine Pro's arguments.

My opponent misunderstands the important connection of the third and fourth premises, which together adequately show what the purpose of marriage really is. The purpose of the marital union is to promote a public end for the good of society, but it is specific only to procreation and child-raising. These two elements are what makes marriage unique and unlike any other union. Thus, any other societal benefits are irrelevant to marriage. I clearly stated in my fourth premise that the logical definition of marriage must be to promote and protect procreation and ideal child-rearing. This is the prime reason why marriage is recognized by the state, and the state's intentions are always to promote a public end. This end is to produce and raise the next generation, the generation that will take the wheel next and will ultimately be the future of the world. Additional revenue is not why the state recognizes marriage at all, nor is it about alleviating stress. While these could benefit others, it's not anywhere close to as important as procreation and establishing the ideal family structure that raises up the people of our world.

Marriage exists for these reasons. The state never said "hey, we need more revenue so let's create the marital union" because the marital union was never made to fit this purpose. It was made for the reasons I have outlined, and that simply is something that my opponent cannot deny. If we are to combat minority stress and revenue, we use other methods of solving these problems, but marriage was never meant to pulled into these issues. Pro can go on to a website and try to pull out all the so-called benefits of redefining marriage to meet irrelevant problems, but even if he can successfully do so, he does not understand nor can defeat that marriage was meant to support the special purposes of producing children and raising them. I could go through the Internet and try to find disadvantages of gay marriage to throw at my opponent, but it is indeed irrelevant to marriage's unique role in society. Thus, marriage ought not to be changed, but to remain as it is for the good of children and our future society.

To be fair, I will still rebut Pro's arguments of "societal benefits" of extending marriage to other couples.

Psychological States

Pro begins this by claiming that civil unions do not reduce minority stress as much as marital unions do, and cites two sources (#1 and #3 are the same). However, neither of his sources actually back his point - they focus on the effects of gay marriage vs no unions at all and do not agree with Pro's assertion that civil unions are not as good. In fact, source #1 states, "Therefore, be it resolved that the Indiana State Medical Association (1) recognizes that exclusion from civil union or marriage contributes to health care disparities affecting same-sex households..". Since exclusion from civil unions are detrimental to health issues of homosexual couples, there is no reason to assume that domestic partnerships are part of the problem. Thus, Pro's claim is null and void.

My opponent attempts to overturn my voting analogy by saying, "in voting, since it at least in theory impacts government, it is crucial to ensure that participants have some level of maturity". What he doesn't recognize is that voting requirements do not include or exclude people based on maturity. Some adults don't have such maturity, yet we don't exclude them. True, some minors could probably vote effectively, but we don't let them either. The point is that rules are general propositions based on a presumed connection between the established criteria and the behavior that is desired, even if the results aren't always favorable. And so it is with marriage

The Economy

From Pro's round 2 source, the states that legalized gay marriage saw a difference of about a few hundred jobs. However, a few hundred jobs are hardly anything when it comes to the state level, where in many states there are millions of eligible workers. If gay marriage were to be legalized, its effect on the economy wouldn't be that huge, and as I said before the purpose of marriage isn't to provide the state more money. Marriage ceremonies can be made regardless of whether SSM is legalized. This argument just isn't strong enough to prove that marriage isn't what it really is.


Because Pro failed to show that civil unions are "very harmful" as he says they are, this argument is also null and void. It would have been great if Pro had elaborated more on this and showed us *how* it stabilizes society, but he didn't really do that very well in the second round and just posted links, which prove nothing, in the third round. He could have advanced this point further but even if he had successfully shown that gay marriages stabilize society it does not knock down the case for civil unions.

Child Adoption

In the first round I proved that children need a mother *and* a father, and that heterosexual parenting is beneficial to children in several important areas. My adversary asserts that marriage is beneficial to children, yet doesn't show how same-sex marriages are equally beneficial to children as heterosexual unions are. Neither does he bring civil unions into the equation despite my emphasis on how domestic partnerships provide the same rights/benefits as marriages do. He then cites a bunch of sources that are very unclear in this area and don't even back up what Pro originally said. He quotes nothing, which doesn't help either. Not to mention he has avoided the evidence I have presented in the first round. It seems as if he made a desperate Internet search to find links to throw at me regardless whether they follow his logic or not.


The same thing is asserted by my opponent: that because she judges think the bans are unconstitutional, then they must be. This is flawed logic because it is appealing to authority, which is fallacious. The courts did so under the notion that homosexual couples were being treated "unequally" and thus they should be allowed in marriage. I have been very clear that marriage is to fuel two specific purposes: procreation and child-rearing. The state regulates marriage to fulfill these purposes and to place special status unto those who can bear children and those who are the best at doing so. Homosexual couples do not fit this criteria, so it cannot be discriminatory to disallow same-sex couples into this unique union. Equality must be served under the proper regulation it needs to be legitimate.


Pro starts this debate by listing reasons for why gay marriage should be legalized and "refutations" of the other side. I presented my case of why marriage is logically existent between heterosexual couples, not other unions. I also provided rebuttals to my opponent's objections towards arguments against SSM. Upon reading my case, Pro drops all his arguments, including infertile/old couples, popular opinion, religious legislation, etc and completely scraps his original case. He then attempts to show problems with my third premise by saying that marriage was meant to serve *any* end, which is a total misinterpretation of my case. Marriage exists to serve specific purposes, not just any random one, which I thoroughly explained. My opponent then goes on to, which shows both sides of the issue, to find pros of gay marriage in order to try to debunk my case, but fails to do so. He makes a desperate Internet search and finds a bunch of links to throw at me that don't even follow his assertions at all, and is very unorganized in his attempts. Even if he could find several pros, it wouldn't overturn the specific purposes marriage was designed to satisfy. Pro's tactics of dropping arguments, cherry picking them to look sensible, and misrepresentation of my case contribute to his failure to fulfill the BoP. He hasn't gotten close to showing my case false, and by avoiding much of it he concedes to what marriage really is.

Vote Con :D

= Source =

Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Pro-lifeConservative // Moderator action: Removed<

7 points to Con. {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: I am a Christian, and agreed with Con from the start, and did not plan on having my opinions change. After reading this debate, I find my opinions now with more proof and more experience on other opinions on the matter. To give my quick say on the matter, gay marriage is a sin, and sinners go to hell, unless they are saved by Jesus Christ. Therefore, by the government allowing this sin to be an integral part of society, the government is truly telling people,"sin all you want! Go to hell! This message is endorsed by the government of the United States of America." Now, the government had not said this, thank goodness, but legalizing gay marriage would inadvertently say just that. Therefore, gay marriage should be illegal.}

[*Reason for removal*] This RFD voted based on personal bias, makes only its own arguments, and fails to justify awarding all 7 points.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
@Independent2k14, you clearly did not read the debate. Please do not ask my to rewrite everything I wrote and put it into a comment.
Posted by Toobu 1 year ago
Unions have the same state benefits. There's a lot of fuss about some federal benefits they may or may not get. It's rather dumb.
Posted by Independent2k14 1 year ago
If civil unions have the same benefits of marriage why all the fuss? Are we just arguing over a title? Why not just get rid of marriage and only have unions?
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
I went through it and it said the exact opposite., I even quoted it. You didn't quote anything from it so it was really unclear.
Posted by Toobu 1 year ago
Woa woa woa. Hold up. Did you actually read my first source for minority stress? About halfway down the page, it specifically states that civil unions are detrimental. There are other issues too, but I'm rather curious about that.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Thanks, same to you. Let's wrap this up.
Posted by Toobu 1 year ago
This is much more enjoyable than I expected it to be, I must say. To be honest, I was expecting random stupid internet people, but you have made a logical and well reasoned case against gay marriage. I still think you're wrong, but I am impressed.
Posted by Varrack 1 year ago
Posted by Toobu 1 year ago
Right. So, would it be fair for me to say that you believe marriage has two societal purposes, and that that is what your 4th premise states?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by logiman 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con did excellent jobs. Con showed that the conjugal view of marriage is superior to the revisionist view by demonstrating how the revisionist view is too broad and encompasses unions that aren't necessarily fit for marriage. Pro attacked Con's case by stating that if marriage is to provide a public good, then any public good can meet the requirement for marriage. Con countered by acknowledging that marriage was instituted to meet *specific* ends, not just anything. Con also showed how civil unions provide all the same benefits as marriages and that heterosexual couples are the *best* at raising children, which is crucial to the conjugal case. He also showed that the economy would not change very much due to gay marriages. Thus, arguments go to Con.