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

Gay marriage should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 1/30/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,604 times Debate No: 99444
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (48)
Votes (1)




1. It Is Not Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementary in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex "marriage" is intrinsically sterile. If the "spouses" want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

7. It Defeats the State"s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society

By legalizing same-sex "marriage," the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new "morality," businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex "marriage."

If homosexual "marriage" is universally accepted as the present step in sexual "freedom," what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain "avant garde" subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

The railroading of same-sex "marriage" on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."



The arguments you're using are mainly based on religious belief. To use your personal beliefs outside of your religion's domain is not only unwise, but also goes against the freedoms that are granted to all Americans, to live their lives according to their own belief systems and values. What harm does a gay or lesbian couple do to you if they want their union to be labeled as "marriage"? Does it prevent you from living safely in your home, drive to work safely, take care of your family, or practice your own beliefs? Please keep your narrow and bigoted ideas to yourself. Don't poison the rest of society with it.
Debate Round No. 1


Then what is the harm in calling it a "civil union"? "Does it prevent you from living safely in your home, drive to work safely, take care of you family, or practice your own beliefs?" Furthermore, Contender, you stated my arguments are mostly based on religious beliefs (and personal beliefs as well)... and that is does not harm me, or anybody else in that matter. This is the biggest topic in which Gay Marriage Supporters always seem to mysteriously overlook. To begin, on a more general/wider scale, the legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would obscure basic moral values of all the people: In the Netherlands for examples, gay marriage was enacted and legalized and once people became comfortable with the idea, they are legalizing pedophiles, child pornography, and animal sex. Slowly, all the parties passing these laws, have similar arguments to your about how this does not affect or hurt anyone. Although, it does not affect my driving, which is completely irrelevant to this topic, it does affect many people on a large scale. Basically, legalizing gay marriage, would lead to all this disgusting and horrifying acts that eventually, everyone will think normal, because of our leniency in gay-marriage.
"Using the same tactics used by "gay" rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals" (Northern Colorado Gazette).
Is gay marriage really that "normal"?



How does it undermine human morality? If you're familiar at all with philosophy, morality goes well beyond any religious doctrine. There have been civilizations in the past who didn't use any divine sources to create the behavior that they thought was necessary to hold society together. Take the ancient Romans, yes they had a pantheon of gods, but worshiping them was more of a social norm, rather than something that they took seriously like the modern religions that govern the behavior of many humans(i.e. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism).

Regarding your comment that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing bestiality, pedophilia, or any other like behavior; this type of logic is much like a domino row, thinking that because one thing happens, that everything else that is a danger to the physical or psychological nature of people inevitably follows. Besides the far-fetched nature of this type of flawed thinking, the research that is being done by medical and mental health professionals has gotten to the point were high levels of scrutiny are applied, and the subsequent research made available to lawyers, judges, and anyone else that might need it before passing anything into law. To address your comment about pedophiles seeking legalization of their behavior, it is extremely unlikely that any competent lawyer, judge, city council person, mayor, governor, or any other legislator, would pass a law that allowed pedophiles to have sex with children without the fear of criminal actions taken against them.
Debate Round No. 2


To begin with, about the domino row, as long as a part of it is true after the accusation or statement, then this is not really a "flawed" thinking. And you may be thinking, that I am just fantasizing about what could happen if we continue to accept gay marriage, but actually, pedophilia, is now legalized and classified as a sex orientation. It is actually protected by the government. This is mainly because they had the same reason (the argument that you used to defend your position on gay-marriage) and some way somehow, is now allowing and protecting pedophiles. Remember, this was directly correlated from the already unnatural, and disgusting same-sex marriage. You would know this, if you actually checked my sources, rather than coming up with "facts" based solely off your opinions. Using your same line of reasoning, would you accept pedophilia?
I mean, it is just two people making love with each other. How does it bother me in any way? It doesn't affect society at all right? Really. Your naive and one sided reasoning is the trait shared by many gay-marriage supporters.


I haven't come across any news either online or on TV, saying that pedophilia is legal in the U.S. If there is proof of that, then please direct me towards the source(s), where it proves what you are claiming. Also, the preeminent mental health organizations which are The American Psychological Association, and The American Psychiatric Association, haven't published anything that supports it being classified as a sexual orientation. Here is an article directly from their website: <;. I did an extensive search on Google, to see if I could find any credible stories from like NPR, The BBC, Skynews, Fox News, CNN, or any other major news network, and found nothing saying that Pedophilia or any other kind of sexual abuse against children or teens. And just to further my point, I also checked the APA website for recognized sexual orientations, and came up with nothing that supports your claim that it's considered a sexual orientation. Here is that link: <;.

Regarding your comment that to me and others like me pedophilia is just two people "loving each other", and that we use that thinking to think it's okay, then you couldn't be more wrong. The difference is that sexual activity between adults is that between adults, the majority of them are psychologically, emotionally, and physically mature enough to be able to deal with being intimate, whereas children and teens due to them living a pretty much sheltered life, so they aren't ready to deal with the consequences of being physically intimate or any of the consequences that come with sexual activity. So to conclude, it seems that I'm not the one trying to pass off "facts", as opinions. Have a wonderful night:).
Debate Round No. 3


Pedophilia is considered/classified as a sexual orientation. This makes me question your "extensive research" or was it just you naming the news giants? If you actually checked the sources I LISTED in my previous arguments, then you would not need to "extensively research". If you can't find my source that I listed after "extensively" searching then I will list it right here.
Make sure you go through the entire document, rather than finding the words that you want to see in order to support your argument.

Despite debating for 2 days now, and observing you as somewhat intelligent in this topic, I thought you would be able to perceive sarcasm. Let me quote my statement.
"I mean, it is just two people making love with each other. How does it bother me in any way? It doesn't affect society at all right? Really."
If you are really that naive to not be able to tell sarcasm from seriousness, of if you are just vainly trying to connect bits and pieces of my words against me then I know that your entire argument is opinion based.
Anyway, lets continue. Marriage already has enough problems as it is without gay marriage. One of the weirdest arguments in favor of gay marriage goes like so: Marriage is already on the rocks. Look at all the people cheating, look at all the divorces; so why not gay marriage, too?

This is like arguing that someone has already accidentally eaten some rat poison; so why not give him some cyanide to go along with it? When someone's sick, you don't make him sicker, you heal him. If marriage has been tarnished in our society -- and it has -- we should be looking for ways to strengthen marriage, not weaken it.

Sure, if gay marriage were to become legal tomorrow, you wouldn't have hordes of people who are already married running off to get divorced. But, gay marriage would further cut down on the "sacredness" of it, and make it less of a special event. That would cause people to put less value on marriage, make them less likely to get married in the first place, and make them more likely to get divorced. This leads to more children being born out of marriage and kids from single parents are more likely to commit suicide, take drugs, go to jail, drop out of high school, etc., etc. You can already see this starting to play out in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and you'll see it happen here, too, if gay marriage becomes the law of the land.
To further support this argument, I will quote an argument that I have already used as it seems Contender and many commentators have overlooked this point. Gay marriage, no matter which way you put it..."always denies a child either a father or a mother

It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage." A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests."

My last piece of evidence and supporting argument is...
Legalizing gay marriage advances the "homosexual agenda" and unfairly paints opponents as bigots.
The Illinois Family Institute states that if gay marriage is legalized, "Children will be taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality... that children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father... [and] that opposition to the legalization of 'same-sex marriage' was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance and hatred." Lou Sheldon, Founder of the Traditional Values Coalition, warned of the influence on children of the "homosexual agenda," writing that "[o]ur little children are being targeted by the homosexuals and liberals... To be brainwashed to think that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality. We can't let that happen."


Despite you saying that my arguments are "opinion-based", your sources are weirdly absent of links to mental health organizations, like The American Psychological Association, or The American Psychiatric Association, or even The American Medical Association. Your sources tend to be conservative or religious-based, not on scientific evidence, which in court, would not be very sound sources to base your argument on. I don't need to remind you that we live in a country that is governed by the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible. Your argument is based on a very weak foundation, and until you come up with mental health evidence from any of the sources that I've listed, then people will never take you seriously.
Debate Round No. 4
48 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: AmericanDeist// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both used good grammar. Con came across as having the better conduct. Con was right in that US citizens are governed by law, not the Church. Pro's entire argument was opinionated from a religious standpoint.

[*Reason for non-removal*] This debate is over 1 month past the end of the voting period, and as such, is no longer moderated.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Imma say this. Pro's opening argument was not completely based on his religious beliefs, only the second point of it was. Con only rebutted Point #2, and dropped the other arguments. For the Round 2, they only continued to argue about Point #2. In the remaining rounds they went off topic. But in the final round, con did not even rebut pro's Round 5 arguments, he just said what he had been repeating over and over again, "The Bible is not the law, not everyone is Christian." Pro did rebut this, but con just kept repeating it over and over again. Furthermore, con said in Round 1, "Please keep your narrow and bigoted ideas to yourself. Don't poison the rest of society with it.", an obvious insult (and also a flawed logic and argument liberals use, because if you disagree with them, you are a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot). If this was still in voting period, conduct and arguments to pro.
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Starfleet, when will your excuses stop? You compared your conduct to Jedi in Star Wars which shows that you are a kid. Please, I know more than you KID.
Posted by Starfleet 1 year ago
I did behave like a civilized person for most of this debate, but you forced me to drop my diplomatic approach and adopt one that was more aggressive to make the point that for most of the debate your argument was being built on one-sided sources, or you just repeated the same thing over and over again; it got to the point where your argument was not providing anyone with insightful and unbiased information. Just like the Jedi in Star Wars, there are times to be diplomatic but when the situation isn't being solved by talking and it gets dangerous, a lightsaber is needed to deter any further damage and stop the danger.
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Nice debate in the end despite the fact I lost.
Hopefully, Starfleet will learn to have better behavior and manners, but overall, this was a good debate.
Posted by Starfleet 1 year ago
Nordung, you are one of the most incompetent individuals I have ever met. This latest post is just a rehash of the same tired, non-scientific argument that you have been trying to convince others that it has any merit at all. Regarding the piece that you took out of context from the source that I used, is not a valid piece of information to use because if you read the entire article, it basically says that bullying due to gender ignorance, is a big problem, so people need to be more understanding and open to other lifestyles that they may encounter throughout their lives. You are just ignoring everything else that I have said in support of gay marriage, and by you providing the source that you did to backup your argument, again, is a source that is not unbiased, so it is a source that doesn't help your position at all. I would suggest for you to please open your mind, get away from your ill-informed sources. Why do I say that? I say it because the world is changing whether you like it or not, and either you get with the program and move forward with the times, or you get left behind in a world where your ignorance and intolerance is fast becoming a very, very small percentage of the way people think.
Posted by Nordung 1 year ago
Starfleet, although committing suicide is never good, and rather a "selfish" way to die, people commit suicide everyday. It is no surprising occurrence. Just because you have found a couple suicides here and there by gay people doesn't make me a "barbarian." As your "Bullying Statistics" site said, and I quote..."There are many reasons bullies target certain people, which is why we are taking a look at gay bullying statistics, because so many homosexual individuals are the target of bullying. Gay bullying statistics are often a huge contributing factor to the number of bullying incidents daily."
This is all the information that this site provides, and the site does not have any numbers, or any actual statistics to support this information. They do not even have any quotes or authors on the page. I am not sure this is what you would call people killing themselves because of gay bullying. This site was made for the purpose of all bullying. Just because I don't support gay marriage, that doesn't mean I think the people aren't human? If I say, gay marriage should be illegal, that doesn't mean that a gay can just commit suicide? That is like me saying to you Starfleet that you are making up and plagiarizing, and then you just kill yourself. Is this really your argument? Also, your comment to Tim Wagnes was inappropriate as you are calling him a witness to murder? So I am now a murder all of a sudden. Really.
Your last source is also talking about suicides in the 1980s which is now incorrect and irrelevant information.
Back to con.
Posted by TimWagnes 1 year ago
Starfleet has provided adequate resources. Nordung, its your turn
Posted by Starfleet 1 year ago
TimWagnes, sitting on the sidelines and not doing anything to stop people like Nordung from spreading their bigoted and narrow-minded ways, is as bad as someone seeing another person getting murdered in from of them, and they not doing anything to stop it from fear of not getting involved. TimWagnes, how many time in history have people suffered unmentionable horrors and pain at the hands of someone who was left alone because they didn't want to endanger themselves?. How many teens and other people have killed themselves them because of the bullying that they received at school or the workplace from peers that thought that being gay was a "sin"? Here is a source that I found regarding what I'm talking about : <;. Here is another one from the UK: <;. Here is another one from The National Institutes of Health in the U.S. : Do you want me, TimWagnes , to continue with more credible sources, or can you see why I'm behaving the way I am?. I am just trying to educate people on empirically- verified sources on information, so no innocent life is lost, and no right is denied someone because of their sexual orientation. Have we lost our humanity, our love and compassion for others?.
Posted by TimWagnes 1 year ago
Can we all agree that both people have their sides, and both had their weak and strong arguments? I may not agree with Nordung, he did repeat like Starfleet but maintained calm. This was a fair debate and we should only bring up new ideas, not contradict them , because even though I may not support it being illegal, this is a democracy and all voice should be heard.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AmericanDeist 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Both used good grammar. Con came across as having the better conduct. Con was right in that US citizens are governed by law, not the Church. Pro's entire argument was opinionated from a religious standpoint.