The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Gay marriage should be legal

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,917 times Debate No: 31459
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




I'll keep this one simple.

This debate is (quite obviously) on the subject of whether or not gay marriages should be legal.

Round 1 will be for acceptance, with no arguments posted.
Round 2 will be for arguments, no rebuttals of Pro's arguments by Con yet.
Round 3 will be for rebuttals of round 2 arguments and for adding new arguments.
Round 4 will be for rebuttals of round 3 arguments and for adding new arguments.
Round 5 will be for final rebuttals with no new arguments.

Now, since this seems to be the ongoing trend in my debates as of late, let me get this one thing clear:
If you're going to forfeit every round, don't accept the debate.
I apologize for having to be a jackass in getting this across, but in over half of the debates I am currently in, my opponent has forfeited almost every round. It's a necessary precaution to say that I at least tried.

Now, for the specifics of the debate. The only thing that I will not accept from my opponent is the use of any religious texts as a source. This is a secular case for gay marriage. I support this rule with the establishment clause:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ."
This would mean that if religion were the only reason to prohibit gay marriage, it would be unconstitutional, as it would be a law respecting an establishment of religion.
That being said, burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal.

"Legal" will be defined, in this case, as being fully recognized by federal and state governments.

If you would like to further discuss the rules of this debate or ask me to add definitions or change some rules, please discuss this in the comments section before accepting the debate. Thank you.


I agree with all my opponents rules and regulations. I await his 2nd round.
Debate Round No. 1


I will recycle a few arguments from my last debate on this subject, since none were addressed in that debate.

Contention 1: It harms nobody, and infringes on nobody's rights.

This one is fairly self-explanatory. Gay marriage does not harm anybody. That's it. If you don't like it, then that's fine, don't get one, but it doesn't cause direct harm towards you if others do so. It is a private act between consenting adults - this counters the exceedingly common argument that marriage will be redefined to include bestiality and other things (since animals can't give consent), which would cause a 'moral breakdown' of society. Polygamy is another possibility raised by critics of gay marriage as a possible thing that can happen in the future, which actually is slightly more valid (since it is also between consenting adults

Contention 2: Legalizing gay marriage only affects how the federal government recognizes marriage

It is often said by opponents of gay marriage that by legalizing gay marriage, we are forcing everybody to accept its existence. This is not true. Churches would not be forced to perform gay marriages, and same-sex couples could simply get a marriage license. Only the federal government would be 'required' to accept gay marriages, and only to the extent to provide the same government benefits (such as filing jointly on taxes) as traditional marriages.

Contention 3: Allowing same-sex couples to enter into committed, monogamous relationships would reduce the spread of STDs among gays.

This is an argument that I hear, strangely enough, used against gay marriage. However, in monogamous relationships, there is no chance of STDs spreading if neither person has one. If gay marriages were legalized, more people would want to be married, thus reducing the spread of common STDs.

Contention 4: Same-sex couples can adopt children, and raise them just as well as any other couple.

I'll cite this PubMed article for this:
Children raised by same-sex couples progress from school just as fine as children from a heterosexual couple. Now, I am aware of there being studies that reach the opposite conclusion, and I acknowledge this. However, these studies often make flawed comparisons. They seem to ignore many factors.

One of these factors would be the fact that same-sex couples get their children from orphanages and shelters (since it is biologically impossible for them to have children of their own), which likely accounts for any claims that children from same-sex parents are more likely to have been victims of abuse. If a similar study were conducted on the ability of infertile couples to raise a child under the same conditions as these flawed studies, I'd expect the results to be similar. Furthermore, as my linked article states, children from any family type are more likely to do well in school than children who live in orphanages. This would mean that in order to prove same-sex parenting is bad, you would additionally have to prove that the children would be better off in an orphanage.

Another factor is discrimination against same-sex couples. This would be present in any study outside of a country that is overall more accepting of same-sex marriage. This is also one case where same-sex marriage would help. While this wouldn't immediately change everyone's opinion, people would, over time, become more accepting of same-sex couples, and they would face less discrimination.

In order to counter this argument, I expect a credible study that is free of fallacious logic and which makes conditions as similar as possible for the same-sex couple and the traditional couple (as well as their child). This is simply the scientific method - only one variable can be changed, and all other variables must be as similar as possible. It would also be nice to not have the study funded by any activism group against gay marriage (e.g. AFA, NOM, etc.), to ensure that there isn't any conflict of interest.

I feel that this is enough for the first round. I await my opponent's arguments.


I appreciate the opportunity to be debating such a important topic. In this debate, I will be arguing that the United States government should not legalize same-sex marriage. I think we should start by actually establishing what the term 'marriage' means. Since we are debating on the legalization of same-sex marriage then we should look into the governments description of it. We should note that a personnel view on marriage does not change the governmental description and usage of marriage.

What is Marriage?

The governmental usage of the term marriage means, "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."[2]

Currently there are 37 states that have passed laws which define marriage as 'limited to a union between one man and one woman.' Thirteen states, therefore, do not currently have laws on their books which limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman.[1]

As we see in our current governmental usage of marriage we have the determining factor as one male and one female. The purpose of marriage is to continue with the survival of humanity. The marriage between a man and a woman has been the primary factor for the growth of society. We have our justification for the current use of marriage by the government. We in fact see that there is a separation of church and state in the United States.[3]

No legal right

It can be no doubt true that marriage should be a legal right for everyone that lives up to the definition of marriage by our government. Same-sex marriage does not fulfill the purpose of marriage so set by our government and therefore should not be legal. Same-sex marriage is not protected or justified by equal or protection rights or laws because there is basically no such right to begin with.[5]

"So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place." [4]

My opponent must first qualify same-sex marriage has having the equal right to be married. He can not invent his own version of marriage to fit his needs but must use the term in the way our government uses it if we are to determine if same-sex marriage should be legal. No law should be passed that goes in direct conflict with the majority of the peoples voting opinion.

People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong. Gay marriage would entitle gay couples to typical marriage benefits including claiming a tax exemption, receiving social security payments, and coverage by a health insurance policies.[9]

Social Norms

"Social norms are the shared expectations of group members in a social situation or Social norms are the standard of right and wrong in society. The society expects from its members to abide by the normative behavior. Culture provides sources of conformity to the norms and an intimidation to their violation. These norms guide our interaction pattern on the one hand and are reproduced during the same process. Without the existence of group’s norms, human behavior cannot be differentiated from animal behavior. Social norms protect our values. Social norms are the boundary walls for values protection."[8]

The reason for change in norms is growth but same-sex marriage provides no growth. It has been the norm throughout society that marriage is between a man and woman exhibited in my first contention. It causes grief and puts a 'on the spot' situation for parents explaining these abnormal activities. This will cause discomfort in parents and also children. Even a young child knows that mommy and daddy makes babies.

Loss of meaning

"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." Confucius

By allowing same-sex couples to wed, marriage will no longer have the same meaning it once had. After we allow same-sex marriage, what then will be next? What reasons would one have for stopping polygamy or polyandry?

"It's not a good idea for society to move away from the time-honoured position of marriage as a union between a man and a woman." Dr Sharon James, Coalition For Marriage campaign group[7]

Changing the definition and understanding of marriage will affect the whole of society. The main aspects and productive understandings of society about the union of marriage centers around rearing children.

Inadequate parenting

Though rarely thought about is the view children take upon marriage. What does a child think about having a same-sex parental environment? This could thus give alot of confusion on a child by not being able to determine if men should be with men or men should be with women and vice versa. Are we to say that a child is not much more productive when their home rears both a man and woman as parents?

"Marriage is already threatened with high divorce rates (between 40% and 50%) and with 40.6% of babies being born to unmarried mothers in 2008. Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution."[9]

There is also a overwhelming need for adoption for society and 'yes' same-sex couples do in fact help in this regard but this hardly provides just means for same-sex couples to become married. There is in fact reason to believe that even if they were to become parents, they would not do as an adequate job as heterosexuals.[7]

"The deficiencies of studies on homosexual parenting include reliance upon an inadequate sample size, lack of random sampling, lack of anonymity of research participants, and self-presentation bias. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence to demonstrate the dangerous consequences of homosexual behavior and the unstable nature of homosexual relationships. And despite the weaknesses of the research focused specifically on homosexual parents, there is significant evidence that their children suffer, particularly in the area of sexual adjustment. Meanwhile, a well-established and growing body of evidence (amply documented in FRC’s companion volume, The Family Portrait) shows that both mothers and fathers provide unique and irreplaceable contributions to the raising of children. Children reared in traditional families by a mother and father are happier, healthier, and more successful than children raised in non-traditional environments."[6]


As we have seen our government has no benefit for legalizing same-sex marriage. The majority of society has declined to accept same-sex marriage. Household that have a same-sex marriage can effect a child's understanding of social norms. By allowing same-sex marriage we will strip the meaning of marriage as it has been known. To end, same-sex couples simply do not have the right to marry. Therefore same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

Back to Pro!





"Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school

[4] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, What is Marriage?

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, no. 1 (Winter 2010): 251






Debate Round No. 2


Contention 1: Definition of Marriage
I do not see how the current definition of marriage has any weight on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. This would be similar to saying "Gay marriage is illegal, therefore it should be illegal". This argument essentially dropping the whole purpose of the debate in favor of preserving the status quo. Furthermore, you state that the purpose of marriage is to continue with the survival of humanity. However, this ignores the fact that homosexuals do not have any sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex. If a homosexual is not going to marry a person of the opposite sex anyway since they are not attracted to them, then there is little harm in allowing them to marry a person of the same sex who they are actually attracted to.
Contention 2: Same-sex couples currently have no legal right to marry
Stating that same-sex couples currently have no right to marry bears no weight, either - this is something that is able to be objectively proven, and I'm not trying to argue that they do have this right currently. This also ignoring that the debate is about whether or not we should change this, i.e. the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Stating the current state of affairs does not support your side.

Contention 3: No law should be passed that goes in direct conflict with the majority of the peoples voting opinion.

I find it interesting that you stated this - a poll conducted in late 2012 found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage. More recent polls are even more in favor. Look at this Washington Post-ABC poll:
58% of Americans support gay marriage, according to this poll. Due to the possibility of Washington Post being biased in favor of same-sex marriage, I'll include a Fox News poll, too: (I love the difference in headlines: "Americans deeply divided over approval of same-sex marriage")
While the Fox News poll shows a perfect tie (46% pro, 46% con +/-3%), the most important aspect of both polls is that younger age groups support gay marriage to a much greater extent than older age groups. This means that support for same-sex marriage is going on an upward trend, future generations will only support it more, and older generations which do not support it as much will die off, therefore, nothing is going to stop this trend for generations. With this, I feel that I have adequately turned this argument to my side.

Contention 4: People should not have their tax dollars used to support something they find wrong.
People having their tax dollars spent to support gay marriage, even if they don't support it, is a very weak argument. I don't support war, but my tax dollars are still being used for that. I don't support slashed taxes for the wealthy, but my tax dollars are being used to compensate for that. In addition, same-sex couples and people in support of gay marriage (currently the majority as suggested by the polls I cited earlier) would be paying taxes as well. If we only spent on things everyone agreed with, nothing would get done - someone always disagrees with something! As I have argued, healthcare costs for gay couples can only go down when gay marriage is recognized by the government, as more people in committed, monogamous partnerships reduces the spread of STDs.

Contention 5: Change in social norms in favor of gay marriage would be a bad thing.

Times always change. Whether it is new scientific knowledge increasing our understanding of the universe around us or cultural fusion, social norms will change because of this.

"The reason for change in norms is growth but same-sex marriage provides no growth."
Are you talking about population growth? I don't think that every change in social norms has been to make people reproduce more. If you're talking about cultural growth, same-sex marriage would provide that. Same-sex marriage is considered one of the most important parts of the LGBT rights movement. Many civil rights movements have ended in a cultural renaissance once those people are able to express themselves freely. An example would be the Harlem Renaissance.

"It has been the norm throughout society that marriage is between a man and woman exhibited in my first contention."
Plenty of ancient cultures allowed same-sex unions. Rome allowed it until Christianity spread and became the new religion of Rome, with the passage of Theodosian Code 9.7.3. Several Eastern cultures allowed (or at least did not explicitly forbid) same-sex relationships. It's the norm of Christianity, was spread by Christianity, and for 58% of Americans to agree with same-sex marriage, it would mean that even some Christians don't agree with it.

"It causes grief and puts a 'on the spot' situation for parents explaining these abnormal activities. This will cause discomfort in parents and also children."
"Causes grief"? I'd like to see an explanation of this. How would being tolerant of differences and accepting the fact that homosexuals exist cause grief and discomfort? Either way, with 58% in support of gay marriage, it looks like the majority is willing to deal with this supposed 'grief and discomfort'.

"Even a young child knows that mommy and daddy makes babies."
If someone is straight, they don't need to be told to like the opposite sex. They just do. Homosexuality isn't just something that can be walked into.

Look at this report by the APA:
In just about all of the documented cases described, religion is the main factor that leads people to feel rejection on basis of sexual orientation. It isn't something that can be changed. Freud had no promises about it, and he thought homosexuality was developmental arrest and that bisexuality was normal as well as heterosexuality, however, as I quote from that report:

"[I]n a now-famous letter, Freud (1935/1960) reassured a mother 
writing to him about her son that homosexuality was
“nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it
cannot be classified as an illness, but a variation of
sexual function” (p. 423). He further went on to say
that psychoanalysts could not promise to “abolish
homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take
its place” (p. 423), as the results of treatment could
not be determined."

We don't know what causes homosexuality. We may never know. In the words of Emerson Pugh:
"If the human mind was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it."
This does NOT mean to just start jumping to conclusions over every correlation, as correlation does not mean causation.
Contention 6: Loss of meaning

I shall go ahead and say that this whole section is based on an appeal to tradition fallacy. Furthermore, polygamy was practiced by the LDS church (Mormons) in the late 19th century, so I fail to see how you believe that gay marriage will lead to polygamy when it has existed without gay marriage.

Contention 7: Inadequate parenting

Your claim that marriage will be further weakened by same-sex marriage not only jumps to a conclusion, but is countered, quite ironically, by an argument from the same source you used. I'm approaching the character limit, so I'll just say it is number 12 on the pro side.

The report cited for #6 is from the Family Research Council, and the report is a prime example of a cherry-picking fallacy. When reading it, I noticed several places where the numbers were conveniently left out. Some studies cited dated back to 1985 and not many go past 2004, when gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, which was the first time it was legalized at all in the US. The lack of any evidence in favor of same-sex parenting when such evidence clearly exists from reliable sources makes this paper lack any credibility. I wish I could say more, but I'm out of characters for this round.


As conditions in the first Round, I can't provide any rebuttal to Pros Round 3. I will therefore as the rules state rebuttal his Round 2. Though I do insist that in Round 4 I be granted to have the ability to rebuttal Round 4. I insist this because in the last Round I will be stuck in having one chance to rebuttal Rounds 4 and 5. The reason my opponent is not able to rebuttal my last Round is because he made the claim and I oppose it. The claim must first be made before I can oppose it therefore the opposition should always be last. I think all Rounds should be available for rebuttal.

Contention 1: It harms and infringes on rights.

I disagree with my opponents assessment. Same-sex marriage fringes on the rights of the religious who feel that it is immoral. If same-sex marriages are allowed then taxes must be paid by the many religious people who will be paying taxes on something that is religiously immoral to them and by doing so would infringe on their religious rights.[1] The anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) may cost the federal budget more than $6 billion from 2005 to 2014. DOMA was signed into law in 1996.[6]

Same-sex marriage also harms children and children are very impermissible. By seeing a gay couple it automatically throws confusion into their understanding of how normal society functions in marriage. It is necessary for children to be taught that men and women are the normal process or society could no longer produce children.[3]

Contention 2: Legalizing gay marriage affects the federal government

My opponent contends that you do not have to take part in same-sex marriages but that is untrue. The public would have to pay taxes for it and also be socially attached to it. To legalize same-sex marriage would be agreeing that it is equal to heterosexual marriage and it is not. Same-marriage can't equal the parenting or the rearing of children.[3]

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2009 that extending employment benefits such as health insurance to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would cost the federal government $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019."[5]

One of the architects of Social Security, Abraham Epstein, said,"[T]he American standard assumes a normal family of man, wife, and two or three children, with the father fully able to provide for them out of his own income."[4]

Contention 3: If same-sex couples enter into committed, monogamous relationships it would reduce the spread of STDs among gays.

If agree that monogamous relationships reduce the spread of STDs but this has no value for allowing same-sex marriage. A gay couple can simply remain together without marriage and achieve the same effect.

Contention 4: Same-sex couples can adopt children but can't raise them as well as opposite-sex couples.

It is clear from the research that fathers and mothers have a critical role to play in the lives of their children.[2] We have determined that in the less than premier situation same-sex couples can provide homes for children. In the premier situation it is always both a male and female parents that gives the most positive results. This argument also does nothing for same-sex marriage because single gay people can adopt children.


There is already discrimination laws for homosexual people. If someone harasses or harms a homosexual then they should be prosecuted.[7] No one by law is allowed to discriminate against any homosexual.


What is Marriage?

Since we are looking for same-sex marriage to be legalized by our government then it should fit the definition for marriage by our government. Same-sex marriage doesn't fit that definition. If the law were to be passed then the definition must change but then same-sex marriage would be equal as heterosexual marriage and it is not.[3] Until that definition is changed then I do not see how same-sex marriage can be legalized.

No legal right

If same-sex marriage does not fit the proper definition established by our government then what right do they have to claim discrimination? Common issue discrimination as work and social have their laws but marriage is not the same issue. Same-sex marriage attempts to take the definition of a marriage and warp it into any meaning. Without the proper child raising skill and ability as both a mother and father then how can it be equal with traditional marriage? Without the ability to produce children to further society how can it be equal to traditional marriage?

Social Norms

There are many social norms that have changed in the past. Ones like racism and homosexuals. We can see that such discrimination's are unjust. But we can not even determine if discrimination has occurred here because same-sex marriage doesn't properly fit the definition of marriage. Society has accepted the right for homosexuals and it has come a long way but one thing they can ever do is produce the same effect as both a father and mother. Therefore it is unjust to the rights of heterosexuals and the religious. It is a norm of society to be religious and it is a norm of religion that homosexuality is immoral. By legalizing same-sex marriage you then trample the rights of those people of Islam, Christianity, Judaism and many others.

Loss of meaning

Then therefore if marriage is legalized then the meaning of marriage is lost. Marriage can not just be redefined like it means nothing. The point here is that male and female have been the definition of marriage since its conception. The reason for that is because of rearing of civilization and the parenting from both mothers and fathers of that civilization.


The conclusion is that same-sex marriage can not fill the example of traditional marriage therefore should not be legalized. Other methods can be took for same-sex couples without the full term of marriage as heterosexual couples therefore it should not be legalized. Back to Pro!









Debate Round No. 3


I'll permit you to do a rebuttal of round 4 this round, if that is what you want, but only because my rebuttals are very similar between rounds 3 and 4.

Contention 1: It harms and infringes on rights.
  • The taxation of people who believe gay marriage is immoral is not a problem since:
    1. The majority of the US is in favor of gay marriage.
    2. Disagreeing with a use of tax dollars (by the minority group, in this case) is hardly a reason, since someone will always disagree with something. If I don't like Social Security, I still have to pay for it. Under this argument, DOMA should be repealed.
    3. By your statistics, allowing gay marriage would cost taxpayers less ($6 billion for DOMA, $0.9 billion for employment benefits for same-sex domestic partnership).
  • Your second statement (which implies that homosexuality is a choice) goes against the general scientific consensus of the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics:
    Your cited source doesn't hold much value when compared with the extremely large amount of comparable psychologists who would disagree with her. Since I see you cited Wikipedia, I take it that I can, too:
    As you can see, the general consensus is that abnormal prenatal androgen exposure is the cause of homosexuality. A society that is not accepting of homosexuals would only successfully increase suicide rates among homosexuals, and the same amount of people would be homosexual. Of course, these people won't admit they are due to fear of lack of acceptance, so it would be hard to gauge.

    However, the burden of proof still lies on you, and would require you to find studies showing findings that can't be explained by the current scientific consensus. While your Family Research Council source in your previous post claimed to have such information, it excluded the numbers - please make sure your study includes the numbers.
Contention 2: Legalizing gay marriage affects the federal government
  • Paragraphs 1 & 2 are covered by my last counter-rebuttal. With your useful numbers on the cost of DOMA, I can now say that it costs less to legalize gay marriage.

  • Your quote seems to imply that our society is only comprised of married couples. Single people and children exist. And some married couples choose not to have children. Should we start exempting couples without children or couples who have one infertile parent from marriage? Of course not, that'd be silly. The basic unit of society is undoubtedly the individual.
Contention 3: If same-sex couples enter into committed, monogamous relationships it would reduce the spread of STDs among gays.
  • Under that logic, there is no reason to let heterosexuals marry, either - they can just stay together without it, right? Marriage is a committment. Why should we deny homosexuals the ability to make a formal committment?
Contention 4: Same-sex couples can adopt children but can't raise them as well as opposite-sex couples.
  • If you read the NYTimes article I linked earlier, you'll see that the ability of a couple to be married, regardless of sexual orientation, is better for the children than a single parent, which is in turn better than an orphanage (from my source in round 2). This alone should be enough for me to win the debate. Your cited source ignores same-sex couples entirely, and doesn't do anything to support your following.
  • It isn't illegal in every state, as the maps in your cited source show. It is good to see that we agree that there should be no discrimination on basis of sexual orientation.
Rebuttals to new arguments

What is Marriage?
  • Appeal to tradition. It is equal, since a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple are both capable of deciding not to reproduce. Changing the definition of marriage was even part of DOMA:

(a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
a husband or a wife.'.
This section has been found unconstitutional by 8 federal courts, as well as the Obama administration:
The Supreme Court hearing on its constitutionality is in 3 days, on the 27th. An interesting coincidence, if you ask me.

No legal right

  • You still haven't produced a credible study to prove that same-sex couples can't raise a child better than an orphanage or a single homosexual (which is really the only situation which is relevant here, given that orphanages have tons of children eligible for adoption and nobody adopting them).
  • Lesbian couples can have artificial insemination, and therefore can produce children.
Social Norms
  • Africans did not fit under the legal definition of a person. Did that stop us from 'changing the definition of a person'? No. That was changing a social norm and redefining something, and many eugenecists were certain that African-Americans could never fill the role of a Caucasian in society. Under this standard, if we criticize gay marriage for these reasons, we must criticize this decision as well.
  • It does not necessarily matter here whether the roles of mother and father are filled, results are what matter. If a same-sex couple can raise a child successfully, then does it really matter in the end how 'traditional' it is? You have still failed to produce credible evidence that children from same-sex couples are any worse from this.
  • If you feel that it is unjust to heterosexuals, then tell me: What would heterosexuals not be able to do if same-sex couples could be married? Not the children, but the couple themselves.
  • Your point on religion is not relevant in this debate, as it is a tradition of our government to not respect any establishment of religion over another, regardless of who is the majority. They have the right to practice their religion. That doesn't mean that the government has to practice their religion in regards to politics, since if they do, that would infringe upon the rights of anyone who disagrees with them. Nothing would get done that way.
Loss of meaning
  • The Roman empire recognized gay marriage, therefore, male and female have not been the definition of marriage for all of time. Other societies have used marriage as a political leverage device (i.e. marrying off the handsome prince of your kingdom to the beautiful princess of another kingdom to end the war you are in), and other societies have arranged marriages. If marriage 'loses its meaning' like this, then it looks like it's been lost already. Does that mean we should start embracing arranged marriages?

    There aren't any words that maintain one definition, since our language does evolve. A certain three-letter word rhyming with 'rag' used as a slur against homosexuals originally only meant 'cigarette'. Did the meaning change? No, we added a definition to it. We made it more generalized, just like we did when we stopped doing arranged marriages.
  • The conclusion is that most arguments against gay marriage are irrelevant, misleading, not supported by any credible evidence, or outright false. Same-sex couples don't have to have children any more than a heterosexual couple does. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that same-sex couples are bad parents. Erring on the side of personal freedom, therefore, it is reasonable to legalize gay marriage.


I would like to thank Pro for allowing me to rebuttal both Rounds 3 & 4 here. This will allow both of us ample opportunity to rebuttal back and conclude in Round 5. I will combine all arguments into a smaller structure to make it easier.

Debate meaning and purpose:

Lets note that all I must do is show a reasonable and valid reason why same-sex marriage should not be legal. I hope my opponent and viewers do not consider this debate about future laws or possibilities and remember that this is a debate on laws and standards that are valid today by our own government in the United States.

Marriage meaning & No right:

In my Round 2 opening argument I gave the legal governmental definition of marriage.[1] That definition is the exact definition used as of today by our government. This alone shows that same-sex marriages are not even in with the legal view of marriage. If a gay couple gets married in a state that it is illegal in then it is illegal.

It is true that many societical norms have been changed but none offer to change the definition on the source of society. There is harm in changing the meaning of marriage from human males and females into anything other. If we change the meaning of marriage for a same-sex couple then why not for people in beliefs that have multiple partners? Or allowing relatives to marry? Or people who have close friendships with animals?

"Once you discard the meaning of marriage then there is no place to stop. There have already been cases in Canada where pedophiles have argued they were born with sexual attraction to children. If we allow same-sex marriage then we would then be fringing on the rights of polygamists, pedophiles and those who love animals in that way."[3]

My opponent gave us sources that showed this topic will be voted on in 3 days and therefore even further validating my point that the term 'same-sex marriage' is invalid for marriage by the US government. This being the main center of my argument and rebuttal to Pro.

Other national views is not at topic here. We are focusing on the laws and government of the United States. Gay marriage has always been viewed as male and female because marriage was started by male and females. Since we have laws and definitions of marriage as male and female within our government shows that atlas Americans have always viewed marriage as male and female.[1] My opponent mentioned that the person is the basic unit of society but he is incorrect because for a society basically to exist a father, mother and child must exist.

Right Infringements & Norms:

My opponent conceded the point that it is currently not legal in the United States for gay couples to marry. This supports me because the current reason same-sex marriage is not legal is because it does not fit the legal definition of marriage. Same-sex couples will not be granted just equal rights but more rights then the average citizen.[8]

Almost any poll will be pretty much biased. "The results of a scientific poll of a few hundred randomly sampled people can be extrapolated to the larger population. Online polls are a direct descendant of newspaper and magazine straw polls."[4] Majority do not support gay marriage and my opponents reports have been divided on that. "About 57 percent of Americans oppose granting same-sex marriages legal status, compared with 40 percent who support it."[5] Voting opinion mirrors our current definitions and laws and if changed next week would have no value here.

Same-sex does infringe on religious right and that is forbidden in the 1st Amendment. It does so by forcing the religious to pay for and condone things that is immoral to them by their religion and that is also forbidden in the 1st Amendment. Churches have been forced to marry same-sex couples or be sued if they refuse which is also against the 1st Amendment.[9] Even if other laws have been passed that go against peoples belief rights doesn't mean that more laws should be passed. No other law passed reflects the definition of the backbone of society. It infringes on the entitlement of heterosexual couples as child rearing and child raising couples.

Most same-sex couples really just want that right to gain on taxes and insurances. Since same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in America, gay couples cannot take advantage of the 1,049 benefits awarded to heterosexual couples when they marry.[2] Congress House committee approved legislation that would provide benefits, including health insurance, retirement and disability, to same-sex partners of federal employees.[5]

Legalizing same-sex marriage would likely mean higher costs in other areas. Legalizing same-sex marriage would also affect government agencies and programs, with revenue losses in some areas.[6] Taxpayers would be subsidizing, and thus encouraging destructive behavior. We then would pay for the results of that behavior in the form of increased medical and social costs.[7]Social security taxes will be increased (or benefits decreased), medical insurance premiums will rise and employee benefits will be reduced.

Africans were actually humans but same-sex couples are not qualified for the definition of marriage. Any same-sex couple can make commitments without marriage.

Inadequate parenting:

I put forth no argument for same sex couples parenting and adopting. My argument is that they can not do as good as heterosexual parents. They neither helps or defeats either case. Single homosexuals can adopt and this makes no case for marriage.

Having both a mother and father is the prime situation always. If it wasn't then humanity would have a drop in child births and our population decreases. Then after more time our entire civilization could be pushed to survival.

Same-sex couples influencing children leads to producing more homosexuals. Even out in the public as just couples do that but marriage would push it even further. Same-sex marriage would lead to more homosexuals which is against the survival of humanity. With or without your consent, to accept homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage as the moral and social equivalent of heterosexual behavior and marriage.[7]

My opponent fails to see the case for rearing children. Let's take this example for instance: If a same-sex couple was the only people left to produce life then human life would die but heterosexual couples would further produce humanity. Therefore same-sex couples are not equal to heterosexual couples because they can not keep humanity in existence. Artificial and other unnatural methods are not any value here for the reason that if we were put to the test and only natural methods were available then only heterosexual couples would succeed.


My opponent fails to see that same-sex marriage is illegal by the government and therefore he shouldn't assume that he doesn't have to provide adequate reasons why it should be legal. My opponent mentioned me giving him links that support him and fails to see that all I must do is provide reason why same-sex marriage should not be legalized. He can have all the reason and polls he wants but I must provide one shadow of doubt why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal. Back Pro!











Debate Round No. 4


Debate meaning and purpose:

I feel it is important to clarify that the legalization of gay marriage, something that is undoubtedly illegal in many places in the United States today, would depend upon future laws and possibilities, establishing potential future laws (as a proposal) as relevant in this debate. This is not a debate about what IS or ISN'T legal, it is about what SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be legal.

Marriage meaning & No right:
  • Argument from the status quo: "Marriage is currently defined as one man and one woman; therefore, gay marriage should be illegal."
    Yes, currently, under the law, states are not required to recognize gay marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. However, there have been some dumb laws, and the current legality/illegality of something is no reason to keep things that way, especially if the reasons for that current state no longer apply or have been found false through scientific evidence. Therefore, this point is irrelevant. This also covers your last paragraph - we are only some 250 years old, and our customs for marriage have changed. In the past, only men had jobs. However, today, we often see both husbands and wives having jobs. Most of this is based on an 'appeal to tradition' fallacy.
  • Argument from moral breakdown: "Changing the social norm of marriage to allow gay marriage could allow for further change, therefore, gay marriage should be illegal."
    This argument forgets that society defines what marriage is. As I have said, different societies have had different meanings for marriage. Some have included polygamy. I don't know of any including zoophiliac marriage (though this would not confer much of a legal benefit, since an animal is not a person). Pedophiles are not allowed to marry children due to the concept of age of consent, which is rooted in knowledge of human developmental psychology. However, if a society, for whatever reason, supported this, there would be no reason to disallow it, moral issues aside, since it would be what they supported. Our society supports freedom, liberty, and equality, therefore, it makes more sense for our society to support gay marriage.
  • Argument from ESP: "The Supreme Court will most definitely rule in favor of DOMA's unconstitutionality"
    You don't know this. Given that Section 3 has been found unconstitutional in 8 federal courts already, it is much more likely that it will be found unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.
Right Infringements & Norms:
  • I did not concede that it is currently illegal for gay couples to marry (however, in some states, it is not), but rather, I demonstrated that it bears no relevance.
  • Your poll is from 2009. Since the first polls finding majorities in favor of gay marriage happened in about November of 2012, it is quite obvious that any polls before that will show people mostly against gay marriage. There is no evidence that things will 'change next week', rather, evidence is to the contrary - support of gay marriage is higher among young people, and the lack thereof is higher among older generations. Since older generations die off, support for gay marriage will increase.
  • Your point on the 1st Amendment is straight-up bull. The 1st Amendment, below:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
    If I made a religion that believed that taxation is a sin, that wouldn't mean it is time for the government to look for alternate sources of income. I could believe that all I want to, though.
    Catholic churches don't have to marry protestants or people who have been divorced. Similarly, no church would be forced to marry any couple they don't want to marry. Homosexuals can get married at their local courthouse.
  • Your last paragraph is a strawman. Same-sex couples want equality. Not separate but equal, but equal, period.
  • I could also argue that making it illegal for anyone who does not produce a child to marry would reduce these same costs. Does that mean we should propose a bill? After all, marriage is for child rearing under your definition, and anyone who doesn't do that is just leeching the benefits, right?
  • You've finished it off with another logical fallacy - Africans were not qualified for the definition of personhood. You know this. You also admitted that there are 1,049 benefits that same-sex couples who commit without marriage would not receive.
Inadequate parenting:

I'll do this section differently than the others. Here is an outline:

  1. I will look at the points dropped by Con (i.e. left uncontested)
  2. I will show how those points apply to Con's rebuttals
  3. My counter-rebuttals, being supported by dropped points (which are, per standard DDO rules, conceded and left as true for the debate), will not be contestable.
The conceded points of mine that I have found:
  1. Homosexuality is an innate property, determined before birth.
  2. Children raised by a married couple, regardless of sexual orientation, are better off than those raised by a single parent, unmarried couple, or orphanage.
  3. Studies conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics have found that children raised by same-sex couples are no worse for it.
  4. Studies cited by Con (and other sources) are unreliable, based in part or entirely on speculation, go against scientific consensus, or purposefully omit information that is important in reaching a conclusion.
You have not attempted to defend any of these points specifically. You have not attempted to argue for why homosexuality is not a property that is determined at birth, instead simply insisting that same-sex marriage would mean more homosexuals with no sources. You have not argued that a married same-sex couple is worse for an adopted child than an unmarried same-sex couple. You have not attempted to address the studies performed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, instead ignoring them. Furthermore, you have not defended the validity of your own sources. Your entire argument falls apart through these four concessions alone. Bullets will be by paragraph.
  • Your argument here goes against conceded points 2 and 3. Same-sex married adoption is better than same-sex unmarried adoption. This is sufficient to neutralize your point, which is all that I need.
  • Your argument goes against conceded points 1 (since it assumes that same-sex marriage = more gays, when this is false), 2, and 3.
  • This goes against conceded point 1. Concession 1 implies that the amount of homosexuals is a mostly constant ratio of people who have been exposed to abnormal amounts of androgen during prenatal development. Your source is against concession number 4.
  • This argument has no validity. If we only had 2 males or 2 females left on the planet, then the human race would die out even if they were straight. Ruling out artificial methods doesn't help your case for the reason that being sent back to the stone age (e.g. after nuclear armaggedon accompanied by EMP) would be a bad situation anyway, and is for another debate. In addition, it seems to ignore concession 1.
I have provided ample reason to legalize same-sex marriage. I really shouldn't have to - when restricting the freedom of the people, it is a 'why?' question. When expanding their freedoms, it is a 'why not?' question. In addition, Con having the burden of proof was set forth in Round 1. However, I have made sure to refute every point brought up by Con in light of this, and most reasons against same-sex marriage that were provided by Con fall under one of the four concessions outlined above! I do still have the ability to have arguments against it (though in this round, they must be ones I have brought up before), and so far, the virtues of personal liberty, and the inalienable right to equal treatment, despite things that you can't control, have prevailed over points brought up by Con.


Thanks Pro for this debate!

Debate meaning and purpose:

I would also like to clarify that the title of this debate is, 'Gay marriage should be legal' which is a positive claim by my opponent with the burden of proving it true. My opponent never stipulated that the definition of marriage was not relevant in determining if marriage should or should not be legal. Let's note that my stance is in legal standing by our government and Pros isn't. It is up to the one making the claim to provide undoubted evidence to justify the claim.

"It is very important that the resolution is worded properly. The general custom is that an instigator that makes a positive claim, must provide evidence that the claim is true. Unless explicitly stated, CON does not have to prove that the resolution is false. Before any debating begins, the criteria for who has the burden of proof and how the winner of the debate is determined should be established beforehand."[1]

Pro however did make a specific burden on Con in his first round acceptance. Pro said, "burden of proof lies on Con to provide any (non-religious) reason that gay marriage should be illegal. My first contention would fulfill the burden placed on me by Pro which is, 'Same-sex marriage doesn't fulfill the definition of marriage.' This contention alone provides a (non-religious) reason that same-sex marriage should be illegal which is all that Con had to do.

Marriage meaning & No right:

I have determined that same-sex marriage has no right for marriage according to our governmental definition of marriage. My opponent can play this contention off as invalid but it implies legal and non-religious evidence to not allow same-sex couples to marry. Same-sex marriages were debated about at the establishment of the definition but were discredited.

Nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statue but 30 prohibit it completely in their constitutions. By Washington recognizing same-sex marriage nationally would infringe on at least 30 states decision and right to not allow same-sex marriage. The point is we can not know what will be legal or illegal in the future and by current definitions and majority there is more than enough reason to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The only reason the state has ever had an interest in a relationship between two people, is because their union could create another human being as a supreme responsibility to civilization. It has also never been understood as an exclusively romantic relationship. Only in recent history has romance come to be seen as the reason for marriage.

My opponent mentioned that America is about freedom, liberty and rights of the people and I agree. We see that the out spoken voice of the people in America since its inception has not been for recognizing same-sex marriages. In fact not until recently after 2000 has same-sex marriage sought change by legal means. Before this, same-sex marriage were never even thought about as being legal or a rights issue. It has never been a issue because same-sex marriages can not be equal to traditional marriages.

Same-sex marriages can resort to definitions of marriage that could allow polygamy, incest and other forms of relationships. Should we risk a change that could allow these to have freedom to marry? My opponent has never addressed this problem. The status quo and Pro show that past definitions on the institution of marriage have been rightly placed.

Right Infringements & Norms:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

My opponent commits to a slippery-slope here by thinking that because homosexual discrimination is wrong that not allowing same-sex marriage is also. The 1st amendment gives the right for the religious to exercise their religion. Many states have religious people who have voted against gay-marriage in their state. These 30 states are a majority to 20 and yes it is against rights to reject that majority even if these states are religious states. It is these states free right to determine through law how they want their state to conduct its state laws.

These forced laws would also detach the understanding of heterosexual importance. If this importance is lost then humanities basic survival instinct is then gone. Since the dawn of human development the role of mother and father as male and female have been essential to our society. Hetero and Same-sex relationships are not equal in many standards.

Inadequate parenting:

I never attempted to fight homosexuality itself because I did not see the need too, I just focused on marriage itself. My opponent said that homosexuals are born homosexuals but most studies show that children do not develop the stage of sexuality until after ages 2 thru 3.[2] Also my opponent never argued pre-birth homosexuality until the 5th round. His rebuttal here is also a fallacy of generalization by using small amount of cases and test to make a final determination for all.

My opponent brought up earlier that marriages were arranged and that is interesting indeed. We have no documentation that same-sex marriages were arranged. Even then they recognized marriage as a institute and profitable for the society with children and the combining of families into civilizations.
My opponent seemed to fight hard for the (AAP) but they have just as a recognizable advocate against them. The American College of Paediatricians (ACPeds) is a socially conservative association of paediatricians and other health care professionals specializing in the care of infants, children and adolescents in the United States. The College was founded in 2002 by a group of paediatricians including Joseph Zanga, a past president of the (AAP), as a protest against AAP. The organization's view on parenting is at odds with the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical and child welfare authorities. The American College of Paediatricians argues that mainstream health organizations have taken public positions based on their own social and political views, rather than the available science.[3] As we see, (AAP) is not the sole authority. In fact (ACPeds) stands by the view that same-sex parents do produce more homosexual children.

Divorce has been bad for children, second marriages have been, and adults just living together also. Though when it comes to re-defining marriage, we are now supposed to think that the gender of the parents makes no difference at all is just nonsense.


My opponent addressed my sources more than his resolution. It could be viewed that focusing on attacking your opponents sources instead of focusing on the argument at hand as a insult. I do not think my opponent meant it this way but instead focused on them because that was his only way to leap over the definition of marriage. Pro gave us no adequate explanation why only both male and female can make children and guarantee the survival of humanity. While homosexuality decreases the survival of humanity.

We never was told that current laws, definitions and majorities can not be used beforehand. The point is that homosexuality can not continue the human race and my opponent shrugs it off. My burden has been meet by numerous contentions and my opponents opening contentions were extremely weak and refuted. Same-sex marriage infringes on religious rights, state rights, it does nothing to further society, and is not the ideal situations for raising children. On top of the overwhelming fact that it does not fit the current definition of marriage. Thanks, I rest my case.

Good job Pro!





Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Im ok with it. I think it should be a tie. We both did well and were arguing from totally different understandings. Probably would be a btter debate now that we know were we both are coming from.
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
Well I am just going to be downright disappointed if this ends in a tie after we both argued viscerally for our side :/
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
Young people are more relevant in these polls, since, as I have said in the debate, older generations don't live forever. Upon reviewing my sources, I found that the Washington Post/ABC poll was not an internet poll, and was over landline telephone. Here's the data in raw form, with historical data:
Since your rebuttal to this poll was the fact that it was conducted on the Internet (when it clearly wasn't), and the only poll you've shown me that shows the majority not in support of same-sex marriage is from 2009, you have nothing remaining to deny this poll with.
My point with the second argument is that a same-sex married couple is better at raising children than a same-sex unmarried couple. You never spoke out against homosexuals adopting. It shows that there is a net benefit to allowing same-sex couples to marry. They can already adopt. If you have a problem with gays adopting, take that up in a gay adoption debate.
The same poll shows that about 2/3 of Americans support a federal law to decide on gay marriage. This is from both people supporting gay marriage and people who don't support it (who probably would prefer a nation-wide ban). Other than that, the Supreme Court decided today that DOMA might violate states' rights.
You also fail to see that the very EXISTENCE of marriage encourages people to stay faithful to their partner.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
So, Question: When hermaphrodites engage sexually, are they doing so heterosexually or homosexually? Technically, both are the SAME sex, even if both are also both sexes, and therefore the better answer may be "homosexually". In any case, think about "attraction" between members of such a species. Obviously each is attracted to other individuals that happen to be very much like themselves. This is good for the survival of a hermaphroditic species, and it should come as no surprise if a genetic factor influences such attraction.

However! Does that description not equally well fit the definition of homosexual attraction? When sexual specialization began to happen, at first it didn't matter if a hermaprhoditic member of the species interbred with a single-sex member. Species-recognition/attraction trumped sex-specific attraction, and reproduction was still possible.

Since it is a fact that nowadays most multicellular species are not hermaphroditic, but instead are single-sexed, it follows that it must have had an Evolutionary advantage. And species-recognition/attraction still existed; humans mostly prefer to engage in sex with other humans.

But the OTHER part of the attraction equation still existed, the attraction of individuals for others very much like themselves. Obviously the magnitude of that attraction had to diminish for heterosexual reproduction to overtake hermaphroditic reproduction, and today humans exhibiting homosexual attraction appear to be no more than 10% of the population. (Note, I once encountered an article saying that homosexual behavior has been observed in more than 1500 other species. Anyone claiming such behavior has no genetic component, and is strictly a matter of Free will, had better think again!)

That less-than-10% figure for homosexuals brings us to the marriage debate. No Law forces them to marry outside their preference; Society can survive if they don't breed. So why should it matter if they marry each other?
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
Would you be interested in the most probable origin of homosexuality? It goes back to the days of micro-organisms, the dawn of the eukaryotes, before sexual reproduction began to exist. In those days there were basically four types of biologically reproducing entities: Archaea, Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes (3 types of single-celled organisms), and viruses.

Eukaryotes are physically much larger than the other types of single-celled organisms, and they are an evolutionary step along the way toward multicellular organisms. One way of describing a eukaryote is to say that it is a cell wall inside of which multiple prokaryotes co-exist and cooperate. That may have been literally true for the first eukaryote. But the co-existing organisms began specializing such that they couldn't exist without each other, and the organism acquired a central nucleus that coordinated the simultaneous reproduction of all its component prokayotes (now mostly known as "mitochondria"), as well as itself, during biological fission.

It has been discovered that while single-celled organisms incorporate many ways to resist injections of genetic material by viruses, they are often quite willing to swap genetic material with each other. Think of them, therefore, as acting in a sexually "hermaphroditic" manner --the organisms send out AND receive genetic material. Later, when multicellular organisms began to exist, they ALSO reproduced as hermphrodites.

It was quite a while after that before sexual specialization occurred (possibly as a mutant FAILURE of hermaphroditism), and organisms began reproducing by doing just one of the two things, sending out or receiving genetic material. But various species still reproduce as hermaphrodites, even today (various snails, for example).

(continued in my next post)
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
:- Majority of Americans in support of gay marriage, especially among younger people (which you failed to refute with an outdated poll, one instance where attacking your sources was a perfectly justifiable thing to do):
Though there is not just young people nor did you show that the majority of all Americans choose same-sex marriage.
:- Children raised by married couples are better off than those raised by unmarried couples, regardless of orientation (which you never contested, and you even admitted that single gays can adopt as if you had no problem with it. It was also less of a rebuttal and more of a turn.):
I don't rebuttal this other than regardless of orientation. Same-sex couples can not raise children the same as a mother and father from both sexes.
:- A ban on gay marriage (or anything, for that matter) restricts the freedom of citizens. (This is my blanket argument, if nothing else this is irrefutable, and it also forms the basis of my assumption that burden of proof lies fully on Con):
There is a ban though in some states and bal throughout the nation violates their rights but theirs don't matter, right?
: - Allowing gays to marry would reduce the spread of STDs since they would be encouraged to marry since they would actually have that option, which they haven't had for centuries.:
Weak, non-married same-sex couples who stay monogamous does the same thing.
As you can see, I did my part to
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
And if I had worded it, "Gay marriage should not be illegal", it would have meant the same thing, except being worded as a negative statement. Considering this, your point here is nothing but semantics. However, I thoroughly refuted all of your points (whether through pointing out your logical fallacies, providing sources of my own that say the opposite of what yours say (thus canceling them out), or by pointing out the confirmation bias/appeal to authority in your sources), operating on the assumption that debates challenging a current law would require full burden of proof on the one defending the law to give a good reason why the law should continue to exist. If I created a law which outlawed all names starting with the letter 'M', would it be more rational for me to ask anyone challenging the law to give me a reason why it should be legal, or for me to provide a reason why such a stupid law should exist in the first place?

But let's assume you're right. I provided the following reasons to legalize (just a few here):
- Majority of Americans in support of gay marriage, especially among younger people (which you failed to refute with an outdated poll, one instance where attacking your sources was a perfectly justifiable thing to do)
- Children raised by married couples are better off than those raised by unmarried couples, regardless of orientation (which you never contested, and you even admitted that single gays can adopt as if you had no problem with it. It was also less of a rebuttal and more of a turn.)
- A ban on gay marriage (or anything, for that matter) restricts the freedom of citizens. (This is my blanket argument, if nothing else this is irrefutable, and it also forms the basis of my assumption that burden of proof lies fully on Con)
- Allowing gays to marry would reduce the spread of STDs since they would be encouraged to marry since they would actually have that option, which they haven't had for centuries.
As you can see, I did my part to
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Anyway I submitted my requirement. My point was that you had requirements regardless if it was stated. My tutorial link showed that. You made the claim it should be legal while it is illegal. I simply have to show it is illegal and why it should be illegal and I did that. I do not have to prove a negative, 'why it should be Illegal when the government has made it so and their reason is a reason.' You should have attacked my argument but most important was yours.
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
I should also add that I brought up homosexuality being determined before birth in round 4. In addition to this, I stand by the fact that something being illegal is not an argument against the legalization of said currently illegal act.

Furthermore, my argument (raised in round 4) that heterosexual couples can choose to not have children, too, was not addressed.
Posted by drhead 3 years ago
Re-read round 1... Burden of proof was explicitly stated to be on Con.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 3 years 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: I agree with cons point of view 100%. And he made some really good points in his arguments. His conduct was of more focus in responding to pros answer than anything as wel.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 3 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Pro as pro adequately refuted con's arguments, while con used fallacious claims such as "some religious groups are against it, therefore it should not be legal" and "It is not yet legal, therefore it should be illegal". Conduct con as pro focused more on con's sources than his arguments. Sources to pro for using more reliable sources.