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

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 33453
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




ACTUALLY there's proof it could & will. The comptroller of NYC found that it would bring hundreds of million dollars to the state & local economy. & also it could lower divorce rates. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage. 4 years later they had the lowest divorce rates in the country. Alaska the first state to prohibit gay marriage, saw a 17.2% INCREASE in the divorce rates.


Thanks to Juudy for starting this debate challenge on the topic of gay marriage. First, I must mention that "gay marriage" is not a debate topic in itself, so in order for my opponent to further this debate in any way, there must be a clarification as to what the issue is here. Is the topic saying that "gay marriage should be legal" or that "gay marriage will most likely become legal"? Those are two different issues entirely, making an "is" and "ought" distinction between them. I need to also mention that this is a touchy subject to many people, and although I take the stance against same sex marriage, I do know people who are gay and I love them as friends. We can debate this issue without name calling or bullying.
If my opponent is to back up any of the statistics with divorce given in their first statement, they must give sources backing up those studies. Cite sources, please, and give reasons why they even matter to this issue at all. I'll give Juudy a chance in the next round to make some kind of argument.
Before we can ask whether same sex marriage should be legalized, we must define our terms. What does it mean to be gay? Gay is another term for homosexual. But "gay" more closely relate to the homosexuality of men, not women. Therefore, I will not refer to it as "gay", but rather, "homosexual". So, what does it mean to be a homosexual? It means to be physically attracted to someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex (heterosexual). What is "marriage"? This is what the question ultimately comes down to, because if you say that marriage is (1) a union between one man and one woman (2) with restrictions in family bloodlines (3) for the purpose of bearing and raising children, then any other attempt to change marriage from this would cease to be "marriage". Because of this, I have a question for my opponent: Is marriage described, or is marriage defined? In other words, is marriage the kind of thing that we see and recognize as a real thing, or is it simply whatever people want it to be? Do people get to decide what it means to them?
It must be established that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same thing in terms of importance. To support this, imagine two different societies, one of which was entirely heterosexual, the other being entirely homosexual. If each society were to be in faithful, loving, monogamous relationships (ignoring promiscuity), what would become of these societies? Well, the heterosexual community would continue and society would move on with each generation. The homosexual society would not reproduce, and therefore would not make it past the first generation. This is not to say that homosexual marriage is right or wrong. It is only to show that they are not the same.
Why does government have any interest in promoting marriage? Is it for nothing more than making people happy, or may there be a different purpose? There are only three things government can do with anything: Government can (1) prohibit something, (2) permit something, or (3) promote something. Currently, the United States government permits homosexuals being together in relationships. It does not, however, promote them in terms of a legal recognition of marriage. The government recognizes the importance of heterosexual relationships, and therefore promotes it in society.
Dr. Frank Turek makes the following argument [3]:
Premise 1: Natural marriage (heterosexual marriage) is the foundation of a civilized society.
As stated and cited in Turek"s book, natural heterosexual marriage:
(1)Lengthens life spans of men and women.
(2)Civilizes men (unmarried men cause much more trouble in society than married men).
(3)Protects women (from uncommitted men).
(4)Protects mothers (from violent crime).
(5)Lowers welfare costs.
(6)Encourages an adequate replacement birthrate. (The average US birthrate is 2.1 per couple. Any lower and society cannot sustain itself without immigration.)
Children from natural marriage homes are:
(1)Seven times less likely to live in poverty.
(2)Six times less likely to commit suicide.
(3)Less than half as likely to commit crime.
(4)Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock.
(5)Develop better academically and socially.
(6)Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood.
[See the following: and]
Men and women are not interchangeable, and that it is always best to have a mother and father together in a faithful, loving relationship for the children they create and raise. Sometimes households don"t have this happening, but it"s what the family home should have.
Premise 2: Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.
This premise can be defended for entire essays at a time, but I will only make a few points here. Turek continues this point by saying, "The truth is that some relationships are better than others. People are equal, but their behaviors are not." (pg. 26)
From Turek"s book:
"According to the Center for Disease Control, more than 82 percent of all known sexually-transmitted AIDS cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for more than 60 percent of all syphilis cases." [ (See Table 17)]
Homosexual behavior also lowers the lifespan of the homosexual by eight to twenty years. []
Premise 3: The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.
Many people think that what is legal is good, and what is illegal is bad.
Premise 4: Government-backed same sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.
It harms children because it says that mothers and fathers are not necessary for the children " that they are interchangeable. It harms children for other reasons, such as the study showing that "about one-third of all pedophile cases are homosexual in nature " man to boy." (Turek, pg. 35) [See and also see Kurt Freund, et al., "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality," Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (1984): pg. 197]
Also, same sex marriage would hurt children by making it no longer about children. Marriage simply becomes coupling. It would harm homosexuals because it would normalize and encourage it, causing more disease. It would also promote promiscuity, as the homosexual population is highly promiscuous rather than monogamous. Monogamy in homosexuality is quite rare. [See on the section on promiscuity]
Premise 5: The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.
The government prohibits drunk driving because of the damage it can and does cause. Rare cases of drunk driving not causing harm is not a reason to make it legal. The same is applied to other areas as well, and it should be the same in regards to this issue. There is no reason for the government to back up and promote that which is harmful or destructive. It is actually the job of the government to protect the people from harm and destructive forces, whether they be from within the country or external.
Conclusion: Therefore, the law should promote natural marriage, and it should provide no option for government-backed same-sex marriage or civil unions.
I have no more room to type. Please proceed, Juudy.
Debate Round No. 1


Juudy forfeited this round.


I have realized that my opponent has not logged in for the past couple of days. Juudy may not even know that I accepted this debate. So be it.

I have given argumentation showing why we should not legalize same sex marriage, and there have been no arguments showing that we should legalize same sex marriage. Citing statistics does not show that we should follow those statistics. For there to be a complete argument, there must be a premise saying that we need to follow where the statistics lead. A good argument would be:

Premise 1: Statistics show that legalizing same sex marriage lowers divorce rates and brings millions of dollars to the state and local economy.

Premise 2: Statistics show that prohibiting same sex marriage raises divorce rates.

There must be another premise here, such as:

Premise 3: We should promote and legalize that which lowers divorce rates and brings in money to the state and local economy.

Then the conclusion would follow:

Conclusion: Therefore, we should promote and legalize same sex marriage.

The conclusion follows from the premises, but there are a number of problems with the argument. First, how do we know that the statistics show this to be true? Nothing was cited. No studies were given by my opponent. But, even if I grant the statistics as true and backed up, the argument still doesn’t work. Here’s why:

Should we promote and legalize everything that brings money in to the economy? No. Many things that harm people bring in a lot of money. Pornography massively harms, yet it is a billion dollar industry. Should we then legalize and promote pornography everywhere? Of course not, because that’s not even the issue. The real issue is whether same sex marriage harms, not if it brings in money.

Next, should we promote everything which lowers divorce rates? No. Why? Because many things that lower divorce rates take away from other things. Deaths in marriages would lower the divorce rate as well, and not getting married at all would also lower the divorce rate. Does that make these actions good to follow and promote? No. So then the question regarding same sex marriage is not whether it lowers divorce rates, but if it is good in and of itself. Besides that, is it good to allow something that may lower divorce rates, yet increase that which I mentioned in my opening case? As cited (or shown) in my first case, legalizing and promoting same sex marriage would:

  1. Raise disease among homosexuals, such as HIV, AIDS, syphilis disease, STDs, etc.

  2. Give rise to more promiscuous behavior.

  3. Harm children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.

  4. Make the definition of marriage nothing more than a personal preference.

My argument has not been refuted. I shall restate it here:

Premise 1: Natural marriage (heterosexual marriage) is the foundation of a civilized society.

Premise 2: Homosexual behavior is inherently destructive.

Premise 3: The law is a great teacher, and it encourages or discourages behavior.

Premise 4: Government-backed same sex marriage would encourage and normalize homosexual behavior, and it would harm natural marriage, children, adults, and homosexuals themselves.

Premise 5: The law should promote behaviors that are beneficial and prohibit (or at least not endorse) those that are destructive.

The conclusion follows strongly and necessarily if the premises are true. If my opponent disagrees with the conclusion, it must be shown that one or more of the premises are false. If my opponent does not believe the conclusion follows from the premises, then it must be shown why it does not.

My argument, used by Frank Turek in his book, still stands. If my opponent does not respond to my points, I would like to try to debate it with someone else who can.

[Main source: Frank Turek, “Correct, Not Politically Correct: “How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone”, 2008.]

Debate Round No. 2


Juudy forfeited this round.



I'm sorry to see my opponent has made no argument. I was curious to see what kind of challenge I would have.

There has been no attempt to refute my case, and no other case has been made. There's no need to restate my arguments, because nothing has changed. If someone wants to challenge me to an actual debate, please let me know. Juudy has forfeited this debate. Vote if you wish, but there's really no point.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by leojm 3 years ago
Good way to start the first round Superfaith. :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by unitedandy 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit