The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Gay marriage

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,920 times Debate No: 20184
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)




first round acceptance only


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


sorry if this sucks I have a broken finger so...This debate is about the US, but studies from other countres are welcomed.

C1: Marriage is about procreation and child bearing, gays cannot do this

Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children. [1]

So this states that marriage is about child bearing and that procreation is the purpose of marriage. SInce gays cannot do this then what is the point?

Setting the agenda for contemporary debate, ancient and medieval philosophers raised recurring themes in the philosophy of marriage: the relation between marriage and the state, the role of sex and procreation in marriage, and the gendered nature of spousal roles. [2]

Self explanatory. Marriage is about procreation.

procreation is the purpose of marriage, [2]

Monogamous marriage, as the arrangement fit for the rearing of children, “belong[s] to the natural law.” [2]

In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives. [3]

Yeah ya'll might hate this source :P

Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage. [3]

saying that sex is the reason for marriage.

C2: Marriage is supposed to be monogomus in these days and times

The two elements that traditionally constitute a marriage are lifetime commitment and monogamy. You could say that it’s the commitment to a lifetime of fidelity that’s the big issue. [4]

The practice of faithful monogamy stipulates that a man can marry only one wife at any one time in his life. Even though the various forms of marriages have been practiced through the generations, monogamy has emerged to become law in some countries today, such that the legal registration of more than one wife become a violation. [5]

Now you say: So What how does this relate?.

Gays cheat more.

A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. [6]

So how will they be monogomous in marriage? Also:

The Dutch study of partnered homosexuals, which was published in the journal AIDS, found that men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. [7]

point proven.

C3: why?

No really though why l them do this? Their minority is small:

4% reported exclusively homosexual contact. [8]

So why grant marriage to such a small minority that really doesn't deserve it? Like really?


Due to the high promiscuity rates gays have a higher chance of aids and spread it around faster:

At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. [9]

So 4% of the US population has more then half of the HIV/Aids virus!

In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. [9]

So they account for 53% of the STD and 4% of the drug usage. Still, 4%=more then half of aids. Their promiscuity rates help spread it around.

C5: the definiton argument

We have heard this we know the dril:

The function of marriage is not elastic; the institution is already fragile enough. Broadening its definition to include same-sex marriages would stretch it almost beyond recognition — and new attempts to broaden the definition still further would surely follow. [10]

Imlyting that if you allowgay marriage polygamy marring animals will be the next fight. If you deny this I will show SPECIFIC examples of each one.

We have divorce rates of 40-50%, why worsen the problem?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry would further weaken the institution. [11]

C6: Marriage is not a right

The institution of marriage has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. [12]
the Supreme Court of Minnesota found that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [12]

this goes with my first contention and also says gays do nt have a right to marriage.

Also NO WHERE in the US consitution does it say marriage is a right

In America you don't have the right to marry. [13]

marriage being a religious institution. However it, in itself, is not a right. [13]

Now the state has a say in it but the church has a right to say no, if you divorced under a catholic marriage then yohave to wait like 7 years before they marry you again.


For the reasons above, gay marriage should be prohibited. I await my oppnents response. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Xiridou, 1031. [7] [8] [9] [10]
Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, Joyce A. Martin, MPH, and Stephanie J. Ventura, MA, "Births: Preliminary Date for 2008," National Vital Statistics Reports, Apr. 6, 2010 [11]
Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson [12] [13]


First off marriage is not about procreation. One does not need to be married and procreation is not a requirement of marriage. If it were elderly couples and infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Now I suppose you could make the argument that procreation was at one time an unspoken rule of marriage but that time has long past.

Secondly, I reject your claim that allowing gays to marry would weaken the institution. It only stands to reason that allowing more people to marry would only strengthen it. Also if you really wanted to protect marriage I would think outlawing divorce would take precidene over banning gay-marriage. As you typed over half of all STRAIGT marriages end in divorce now; it really doesn't seem like the institution is that sacred anymore

Next, you say marriage has always been between a man and a woman; this is false. In ancient Rome, gay relationships were accepted and gay marriage was allowed.

Point four, the supreme court has already ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is in fact a right. Here is the courts ruling "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Now I need to make a point you, like me, confuse civil marriage with the religious ceromony. The religious ceromony is optional the marriage license is not. You are correct in saying that the Catholic Church, and indeed all churches, have the right to say no, not only to gays, but to all people for any reason once so ever. They are offerded this right via the first amendment. But, that also means they get to say yes. Their are sects of Christianity such as the Episcopalian church and sects of Judaism such as the Conservative sect which routinely perform gay marriages. Yet, these marriages are not federally recognized. So, because some churches want to and can say no other churches can't say yes?

Lastly, your argument about comparing gay marriage and bestiality is a total fallacy. When an animal can agree and sign a legal document maybe then you would have a point. As for polygamy, Throughout the bible, which you site, marriage between a man and many women. It certainly doesn't have a problem with polygamy.

End of first argument.
Debate Round No. 2


great thanks for responding I see a viable improvement the these arguments from the last debate keep up the improvement :)

defending my arguments, and defending them too

C1: procreation

then please tell us more eon how it is not as I have proven from a Christian and from a legal stance it is. Also people who "run dry" don't know it till LATER. Also old people can still sometimes bring up children, the mom maybe not but if they truly wanted another kid they could artificially inseminate another woman.

C2: institution

Allowing more people to marry doesn't nessacarily weaken or make it stronger. will however refute the divorce claims:

If marriage is a privilege then people in marriage ought to able to opt out. Also gays have a higher divorce rate. So correct the institution is not very sacred, but more divorces make more likely that divorce rates will rise if you allow gays to marry, therefore raising divorce rates.

Gays have higher divorce rates:

Moreover, a 2004 study of divorce rates for same-sex registered partnerships in Sweden from 1995 to 2002 indicates that, compared to opposite-sex married couples, male homosexual couples were 1.5 times more likely to divorce and female homosexual couples 3 times more likely. [1]

Therefore letting gays marry would increase the amount of divorces raising the divorce rate and weakening the institution.

When did I say marriage was ALWAYS between a man and a woman, in america that is correct any of my arguments said many different types of marriages have been used, adopted, and faded away. Modern 1600and beyond marriage has stayed the same until the goverment came along and took control of it.

C6: marriage is not a right

If you read about the case it was about race. All races have the right to sexuality, one may not discriminate based on color. Nothing about sexuality .

I know that churches can say yes but the problem is they can say no. The point is they can say no and most religions say no.

The slippery slope argument:

Time to site examples:

australia: Joseph Guiso, 20, married his 5-year-old golden Labrador Retriever named "Honey" in an elaborate wedding ceremony at a park in Toowoomba. [2]

It does lead to a slippery slope. Also the bible:

Those who contend that the Bible never negatively treats polygamy are wrong. Consider the warning given to prospective and actual kings of Israel: [3]

"16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17). [3]

The bible is against polygamy.

I believe ay arguments still stand and I have defeated my opponent up to now. So I will end as I seen no reason to ush on.


I have fulfilled my BOP, as for my opponent maybe not. I have refuted my opponents arguments and proved my case. Voters vote pro.

sources: [1] [2] [3]


1.) You ruined, your own argument with your first point. Christianity, nor any religion should have no say in this matter at all. However, as I have already explained this is about civil marriage not religious marriage. Do you really think all this controversy is about churches being able to refuse to marry people? It's always been like that and it still like that in this country. If a church, for whatever reason, does not want to marry someone they can refuse. And as for infertile couples and old people; yes, sometimes people get married knowing they are not fit to reproduce and I certainly think the elderly know when they can no longer get pregnant. But, as for what you said about invitro-fertilization why can't gay people do that if children are necessary for marriage? There is no law to stop two gay men from paying a women to have their baby or two lesbians from going to s sperm bank and having one of them get pregnant. So, if they did that would you be fine with them marrying then?

2.) You admit the institution has lost most of its meaning and yet you still see fit to deny it to some people? Marriage very much is a right and the supreme court ruled as such. You are correct when you say that specific case was about race, however, the fact that back then interracial marriage is as taboo as gay marriage is today I believe the point made at the heart of that case still rings true.

3.) I very much doubt the marriage between that man and his dog was recognized by the government of Australia. The slippery slope argument is inherently fallacious as it tries to connect to subjects completely unrelated. I fail to see at all how two men or women marrying each other will even open up the door for the government to recognize the 'marriage' between people and their pets. The two situations are very, very different.

4.) Lastly, I concede to you the bible does not endorse polygamy, however, in the end the bible really should have nothing to do with this situation. This is a secular nation not a Christian one. The Christian definition of marriage should not define it for everyone else. Otherwise, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, atheist, etc would not be able to marry. About gay people breaking up more. I think that same argument could be used for something like this as well "Since the majority of illegal immigrants are Latinos all Latinos are illegal immigrants." This is obviously false. You seem to be saying that since gays have higher divorce rates all gays if allowed to marry will divorce so why even bother giving them the chance. That argument is inherently fallacious.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3


You ruined, your own argument with your first point. Christianity, nor any religion should have no say in this matter at all.

Well you forgot the secong part of my argument, legal documents.

Those who support defining marriage in such a way as to include same-sex partnerships deny that marriage has any intrinsic relation to procreation. [1]

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

The states argued marriage was about procreation and a gay couple could not do this. [2]

The judge ruled that the primary purpose of marriage, under Massachusetts law, was in fact procreation. [2]

The covenant of love between a man and a woman will fill them both with happiness and be open to the gift of life and bringing up children. Marriage must be a community of life. [3]

(c/p'd from source)

"You admit the institution has lost most of its meaning and yet you still see fit to deny it to some people?"

False it has little meaning. But, I argue letting gays marry would make the problem worse. Me saying there is a problem needn't point to me giving up that point, rather saying there is a problem don't let it get worse. Allowing gays to marry wold make the problem worse.

My sources prove that allowingthem to marry would raise the amount of divorce.

"I very much doubt the marriage between that man and his dog was recognized by the government of Australia. "

have any sources saying no?

either way the argument stands:

he Missouri man and homosexual "marriage" proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment." But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex--even non-human "partners." [4]

(word for word from my 4th source)

Make sense as polygamy and the right to marry animals have similar arguements.

So sooner or later the source says allowing gay marriage would lead to polymgamy and the right to marry a dog, eventually.

"in the end the bible really should have nothing to do with this situation. This is a secular nation not a Christian one."

So why did you press this argument? Also most of the religeons you menoned are against polygamy, except athiest.

"Vote con."

Thank you we agree. (lol typo your pro)

==conclusion to rebbutals==

I have destroyed his argments, I urge you to vote con. My arguemnts still stand.

sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]


Final post so I will make this quick.

1.) The definition of marriage in the world and in this country has changed often. Grown men used to be able to marry thirteen-year old girls and interracial marriage was illegal. If we can change that we can change the part about procreation which if we are being honest no longer has any real barring in marriage. People do not get married just to have kids and they do not have to be married to have kids, I have already stated this.

2.) How will allowing gays get married make the problem worse? More people getting married invariably means, more people will stay married. That helps the institution. But, as I have already stated you can not deny a specific group rights simply because you feel the will mess it up.

3.) I concede this to you.

4.) I disagree with this definition just like you, however, I disagree with it for different reasons. Marriage should be allowed for any adults, who knowingly and willingly, agree with everything that comes with it (I am referring to civil marriage). That is why, on principle, I must also agree that polygamy should be legal. Again, as I have stated, animals cannot give consent; they cannot sign a marriage license. Any argument arguing for the legal recognition for a person-animal marriage would surely be laughed out of court.

5.) I posted the argument because, you were using religion and to show you how that causes problems. Also because, of my argument whether Hinduism, Judaism, etc are against polygamy is also irrelevant.

6.) Vote pro (I got it right this time).
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BluePine 4 years ago
As I've said in a similar debate it depends of what kinda marriage you're talking about. Christian religious marriage between people of the same gender is pointless because it conflicts with the core of christian ideology while civil marriage on the island Wakka Makka could be made between a chimp and a kiwi bird.
Posted by JohnJohnSHTOOKAH 4 years ago
Absolutely sick..
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I agree with lightskinned blackkid post 2 days ago.

Also odd that it didn't work. Get a random link and see if it works via comments. If ti does then always say sources in comemnts.
Posted by lightskinnedblackkid 4 years ago
Mr. Anon I already tried posting sources and for some reason It just doesn't work.
Posted by Mr_Anon 4 years ago
Pro really needs to improve his sources, and con really needs to improve his spelling and grammar. Other than that, I await Pro's last argument before voting.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I know I was just being funny.
Posted by lightskinnedblackkid 4 years ago
I meant to say vote pro in my last argument.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
@thett 3

maybe not but gays are unnatural so they aren't even a minority. Also they are in the majority if their straight. So sexually they are in the majority, as this debate is about sexuality nit race
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago

Asians are more then 4%
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
@light skinned black kid, you just copy paste it....

and "So why grant marriage to such a small minority that really doesn't deserve it? Like really?" LOL lets not let the Asians get married either
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better grammar and was easier to read. Pro didn't refute Con's objections very well, though. For example: "I reject your claim that allowing gays to marry would weaken the institution. It only stands to reason that allowing more people to marry would only strengthen it" How does it stand to reason? I think Pro could have won if he gave reasons for why he objected to Con's claims.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Hmm. CON needs to start using spell checker. S/G goes to pro. PRO needs to start using better/qualified sources. Sources goes to con. In all, I think CON has done a better job convincing me.