The Instigator
Con (against)
22 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 Points

Gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 8 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,791 times Debate No: 20599
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (30)
Votes (8)




Since I am forced to do this whole debate on my phone then my performance may be downgraded.

First round acceptance.

Second arguments ( no rebuttals )

Third rebuttals and extending/ adding on arguments

Fourth same as three but + concluding statement.


I'll play.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting :)

C1: marriage is a institution that relies on procreation

What I am saying in short is: it is one reason for marriage.

In Washington state they had a case in their SSM ban, they held 5-4 that the law was consitutional and one reason was procreation. (1). It furthered the states interest in marriage, up bringing of children. One of the justices said banning SSM raises procreation rates, making more children. She also claimed that was the reason (one of them) that the state recognizes straight marriage. (1)

Another argument you will press is "marriage is love not procreation". To a normal person yes, but if that was the case then why would the state recognize marriage? There would be no benefit, no reason for the state to recognize it, therefore there is a reason, procreation. The most common discussed state reason for banning SSM is procreation, that is the reason the state is hesitant to agnolage it. (2)

C2: health risks of gay sexual behavior

Please no wordplay here, I mean MSM men having sex with men and the risks.

Gays accounted for 53% of the new aids/HIV infections in the US, and in 2006 held again 53% of all of the virus in total. (3) now why is this significant? Because the total gay population is America is 10% at most, or under. (4). So let's use the census estimate, 2-3%, that 3% has more then half of the aids virus. Now are they more likely to get the aids virus or is it a myth? They are more likely. MSM where 44 times more likely to be diagnosed with the aids virus then other men. (3)

C3: slippery slope

Let me use a few examples:


After the passage of the 1991 Brady bill the pro gun controllers celebrated their victory. The NRA lost their threshold and the amount of guns in circulations declined, the momentum against guns increased. It had an effect on people's minds. (5)

Perfect example.

Now an SSM example:

In 2003 Canadian courts allowed SSM in Ontario, after that is quickly spread to all of the other provinces. (6)

Also polygamy advocates say the only criteria for marriage is love, well in that case polygamy should be legalized etc. Once marriage is no longer 1 man + 1 woman then the definition changes, and there's no way to stop the other marriage forms. (7)

C4: the economy

1138, that's the amount of provisions used on marriage that are basically benefits. (8). In the UK there is a 150� tax return. (9) but in the US it just consists of benefits, but how is this bad? 1$ spent here is one dollar not spent on a tax return or well fare etc. it wastes a dollar.

This is said by Michael Steele a GOP chairman, it hurts small buisness as a penny on marriage = a penny not in Healthcare. (10)




Debating via phone took 2 hours for only 4000 characters :p. remember don't refute...yet next round. Your turn pro.

Sources: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)


Hello everyone, in this first outing I will show several goods which are realized by permitting gay marriage. I will take the resolution in the broadest (policy) sense, although these things can be informed by ethics, law, etc.

Equal protection before the law

Most liberal democracies (the United States included) consider it an important social good that all stand equal before the law, and the state does not favour or persecute without good cause. Rebuttals are of course pending, but if we can demonstrate there are no good grounds for the state to favour heterosexual couples over homosexual couples, then removing this discrimination is sufficient reason for gay marriage to be permitted.

In other words, if PRO fails to provide a cogent case against gay marriage, we should accept it by default. Watch this space.

Satisfying the desires of those who want to get married

Although not all homosexuals want to marry their partner, some do. It is fair to say that satisfying these desires will bring a great amount of happiness to these people. So this is a reason to let them do so.


Marriage in the US (and elsewhere) provides a variety of legal and benefits to those married. Visiting rights when one is ill, presumptive property rights in inheritance, and joint parental responsibility for children are three common examples amongst many. Plainly these legal structures are beneficial to those who are married. Homosexual couples can accrue similar benefits.[1] (Conversely, homosexuals endure suffering linked to denial of same sex marriage and the attitudes generally underlying it).[2]

Some homosexual couples raise children. The consensus of the relevant professionals is that marriage for homosexual parents will help the welfare of their children. Many homosexuals, and large numbers of children, stand to gain by permitting gay marriage.[3]

Esteem and social goods

Homosexuals have historically been an abused minority. Normalizing them into wider society (such as by allowing them to participate in marriages) helps correct current and past wrongs. As an added bonus, an open and tolerant society is a good in itself.


Generally, discrimination is expensive. In the US, it is estimated that permitting gay marriage will add just under $1 billion in value to the treasury over the next ten years – small by the standards of the US government spending, but $1 billion better than nothing. So everyone is richer (literally) for permitting gay marriage.[4]

[1] See The Canadian Psychological Associations position statement (2006) See generally The amici of the APA, the CPA, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.

[2] See Hatzenbuehler, M L. et al. (2009) The Impact of Institutionalized Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 100, No. 3, pp. 452-459

[3] See Pawelski, J G (2006) The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Wellbeing of Children. Pediatrics Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 349-364

[4] See the CBO’s report.

Debate Round No. 2


Thanks for the response, I will see what I can do :)

R1: equal protection under law

This clause in the US 14th amendment states (basic summary quote from source):

"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (1)

Now let's define jurisdiction:

Power authority control (2)

None of this is denied if you have SSM bans. No one is denied power, hence your equal protection argument is invalid (until you try to defend it). Also I am con. It's ok I mess up like that too.

R2: Satisfying those who wish to get married

So you make this sound like it is a right, well is there a right to marriage? Not really. Also I will refute the main "they want too" argument later.

Sub rebbutal 1: no right to marriage

The current laws towards marriage are based of of a traditional case. Man + Woman. In this case you have a right to marriage IF you are a male with a female. And either way it is more of a privalage. Currently there is no law concerning gay martiage rights, only laws against. Gays currently have no right to marriage, they have NO RIGHT to marriage until the laws are changed, so as of now there is no gay right to marriage. (3)

Although this debate is about america, foreign law or studies are allowed in this debate.

European courts have ruled, there is no right to gay marriage whatsoever. (4) so let me add my extra opinion, if their more liberal laws say there is no gay right to marriage, then how in the US are conservative laws concerning marriage give a right to marriage? Food for thought.

R3: Wellfare

In my opinion, you prove my economic point. But also you provide a social case.

15 states plus DC say being together for 7 years constitutes the same rights (inheritance wise) for unmarried couples. So if Adam and steve live together for 7 years they get these rights. (5) also some states have civil unions.Couples age 62 and over in civil unions can apply for these rights as well. (5) also people can live together in contract, unmarried but together legally, and get the same rights. (5) Even if you do not get these things, these rights ( inheritance wise) stay the same, but only if you apply for a will, it is not federally garrenteed but stil usually works. (5)

The point is you do not need marriage for these rights.

R4: esteem

You are irrationally linking homophobia to SSM bans. Also you see legalization as a pity fest. Is a reason to legalize drugs is because we're sorry for 10 million users? No abuse =\= a good reason.

R5: money

This makes little sense. Marriages get tax cuts and other benefits, so logically it would strain the states coffers. One NY local politician claims that the new law may strain the states coffers. (6)

Marriage has many tax benifits, it allows you to divide income by family then get taxed. (7) Ex: I have 100,000$ income, me + wife, 100,000/2=50,000$. The tax rate for 50k is lower than 100k, major tax break. So tell me, how do tax cuts = less revenue? It doesn't sorry.

Also social security Medicare etc. (7) all at the goverments expense, so how does more spending save money? It doesnt your case makes no sense.

Your case is: lower taxes and more spending = more money. How? Answer how.
My case here is: no tax cut in this department, less spending = more money.

Which makes more sense?


My points make logical sense and provide a partially secular case against SSM. My opponent however makes less... Logical points (still best SSM case [or one of them] I have seen). But I have refuted it. Vote con!

Sources; (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)


Hello everyone. In this outing I will show CON’s case to be a failure.[1] I will then fend off his objections to my own remarks.

Procreation and the purpose of marriage (CON C1)

CON says the state has an interest in the marriage for the ends of procreation and (as homosexuals can’t procreate), it has no motive to license gay marriage. Three refutations:

1: The state isn’t interested in marriage for the sake of procreation. If the state was interested in ensuring procreation or whatever, it should act there, and not on something that maybe-maybe-not leads to it.

Further, state’s behaviour to marriage makes no sense on ‘ensuring procreation’ grounds. The state has no interest in whether the couple has sex – you can remain in a celibate marriage; it has no interest in fertility – those provably sterile can marry; and it has no interest in children – people who will always use contraception can marry. Despite the state being happy to marry all of these sorts of unprocreating couples, CON (and sundry conservative commentators) urge that it shouldn’t marry gay couple - because they can’t procreate. Absurd!

2: Gay marriage won’t harm straight procreation. Even if the state’s interest was in procreation, it would need to be shown that licensing homosexual marriages will harm this interest. The opinion of a conservative judge is inadequate to demonstrate a causal relationship between gay marriage and reduced fertility.[2]

3: Marriage is not solely about procreation. In an already crowded planet, with many children in care, the state should have an interest in good child care, not procreation. Gay marriage will help, not hinder, that.

Marriage does not follow some narrowly tailored interest in procreation. It is a cluster of legal concerns that enshrine family relationships, whether an archetypal nuclear family or just a couple. Homosexual couples (with or without adopted children) warrant parallel legal recognition. I aver gay marriage angers conservatives not because of their pretended fears about the collapse of heterosexual procreation, but because marriage signals esteem and approbation towards couples they prefer to despise and marginalize. They are wrong (factual sense) on these pretended concerns, and wrong (moral sense) on their real motivations and animus.

Gays get AIDS so they shouldn’t get gay marriage (CON C2)

A case study of such animus is manifest in CON’s second claim. The argument is transparently beneath the contempt of reason, and this is best demonstrated by stating it fully:

1) MSM are more likely to get HIV. (factual premise)

2) People who get HIV are generally immoral, undesirable, or otherwise dirty. (The ‘HIV stigma’ premise)

3) Gay men are generally immoral, undesirable, or otherwise dirty. (From (1), (2) and arrant over-generalization – not all MSM are gay, and most gay men don’t have HIV.)

4) People who are generally immoral, undesirable, or otherwise dirty don’t deserve to have their marriages legally recognised. (The ‘marriage as a token of moral approval premise’)[3]

5) Homosexuals should not have their marriages legally recognized. (From (3), (4) and more over-generalization – lifetime risk of STIs, including HIV is lower for lesbian women than heterosexual women).

What about polygamy? (CON C3)

CON notes that often movements can spread (gun control, gay marriage). This has no bearing on the argument – if indeed gay marriage is a good idea, we should want it to spread widely.

CON then talks about polygamy. I can’t see anything wrong with consensual polyamorous relationships (polygamy or polyandry, or n man + m woman), so I’m happy for their relationships to be legally recognised (I’d speculate that some of the legal artifice might not translate well into many-partner settings, but that is only a motive to provide an appropriate parallel legal structure that does the trick). As slippery slopes only work if you can show what you’re sliding to is bad, this argument has no merit.[4]

Economy costs/benefits (CON C4, My fifth reason, and CON R3)

CON thinks that legalizing gay marriage will cost money. He supports his case by remarks by a couple of law-makers and some back of the envelope calculations. I think legalizing gay marriage will gain money, and quoted the Congressional Budget Office’s report on this issue. I aver my evidential support is better than CON’s. CON might find the bit on income revenues (gay couples will be net contributors over the next 10 years as various bits of law which stop a ‘marriage penalty’ of increased tax burden fall out of the statute books), and outlays (as many of these programs look at spouses income, unmarried gay couples who became married would often cease to qualify).

Equal protection under the law (my first reason)

CON argues no one is denied power under current laws. This can’t be right. Homosexuals are denied the power to marry someone they love. ‘Only’ being a partner, and not married has all manner of other effects with inheritance, hospital visitation, and more. Plainly these relationships suffer a legal penality vis-à-vis heterosexual ones, and such penalization must be justified or corrected.

Satisfying the desires of homosexuals (my second reason)

CON makes an inapposite complaint about this reason implies a right to gay marriage. That is false: I might not have a right to sweeties, but I quite like them, and I am made happier with them being provided.[5]

Welfare (my third reason)

CON responds to the welfare points by saying how talking about cohabitation rights and civil unions. This is just inapposite – such recognition is patchy (these things aren’t throughout the US) and generally inferior in degree of legal benefit to marriage, and so there remains a welfare penalty (supporting authorities given above are explicit in recommending marriage as beneficial to homosexual welfare, and not civil unions etc.) CON has not engaged with my evidence that gay marriage will improve gay welfare.

Esteem (my fourth reason)

PRO’s ‘you’re confusing homophobia with SSM bans’ applies to my third reason (and it’s not me linking them, rather the data showing an increase in mood disorders and other mental illness in those areas with gay marriage bans after those bans happened.)

PRO’s actual objection is again inapposite. If legislation can make the well being of a traditionally harmed minority better, and to ‘make up for’ past outrages, then that is an excellent pro tanto reason for doing it, and maybe even sufficient in the absence of countervailing costs.[6] Drug legalization has nothing to do with anything.

The story so far

CONs arguments against gay marriage have either been deeply flawed (procreation, slippery slope), contradicted by reliable authority (economy), or paroxysms of naked prejudice (HIV). In contrast, my reasons are cogent and supported by good data, and CONs replies are confused and non-responsive.

[1] Thanks to CON for pointing out that he was CON, and not PRO. Mea culpa!

[2] I’d be pretty unsurprised if it turned out gay marriage countries/states showed lower fertility than those that banned it, but that’s because gay marriage countries/states tend to be wealthier and healthier, and that correlates with being pro gay marriage.

[3] Note with amusement how this directly contradicts CON’s C1 about licensing of marriage being about procreation.

[4] See this nice article on the practical ethics blog of Oxford talking about polygamy:

[5] Con’s back up for his inapposite complaint is that law recognises no such right. But obviously the terms of the debate are normative – should there be gay marriage, not whether or not there is -, so he needs to show there should be no such right.

[6] Of course, other reasons might outweigh this. Like I could have said ‘the states interest in procreation isn’t good enough to ban same sex marriage, for the states interest and equality and dignity should trump it.’ Happily, I didn’t need to, as this reason has no merit.

Debate Round No. 3


Defense of my arguments

RC1: procreation & marriage

Sub point a: not interested in procreation.

Then what are they interested in? Not love as that is not a reason, nor a benifit to the state. Procreation is a valuable tool to the state, live is not. Furthermore their acts in marriage make sense, as I cited above a judge said gays cannot make kids, therefore gay martiage is no interest to the state. Their actions preventing gay marriage prove my point.

As we know marriage has many benifits, the state wants return. Why do they give benifits? Here's why;

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)

My point is procreation gives kids and a workforce, a benifit to the state. Why love? Love has no benifit to the state, there is only one reason they recognize heterosexual marriage over homosexual: procreation. The rest are views held by concerned citizens.

Sub point b: Gay marriage would not hurt procreation

SSM is one reason for Canada's declining birth rate.(2) their new fertility rates are odd as the rates used to be the same, but after SSM and other liberal laws (not meant to be political war) their fertility rate dropped. (2) they have children 25% less than the US(2)

Remember: similar language, population size, demographics etc. so SSM did change the rates.

Netherlands fertility rate (SSM allowed); 1.66 kids per womann (3)
US fertility rate (no SSM mostly): 2.06 kids per woman (4)

Notice we have higher fertility rates.

Sub point c: marriage is not only procreation

I agree, but that is a reason why martiage is man and woman. There is no benifit otherwise to the state. I never said that was the only reason, rather a reason the state recognizes it between a man a d a woman.

"When Massachusetts officials, facing the court case Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, set out to defend that state's marriage law from a challenge by seven homosexual couples, their major line of defense was procreation.� Making babies, the state argued, was the first purpose of marriage" (5)

So I meant the state thinks procreation is a reason to ban SSM, make sense?

Also this is from the whole state, the goverments case not one judge.

RC2: gays and aids

Anal intercourse leads to a high risk of HIV infection. (6)

Now why is this significant? Because marriage encourages procreation.

"Why is marriage regulated by the government at all? In fact, not only are there restrictions on certain types of marriages, but there are incentives for heterosexuals (not falling into the categories above) to marry. Why should the government encourage — through tax breaks and other benefits — some types of marriages while banning others? The rationale is that males and females, when married, are more likely to procreate" (7)

So it encorages you to have sex, allowing SSM would raise aids rates among them as martiage enxorahes them to have smex. In my opinion this is a pro gay argument.

Most aids focus is towards unmarried teens, yet there is a growing amount of HIV among married couples. (8) Married couples often obtain aids. (9)

My point is there would be a lot more coupled with HIV if SSM was allowed.

Also you say people who get aids are "dirty" and don't deserve marriage, that logic means you oppose SSM.

RC3: slippery slope

You have most interpreted my point, if you legalize SSM, then SSM would be everywhere and in some states it wouldn't work. Also you have not shown any proof that SSM is good. Furthermore the argument says that it would lead to polygamy. This site summarizes my argument well:

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless" (10)

Easy to understand?

RC4: benifits of marriage

You actually do not explain why just spout a doubtful statistic. Further more that case makes no sense, I have stated the costly benifits to marriage and that it would cost money. It would produce less revanue (tax breaks) and raise costs (benifits).

Married couples pay less taxes:

51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average amount these couples saved: $1,300. (11)

This would lead to less revanue, 10%, then only 51, so 5.1% of America would get a tax break, decreasing revanue raising the deficit.


2.4 trillion dollars are spent on social security. (12)

51% of ppl are married (13)

Number of marriages: 2,077,000 (14)

4 million gays (15)

Let's assume 2 of those is 18 or older ready for marriage.

Now 3 mill marriages.
Current SS cost per couple:
1,000,000$ to the state per couple. Cost 2 trillion.
After SSM:
New cost to state: 3 trillion.

Cost increase in only one category, all you need is google calculator :p


R1: equal protection

I gave legal definitions disproving your point.

n. the right of all persons to have the same access to the law and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts, both in procedures and in the substance of the law (16)

They get all of the same legal treatments regardless, hence your point debunked.

R2: Satisfying desires

Gays are only 10% of the population, more likely less, see second round arguments. Satisfying such a minority is a waste of time and money, see above, especially when there's no right to marriage.
Your argument hare is not important, I have already refuted it as well.

-out of room soon-


I have refuted the earlier points so it's ok. I have torn down his arguments with facts, and have kept mine alive, I urge you to vote con. Thanks.

Ps: debating on phone still = hard

sources : (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)


Let’s tot up the goods and bads of SSM, then talk about the higher legal principles:

Good 1: Desire satisfaction

I’ve said that allowing homosexuals to satisfy their desire to marry will make them happier. CONs first rebuttal was an irrelevance about drug, and his final offering is just saying this is ‘waste of time and money’, with no argument offered. Neither touches my point: legalizing gay marriage will satisfy the desires of homosexuals to be married, make them happier, and this is a good thing.

Good 2: Welfare

I have pointed to the consensus statement of basically every relevant body of experts in the US and abroad that gay marriage will improve the welfare of homosexual couples. I also offered research demonstrating a link between banning gay marriage and increased psychological stress amongst LGBs. CON first responded with an irrelevance about how some states have deeply inferior legal arrangements, and has dropped it now. Gay marriage improves the welfare of LGB people, and this is a good thing.

Good 3: Esteem

I have said that legalizing gay marriage is part repayment on a history of iniquity and abuse LGB people have suffered, and it helps signal a more just and tolerant society. CONs first response was inapposite stuff about ‘pity fests’ (see above), and has dropped it now. Gay marriage helps make up for historical abuses and encourages them not to happen again, and this is a good thing.

Good 4: Economy

I have pointed to the Congressional Budget Office’s report that shows the treasury will make a net gain if marriage is legalized. CON responds with back of the envelope calculations via google calculator. As the CBO probably has calculators and considerably greater economic expertise than CON, we should take their word, not CON’s. I repeat the points last round (not answered) as to why CONs ‘back of the envelope’ calculations are inaccurate.

What about the negative impacts CON has suggested?

Bad 1: Procreation

CON asserts that gay marriage harms fertility rates. He has provided no support for this – his citation does not suggest gay marriage as a contributory factor to Canada’s declining fertility:

What explains changes in fertility rates? Torrey and Eberstadt suggest three major hypotheses. First, some suggest a "Family Economics" hypothesis... A "Relative Income" hypothesis suggests that "large birth cohorts will have more trouble reaching their expected income goals than smaller cohorts."… Third, a "Role Incomparability" hypothesis posits that "the ability of women to combine childbirth and work is a strong determinant of how many children they will eventually have." (Abridged)

CON continues with a risible data gathering technique of comparing a few states with gay marriage to those that don’t and showing they have lower fertility. Sampling bias, failure to correct for anything, and correlation/causation confusion means this has no value.

Bad 2: AIDS

CON firstly offered some very silly prejudicial argument that showing MSM get more HIV is sufficient reason to deny them marriage rights. This argument was laughed out of play last round. This round, CON asserts that legalizing gay marriage will increase HIV rates amongst gay men because it encourages them to have sex. This is a priori absurd: homosexuals will already have sex, and often with many partners. Monogamy and the sparsification of their relationship graph will likely cause HIV incidence to fall. Reality agrees: states with gay marriage have a lower incidence of HIV, although it is unclear whether it is marriage itself or the greater rates of tolerance that correspond to it.[1]

Bad 3: Slippery slope

CON argued that SSM lead to bad things like polygamy, which I denied as there’s nothing wrong with polygamy per se. CON comes back with a (question begging) assertion SSM wouldn’t ‘work everywhere’, and (again question begging) assertion I haven’t shown SSM is good (au contraire, see above). Finally, CON talks about stuff like marrying animals, marrying children, objects, etc. What possible way can we avoid this Gomorrah besides heteronormativity!

Well, how about we limit marriage to all who a) have capacity, and b) consent (which we do for all other legal contracts). Suddenly, the pedophile beastiality and object options are ruled out. Of course, incest and polyamory remain, but I don’t see how these are necessarily bad.

So I have shown several positive impacts for SSM CON has failed to counter. CON has not plausibly shown any negative impacts: all his points are unsupported or refuted by available data.

There were a variety of jurisprudential concerns raised. Let’s look at those next.

Equal protection

I’ve argued that homosexuals suffer a legal penalty in that their relationships do not have the same protections available than heterosexual unions, and so provide a prima facie case for redress regardless of impact. CON continues quoting the 14th amendment like this somehow settles the matter in his favour. Let’s make it abundantly clear:

1) If I’m gay and I’m in hospital, I cannot guarantee my partner visitation rights like he was my spouse.

2) If I’m gay and I die without a will, my partner does not gain presumptive inheritance rights.

3) If I’m gay and I adopt a child, my partner will not be automatically recognised as a parent.

Here are 3 out of the hundreds of different legal presumptions and benefits married relationships bring – benefits same sex couples cannot access. So these relationships are flagrantly not equally treated before the law. CONs previous points there are second rate alternatives like cohabitation provisions or civil unions at best lessens the degree of this inequity.[2] (And, as should not need saying, saying it is a ‘privilege’ doesn’t help – distributing legal ‘privileges’ iniquitously is not on either).

State’s procreation interest

CON has relied on a procreation-based argument to show why the state is legally justified in its unequal treatment. I have demonstrated above that his case has no factual merit – SSM has no effect on fertility and procreation. It has no legal merit either.

First, I showed that the putative state interest does not correspond to states behaviour – they make no effort to deny marriages between couples who won’t procreate just as provably as same sex couples: the old, the infertile, the celibate, etc. This suggests that the state is not that fussed about procreation, and that the procreation argument is selectively targeted to homosexuals alone implies it’s a post-hoc fig leaf of rationalization over prior naked animus. CON has not responded to this.

Second, I argued that procreation shouldn’t be the only interest the state should care about. The state has an interest in protecting the welfare of its citizens, ensuring adopted children have the best chance of a stable family life, in fostering healthy and beneficial relationships between its citizens, and other things besides. CON has kept saying the state should only care about procreation, but has never argued why.


We have seen that SSM will satisfy equal protection, and not violate the pretended procreation complaint (which is not actually the state’s motive in marriage, should not be the sole state interest in marriage, and even if it were, SSM does not harm this interest. SSM will also bring sundry other benefits (and no penalties) to homosexuals or the wider society of which they are a part. So it’s a great idea.

My jurisprudential case is cogent; CON’s is not. My arguments were always valid; CON’s seldom were. My factual representation is based on real data or recognised expertise; CON’s points are contradicted by expert opinion, real data, or his own citations. Vote PRO.

[1] See Frances, A M, and Mialon, H M (2010) Tolerance and HIV. Journal of Health Economics. Vol 29(2), pp. 250-267

[2] As a further reductio, CONs case, with ‘mixed race’ transposed for ‘same sex’ would be just as ‘good’ a defence of anti-miscegenation laws as constitutional.

Debate Round No. 4
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I was saying last round the economy should have been on both as there is a controversy on it.
Posted by Thrasymachus 4 years ago
err, what?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
That last round was just false pro con. Economy could have gone con too as I disproved your point... Also the end wasn't correct as those pros are on the edge, kinda in debate. So economy should have been in both. Also equal protection is not what you said it is, I defined it, it does not even compare to what you said. So really why was that there?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
LadyKatzen, we should probably debate this legitimately. I'll send you a challenge in a few days. I have a few things to do though first.

I think you've missed the point. There's a difference between the purpose of marriage and what marriage is used for. I think you're trying to imply that because marriage is not always used for procreation, that the purpose of marriage is not for procreation.

Actually, there are tax benefits for having children, that is, tax exemption.
Posted by Ladykatzen 4 years ago
Suburbia, I am not talking about couples that choose to not get married...I am talking about couples who do choose to get married, yet consciously decide they will not have children, either due to personal choice, age, or medical condition. If, as you assert, the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate, what should we as a society do with those who circumvent Society's will and enter into a marriage that will never see children? Since you have established that procreation is the primary purpose for marriage, shall the State only issue licenses to those couples who agree they shall procreate? Otherwise, won't the "freeriders" abuse the system? In addition, why does the state provide the majority of tax and other benefits (such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc) to couples, irrespective of number of children present, yet affords relatively few benefits to those couples who have children? One would think that if procreation is the purpose, then the state would "reward" those who do produce and offer incentives to maximize the number of couples procreating.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
LadyKatzen, well for one, I can't find any examples of marriage licenses on the internet, so I can't really assume you're right that marriage licenses don't mention procreation in any way. Though we do have laws in place regarding custody, etc. So I assume the marriage license would mention such laws. As for prenuptial agreements, those are whatever the couple decides upon, and are irrelevant to the purpose of marriage.

Couples that do not get married are also irrelevant to the purpose of marriage. Like I said, if you could negate the purpose of a microphone because someone did not use it for that purpose, then you could negate the purpose of nearly everything.

Having an elevated societal status that facilitates procreation is the purpose of allowing marriage. The requirements for marriage are simply that it be a union between a man and a women (because, in general, men and women are capable of procreation).
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Like Round 1-2 stellar sources to both. But at the end my million sources top 1 blog and 1 other thing
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Oh I had reliable sources in the number.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Yeah what where the numbers
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 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 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: Sources go to Con for sure. Not even a question there. I give arguments to Con because I don't feel Pro adequately refuted Pro's contention that the the purpose of marriage is procreation, according to the state. Spelling to Pro, because in all respect to Con, he needs work. Props to him for doing all of this on his phone though. Good job to you both.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB Devon 2 points for sources.
Vote Placed by DevonNetzley 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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: My reasons lie within the vote.
Vote Placed by wiploc 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were stronger generally, but I want to call particular attention to his final post. It was excellent.
Vote Placed by Angelo 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I cannot vote on arguments as it may seem unfair as I am related to con, but my non official vote argument: con because he refuted all of pros contentions and pro had so failed logic that con tumbled. Also marriage is about procreation in the states eyes. Sources con (less biased vote) because he had many more, and most where reliable. 32-7 sources con favor. Also I will give another point to con, as larz pointed out phone debating is hard. So a point for all of that work. Sorry for the re-vote
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con because of his sources.
Vote Placed by flash7221 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: con used more resources, i am totally agianst gay marriage
Vote Placed by larztheloser 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's case started very strong, and pro's case started weak. As the debate wore on, however, con began to re-appeal to older arguments, while pro's case evolved and progressed much more. By the end I got so bored of con's repetition that I gave pro the win on that basis alone (plus pro won most of the points anyway). If interested just ask and I'll bother to do a point-by-point analysis somewhere with more characters. 1pt as respect to con for daring to do phone debating.