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

Heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,550 times Debate No: 90027
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




4 Rounds.
The first round will be for acceptance only.
Second round we will present our arguments for or against.
third round will be rebuttals
Final round will be concluding comments, arguments, and/or more rebuttals.
note* please do not make rebuttals to any arguments that were made in the same round. For example, do not argue in round 3 against something that I just said in that round, rather make your rebuttals of my arguments that I made in the previous round. In other words your second round should be for arguments (no rebuttals) and your third round should be rebuttals for arguments that I made in the second round only.
You will defeat me in debate if you can logically conclude that heterosexual marriage should not be supported by the state or that homosexual marriage or any other form of marriage should be supported by the state.


I am against the idea that states should only accept heterosexual marriages. So I will accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate! I hope to persuade you as this subject is very important to me. I shall proceed to list my arguments.

Arguments for:

Why do we subsidize or give benefits to heterosexual marriage?

The state gives tax breaks and many other benefits to heterosexual marriage, but why? The reason is because heterosexual marriage in turn benefits the state. The state therefore encourages marriage to reap the benefits of a state filled with natural families.

So how does this heterosexual marriage benefit the state? It does so because it aids in procreation and population growth, holding the two who procreate accountable for their child through a contract. In doing so, the contract requires that both parents rear their children together to enhance the development of their child. Because of this development, the child will be more likely to succeed in life and in turn their success will then be beneficial to the state. It is therefore in the best interest of the state to promote this success by providing tax breaks etc.

Heterosexual marriage also helps (as said earlier) in not only the better development of children, but it also aids in population growth which also aids the state. Most people can logically conclude that more workers, scientists, soldiers, etc. means more money for the state because this state can contribute more to the world. It would also aide in a more able and natural defense because more people means more power, not only economically, but also in sheer numbers of defense. Again, we can clearly see how it is in the best interest of the state to promote these natural families that provide benefits to the state. They help the state so in turn, the state should encourage them.

2. Why shouldn’t we benefit homosexual marriage?

In contrast to heterosexual marriage, gay marriage does not really do anything for the state that a heterosexual marriage cannot do or a mere individual for that matter. It is therefore not needed in a state and can actually go against the very principle of the entire purpose of providing benefits to heterosexual marriage.

As we have noted what marriage is for or at least why the state should benefit heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage cannot increase population (at least not any more so than a mere individual). The only way for a homosexual marriage to procreate is to obtain a child by going outside of that marriage which would be treason against our theoretical marriage contract. Going outside of the marriage would in turn be promoting adultery and for obvious reasons this can be harmful to the entire purpose for marriage as well as the development of the kids. It should not be hard to logically conclude such deductions. We would not want to promote any principles that may encourage adultery which, as stated earlier, would do damage to the development of a natural family.

Homosexual marriage cannot procreate as a natural family can and therefore cannot provide many (if any) of the benefits that heterosexual marriages can. In fact, homosexual marriage go against the very principle. By allowing a couple who cannot procreate, which directly defies the natural law of procreation, to get married, we are providing a message to the state that the principle of marriage is no longer about the procreation and development of children, but rather that it is now about self interest in how we can basically cheat the state. We can logically conclude that doing something that does not benefit the state yet reaping the same benefits of those who do benefit the state is cheating the state, and clearly this is totally unfair to those who do benefit the state through heterosexual marriages and procreation.

Because we now have a state with a population who does not see the principle of procreation, not only do procreative families become fewer, but families in themselves become fewer as we will see a rise of divorce, relationships without marriage, and even foster children. Why? Because the state has now confused the purpose of the natural family. Families or individuals in general will no longer see marriage as a contract to raise and develop children therefore would go against the entire purpose of benefitting marriage as we had concluded previously. Families may see other reasons for marriage such as marrying based on an emotion of infatuation and divorcing when the emotion no longer exists between the couple. Others may not even see a purpose for marrying and may have children with no such contract where the two may part ways before a child is fully developed. The effects of divorce or a relationship without contract might cause the woman to give a child up for adoption or/and it may cause more criminal activity as statistics shown a overwhelming majority of criminals come from broken families.[1] Clearly we can see how benefitting gay marriage directly defies the purpose of benefitting heterosexual marriage.

3. We can logically conclude from argument 1 that the state should support heterosexual marriage and from argument 2 that supporting anything else will devalue the entire purpose of supporting heterosexual marriage. Therefore heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to and support.



1. What about the children who have no family?

I can see where you're coming from about heterosexual marriages and procreating/increasing the population but what about the babies and children who are forced into foster care? Most if not half of them are rejected by their parents simply because a, they couldn't afford to feed another mouth or b, just because they didn't want it. Now those minors are put into a position of no one wanting them. How many couples do you see saying to themselves that they want to adopt a child? The numbers aren't a lot if you look at it. Now here's where the homosexual marriages come in. It's because of the fact that they can't have children that they are presented with the opportunity to adopt those unwanted children. They now have a home where they can learn values that are considered important like love and friendship, trust and respect for everyone.

2. Why should we benefit homosexual marriages?

You are exactly right in the fact that a homosexual marriage does nothing for the state as a whole. But if you looked at the comparisons of a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual marriage divorce rating, it's relatively lower then that of a opposite-sex couple. More than 50% of married couples in America get divorced. Studies show that the US has one of the highest divorce rates compared to other countries. Allowing gays the opportunity to get married will increase marriage rates because less couples will get divorced due to incompatibility or infertility.
It also has no effect on the heterosexual marriage community either. In New York, thousands of gay couples have already gotten married. Manhattan is expecting $9 million revenue during the first year that marriage was legalized. Sure, the economic boost is a plus..but the reality is that millions of gay partners already practice monogamous, loving relationships in the United States. The trouble is that they are not legally protected as married couples, even though their lifestyle mimics marriage! Gays already practice marriage in their homes, so what's wrong with granting the LGBT community the rights they deserve?
Is it because the church says its a sin? One of the major reasons that gay marriage is currently illegal is due to the religious interpretation that " homosexual are sinners." Such a religious perspective should have no place in federal, legal matters in the US. We live a secular society that maintains secular views. The Ten Commandments do not define our legal system, so why does the religious argument "marriage is the union between a man and a women" keep so many gay couples from becoming legally married? Legalizing gay marriage will have no negative impact on religion and/ or the religious view of others, just as religion should not have any impact on the issue of gay marriage.
Not only will it take care of children who have no home, but it'll also reduce the number of adolescent suicides. One of the main reasons why teenagers are commit suicide are due to the child being bullied at their school as a result of his/her sexual orientation. The same acceptance that will come about due to legalizing gay marriage will show teens that homosexuality is accepted and respected in society. We need to explain to younger generations that being different is not a social disability, so that they will never feel the need to take their own lives because they are gay.
Debate Round No. 2



1. Now those minors are put into a position of no one wanting them. How many couples do you see saying to themselves that they want to adopt a child? The numbers aren't a lot if you look at it.

My opponet provides this information with no source. Thankfully I have found a source on the statistics. The problem is the statistics absolutely contradict what my opponet has claimed. "Adopt Us Kids" claims there are 108,000 kids waiting to be adopted[1] wile National Right to Life Committee claims that there are 2 million infertile couples waiting to adopt.[2] Clearly one can logically conclude that homosexual marriages are not needed in the reguard to adoption.

Homosexuality actually goes against the natural rights of children. We should be able to clearly conclude that a child has a natural right to being reared by both a mother and a father as that is how a child comes about naturally. By giving benefits to gay couples we discriminate against children who we are going to let be reared by a homosexual couple. By doing such we are sending a message to the state that children do not have their natural right to be raised by a mother and father. Instead we might now see an inclination again of fatherless or motherless children among heterosexual people, where we might not have seen otherwise. It is sad when certain circumstances occur where a child might end up without one parent, the other, or even parentless but it is another for a state to promote these unfortunate circumstances, and increase those possibilities.

Because you will now see the effect of fatherless and motherless children due to the message that the state is sending to its society, it will actually cotradict the so called help you claimed that the homosexual couples have given to the state. In turn even though some homosexual couples might adopt the fact of the matter is this very principle of adoption would likely send a message to the state's society that it is okay to deny your children those rights.

So because of gay marriage we will see more parentless children as we have already discussed the detrimental effects that homosexual marriage can have on the value and principles of traditional marriage (I advise you to reread argument 2 if you have forgotten), and then again we conclude that even the very adoption method you have proposed can result in parentless children. Wouldn't it be better if we just didn't provide benefits in the first place and had more children who had their natural parents by promoting the sanctity and contract of heterosexual marriage?

2. My opponet lists several ideas that divorce rates are lower among homosexual couples. I would ask why that is relevant to the topic at hand? We are trying to bring about the benefits of heterosexual couples and keep heterosexual couples together since we have both clearly concluded that these couples provide the state with vast benefits.

My opponet states that "allowing gays the opportunity to get married will increase marriage rates," but she previously said that homosexual marriage does nothing for the state as a whole. I would like to ask my oppoonet two questions. 1.) Why would we care what the marriage rates were if the actual marriages "do nothing for our state as a whole"? In other words, what is the point of keeping rates on these marriages if they serve us no purpose as you have previously stated? 2.) If homosexual marriage does nothing for us as a whole why should the state then provide it benefits? Wouldn't you agree that if you have two workers and one does much for you and the other does "nothing," the one who did something for you should get benefits of pay while the other should not?

I do not believe I have been given any kind of honest rebbutal on how benefitting gay marriage has "no effect" on heterosexual couples. Until my opponet can provide a source of statistics or logical deductions refuting my claim, I do not believe you should take my opponet's word for it. Again, until then the negative effects that I have logically deduced previously should still stand.

My opponet then goes on to provide many textbook examples of the straw man fallacy by insinuating I have ever implied that homosexual marriage should be illegal. The only arguments I have made is for benefitting heterosexual marriage while not providing benefits for homosexual marriage. In no way have I ever implied that homosexual marriage should be illegal. Again, my opponet insinuates that homosexual marriage is a religious argument when I have never mentioned God or any religion in any of my arguments. I therefore am not campelled to refute these arguments.

what's wrong with granting the LGBT community the rights they deserve?

Again I have never argued denying any rights to gay couples.
Many people say they are for benefitting gay marriage because they want equality of natural rights. However, it is untrue to say that gay people would not have the same natural rights. In fact, if anything, we are promoting the denial of natural rights to children who absolutely have a natural right to both a mother and a father by providing state benefits to homosexual marriage. A lot of people like to provide the analogy of the civil rights era to the current “gay rights” era but this would seem to be completely offensive to black people. Black people have no choice on what color their skin is yet they were completely discriminated for it. People do have a choice however on who they have sexual relations with or marry making the analogy very faulty. Conclusion: denying benefits to gay couples would not deny any rights. Afterall I have never advocated that homosexual marriage be illegal.

Finally my opponet provided no evidence for the reasoning behind teen suicide. But even if it were true my opponet gives a very oppionated solution to that problem. I would give my opinionated solution as to help these homosexual teens to identify with who they truly are and how to conquer homosexual temptations. Perhaps even how to come into heterosexual marriage that can provide benefits for the state as previously listed. Possibly even put programs in school to teach kids the troubles that gay kids go through in an attempt to stop this kind of bullying.



MinnySnowflake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, it looks as though my opponent has forfeited. I will procede to summarize the entire debate as well as provide further arguments as I have strong position on the matter and the point of my debate is to move the voter against state recognized gay marriage.

Debate Brief:

First off we found the grounds to why heterosexual marriage is benefitted in the first place. We understood that it was through procreation and rearing children which benefitted the state so in turn the state encourages it.

Secondly, I argued that benefitting gay marriage hurts society through devaluing traditional marriage. I logically deduced that people would procreate less, get married less, or divorce more as the purpose of marriage becomes blurred by the society of the state because gay marriage directly and fundamentally defies procreation (unlike infertile marriage who only indirectly defies procreation since it is only an extraordinary occurence that prevents them from procreation).

My opponet then agreed with me that homosexual couples do nothing for the state as a whole, but then listed adoption as maybe one of the benefits. However no facts were presented in support of what I presume to be mere opinions. I rebuted her arguments with statistics to show that gay couples were not needed in adoption as there is soundly many more infertile couples looking to adopt then there are available children. I also presented the anaology of the working man. If one man provides benefits of work and the other man does not, would you not give the benefits of pay to the one who works and not to the one who does not work? I would like to further this by saying, if you gave both the men these benefits, wouldn't the one who works begin to quit working?

I also presented another argument which argued that homosexual marriage violates the natural right of children as children have a right to both a mother and a father as that is how they naturally come about. I argued that allowing homosexual couples to adopt would defy the very purpose for adoption. I did this by logically concluding that having such principles as a state would further blurr the purpose of rearing children and would lead to more divorce or situations where the family splits up and a child becomed reared by only one or neither parents which would obviously lead to a lack of development into a child compared to a family that has stayed together.

And in my opinion those were the highlights of the debate. So again, since we still have not concluded any ways that gay marriage benefits the state I would refer to my working man analogy. Clearly we can see that heterosexual marriage is the only marriage union that the state should provide benefits to.

Further commentary:

Lastly I would like to further argue against homosexual state recognized marriage. This will not exactly be factual but I believe I will present strong arguments.

Many times we hear the homosexual unions claim "love wins" but that is entirely false. What has won is not love, what has won is infatuation or lustful desire. By promoting heterosexual marriage the state sends a message to its society that we should love everyone who is part of the state and not just those whom we desire. The state says that we should love everyone equally but only that we should marry someone who it is proper for someone to procreate with. Not with someone we only love. Afterall, I love my mother, I love my father, I love my sister, I love my guy best friend, I love my dog, however that does not mean I should marry any of them. Rather, I should marry someone in which it is proper for me to procreate with.

With the state starts sending such a message we can further see that the state would become united. If the state sends a message that we should only love those that we become infatuated with we will not see a state united but I would argue that we would see a state divided as we have already concluded previously that many families would become devided especially as they lose their sense on what the purpose of marriage is for.


MinnySnowflake forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
Its because the mods delete everyone's votes. No one is interested in voting :/
Posted by SkyLeach 2 years ago
drat, I would have voted on this if I hadn't been afk

Clearly Pro won the debate, no matter what previous opinion anyone had.

Sucks that this turned out as a tie, like so many others, due to a lack of votes.
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
Just reminding you guys that it is now the voting period and all my arguments have been posted.
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
I understand. Well I would like you to tune into this debate and vote. just remember vote for the one who argues better. Not the one you hold a position towards.
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
no offense, but I will not be debating this with you.
it's not out fear or dislike though.
it's just that my activities on the site have dropped with the release of dark souls 3. this game has taken much of my attention and kinda hogs my free time. rarely have I gotten on as much as I used to.
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
You should debate me on the topic. If you think you can win that is ;) lol
Posted by WhineyMagiciann5 2 years ago
the way is should see it would be something like this...
you don't get benefits until you have/adopt or what ever with a kid.
as there have been people who have married just for tax purposes
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
I've handily refuted the majority of what you have already proposed. Benefitting gay marriage is a form of socialism since we are benefitting people to do what they want to make them happy rather than benefitting someone who actually benefits the state. Banning infertile couples or making benefits go to those who only procreate is not practical. Also infertile couples do not directly defy the laws of nature. they do not directly defy the purpose or principle of procreation because their circumstance is an extraordinary one. But homosexuals can never reproduce regardless of their circumstance and do defy the entire purpose and principle of benefitting marriage. If my opponent brings this up, I hope the voters judge according to the comment section in the fact that I'm now having to debate more than one person. However, I think I'll still be able to reasonably and easily refute my opponent if he or she does bring this topic up.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 2 years ago
I think most of us here can agree that the general public concern regarding gay marriege isnt about the benefits given by the state to encourage reproduction, but the whole concept of individual freedom to do as you wish (marry a person of the same sex), and the social context surtounding marriege. After all, as someone pointed out, there are plenty of straight couples with no interest in having kids that still get married. Its not just about the civics, its about the social meaning.

But the point being discussed here seems to be the economic benefits that come with marriege, not the act or celebration itself. Its true that, on its inception, the whole idea of the tax benefits was meant to encourage these so called "family values". But my critic to that point is that, disregarding the whole marriege issue, if the state indeed wanted to encourage the breeding and nursing of children, why benefit married couples instead of, idk, benefiting those people that are actually raising kids? Since there are plenty unmarried people (unmarried couples and single parents) raising kids without benefits while there are several straight married couples that are not even planning to do so, why not give the former the benefits of the latter, instead of bitching about gay marriege.
Furthermore, havent you heard about this new things called adoption and in vitro fertilization with surrogate mothers ? Its not like gay people have no way to reproduce if they want to, we arent in the 1900s anymore.

You dont have to adress this before your debate, or at all. Just leaving it for those who want to debate further.
Posted by beanall 2 years ago
I completely understand what you are saying but with all due respect I'm going to try. I entered the political field because I love my country from the bottom of my heart. I see this country taking a down hill turn as it is turning against the laws of nature. When you turn against the laws of nature, nature will bite you back for reasons I have listed in the debate. I will never stop fighting for what is right even if it leaves me jobless. Many have told me what you have explained and that I'm never going to get through to people because the average person cannot put the arguments I present together just as you have stated. However, I remain optimistic and I have faith. I will stand for my principles as a man for what I know is right and what is best for my country. Life is Only a short while lived and everything you have can be taken from you, even your life. But what can never be taken from you is the impact you make while alive. People can never ever take that away.
No votes have been placed for this debate.