The Instigator
Pro (for)
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Homosexuality is Natural and gay marriage should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,016 times Debate No: 13278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)




To call Homosexuality unnatural is an understandable argument from ignorance but is it factual? *See movie:

Biologically it is not a dead end as It helps with population control, a problem that we are facing today. If the human population outgrows the agricultural limitations there will be mass starvation, disease, war, etc) Animals with Homosexual tendencies are less likely to pass on their Genes thus having fewer or no offspring taking a total off the environment in the long run whilst they contribute to the species. Think of it, People could marry whom they loved without fear of a negative lash-back from society. Not only could they be in loving stable relationships but they will reduce the strain the growing population puts on the environment and think of all the orphan kids who could find homes with two loving parents. Not to mention that without the discrimination homosexuals can go out and peruse their career goals and perhaps create initiatives or find solution to the problems we face (mainly environmental in my eyes, but it can also be social or technological, etc.) I'd rather let a gay couple get married and live their lives to the fullest without discrimination then force believes that they do not hold nor should they have to on their lives.

Socially, by not portraying Gay marriage as acceptable False feelings of guilt and regret are thrust upon teens that can not control their sexual preference. They either have to pretend to be strait to appease society and take a wife passing on the homosexual gene or commit suicide (There have been documented cases of teens committing suicide because of sexual preference and society being intolerant) I'd assume there is even more undocumented cases where the teens don't want to burden their families with the knowledge of their perceived "perverted" sexual preference. I'd like to pass the notion that portraying "same sex marriage as an ideal for " same sex couples would improve the quality of their lives. Lead to less suicides, and lessen the growth rate of the human population thus reducing the stress we put on the environment Via agriculture and transportation thus buying us some time to find better "green" alternatives to better the quality of life for all humans.

As far as the traditional form of marriage always being a "Child-Focused institution" Obviously Sex lead to children. But Marriage was very different when it started than it is today. For one Woman didn't really get a say. Women were property to be owned. Family's would show off their daughters and marry them off to make ties to other families (Like a business contract) be it for wealth or status (This was very common in the Victorian Era) Sadly even in the bible Marriage was not restricted to one man and one woman.. King Solomon had (as indicated in 1st kings 11:1-3) around 700 wives and 300 concubines (A concubine is a fancy word for Sex slave) and incest was fine up until the times of Moses. (If God created Adam and Eve and they populated the world… think about it.. then to Noah's ark.. His family also had to re-populate the word post flood) Furthermore saying that marriage is Child based does this mean that Marries between couple who don't have kids (either by choice or accident, or infertility) Shouldn't be allowed to be married? Is it somehow less valuable? Marriage has evolved over the years at one point interracial marriage was illegal. Now days not only can women choose who they marry but they can do so without worries of the color of skin. Seriously though how does another persons Marriage de-value yours if they are gay? We have the age of consent for a reason. (So pedophiles don't get away with forcing kid into relationships) Incest often leads to perverse side effects in the offspring so that should just be common sense to have a law against it. And heck with divorce rates as they are in both religious and non-religious situations heterosexuals aren't doing a bang up job of keeping the union sacred.

As long as we prevent Homosexuals from getting married (or as long as we discriminate against them for being married which is basically racism just focusing on sexuality rather than race) we are implying that they are lesser people and that there is something wrong with what they are doing (when all the evidence points to it being a natural phenomenon, one that could if accepted actually benefit society) Then Equality is not there. We are imposing a belief system which even Christian denominations cannot agree upon on the rest of society. If this is our logic then Atheistic marriages should hold no value because Marriage should be a religious thing. In reality religion does not own marriage society does. And Society has come a long way since it began, hopefully we can get over this homophobic attitude soon and see our children look back in the history books in shock that people could be so narrow minded and discriminate against their fellow man and woman simply because of sexual preference.

To stop two mature consenting adults who love each other from getting married because you deem it to be immoral in your belief system and thus deny the right to equality as has been done in the past to people of different race and gender is in my eyes a horrific act of fear and selfishness that can be accredited to nearly any discrimination in the dark pages of human history. I do however recognize that this is not the intent that people who oppose gay-marriage hope to put forward, this is not your intent. I want you to know that I think Highly of you and recognize that the reason why you are opposed is simply because of your religious (and quite possibly political) convictions and upbringing, or at least this is what I perceive. This I can understand and even relate to in a very large degree but it does not make your stance right or moral for that matter (although, and parts of modern morality is subjective I can understand why you perceive it to be). Since the leading evidence point to genes being a key factor in sexual preference we can assume that the Gay bashing in the bible was not the will of an all loving just God, at least not until you can think of an adequate reason why such a God would purposefully create homosexuality with full knowledge that man would pick up homosexual tendencies via genes, and then make it a crime punishable by death. Would loving God commit such a malicious act?


I'll put my opponent's case into points plus my refutation so it's easier to follow

=On Case=

1. Video about natural vs unnatural homosexuality

-> Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because correlative statistics point in one direction doesn't mean that it's the actual cause. The gene theory is still unproven, so don't accept it as scientific fact.
-> Just because an action shows up in nature doesn't mean it is the natural way for humans to behave. Killing happens all the time in nature, but we wouldn't say that killing is a rational act to act on. Of course there are legitimate reasons for killing (different issue) but animals lack rationality whereas humans have this capability, so we can deduce right vs wrong action

2. Over-population – homosexuality prevents this

-> First, this argument is completely non-unique. We have homosexuality so according to my opponent's logic we shouldn't have over-population. But if you don't buy that:
-> Second, over-population is a fallacious harm. Population is actually in a process of a global decrease of population: Longman 3/27 Phillip Longman is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of ``The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do about it.", March 27, 2009, "Headed toward extinction?"Darwinism presupposes, and modern biology teaches, that all organisms breed to the limit of their available resources. Yet starting in the world's richest, best-fed nations during the 1970s,and now spreading throughout the developing world, we find birthrates falling below the levels needed to avoid long-term, and in many instances, short-term, population loss. The phenomenon has spread beyond Europe and Asia to Latin America. Brazil, a land once known for its celebration of dental-floss bikinis and youthful carnival exuberance, is an aging nation that no longer produces enough children to replace its population. The same is true of Chile and Costa Rica. Joining them over the next 10 to 20 years, the U.N. projects, will be many other countries Americans still tend to associate with youth bulges including Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya and Morocco. Think we need to build a wall on the southern border? Birthrates have declined so quickly in Mexico that its population of children younger than 15 has been in freefall since 2000 and is expected to drop by one third over the next 40 years. The spread of childlessness Fertility remains high in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is falling there, too, even as infants and children die by the millions. In Sierra Leone, for example, the average woman bears more than five children, but nearly one in six die before reaching age 5 and fewer yet make it to reproductive age. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates. Under what the U.N. considers the most likely scenario, more than half of all remaining growth comes from a 1.2 billion increase in the number of old people, while the worldwide supply of children will begin falling within 15 years. With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall. In the USA, where nearly one fifth of Baby Boomers never had children, the hardship of vanishing retirement savings will be compounded by the strains on both formal and informal care-giving networks caused by the spread of childlessness. A pet will keep you company in old age, but it is unlikely to be of use in helping you navigate the health care system or in keeping predatory reverse mortgage brokers at bay. Even countries in which women have few career choices are not immune from the spreading birth dearth and resulting age wave. Under the grip of militant Islamic clerisy, Iran has seen its population of children implode. Accordingly, Iran's population is now aging at a rate nearly three times that of Western Europe. Maybe the middle aging of the Middle East will bring a mellower tone to the region, but middle age will pass swiftly to old age. China, with its one-family-one-child policy, is on a similar course, becoming a 4-2-1 society in which each child supports two parents and four grandparents. Where does it end? Demographers once believed that only as countries grew rich would their birthrates decline. And few imagined until recently that birthrates would ever remain below replacement levels indefinitely. To suppose the opposite is to presuppose extinction. 'An avoidable liability' Yet we see sub-replacement fertility remaining entrenched among rich countries for more than two generations and now spreading throughout the developing world as well. For the majority of the world's inhabitants who no longer live on farms or rely on home production, children are no longer an economic asset but an avoidable liability. At the same time, the spread of global media exposes people in even the remotest corners of the planet to glamorous lifestyles that are inconsistent with the sacrifices necessary to raise large families. In Brazil, birthrates dropped sequentially province by province as broadcast television became available. As the number of women of reproductive age falls in country after country, world population is acquiring negative momentum and thus could decline even if birthrates eventually turn up.

Longman's analysis proves over-population false. Therefore my opponent doesn't access the benefit of decreasing population.

3. Prevention of back-lash and Discrimination

-> He gives you no warrant as to why this would be true, it's simply an assertion.
-> But further I would say that making homosexual marriage legal would actually create more backlash. This is true because it would galvanize far-right extremists since they would view legalization as a very threat on their own world-view. Perception is key when discussing backlash arguments. Since far-right extremists would view this aas a blow to their own agenda they would resort to more violence and hate. Therefore I've effectively link turned the Pro's supposed benefit. By negating you prevent more backlash.

4. Passing of gene or committing suicide

-> Remember, the gene theory hasn't been proven true. Moreover we don't know if it can be passed down anyway. His argument is based on unproven facts and unwarranted assertions.
-> For the suicide argument, this doesn't require making gay marriage legal. Education on acceptance of gay people could be taught, etc. This is more calling for a mitigation of prejudice than it is revamping marriage statutes.
-> He argues that less suicides lead to less population growth….(I'm not advocating suicide) but that doesn't make causal sense. If more people kill themselves we would have less people, not more people.

=Off Case=

1. Counter-Plan

A) Expand Civil Union Legislation to All States
B) Allow Homosexual Adoptions
C) Allow tax exemptions for those who do adopt

This counter-plan competes with the Pro's plan in that it doesn't make gay MARRIAGE legal. Insofar as there is a legal distinction between marriage and civil unions then my plan is mutually exclusive with the Pro.

Advantage of the Plan

More popular than the Pro, so less backlash.

1. According to USAToday, civil unions are more popular than gay marriage 54% compared to 40%. This results in less societal backlash than affirming and more accpetance in society. Thus I access 100% of the Pro's benefits. Insofar as this is true the Pro has no unique benefits to compel a Pro vote. This means they have fled to meet burden of proof.

2. Civil Unions have more support from religious organizations and institutions, according to CNN in 2008. This reduces the chance of religious backlash against the homosexual community.

Bottomline: his plan results in more harm to his position and leads to more discrimination. C
Debate Round No. 1


1) Gene theory) True the Gene theory is yet to be conclusively proven so to fully accept the theory would be intellectually dishonest, but since the majority of the findings not only support but indicate that Genes play a crucial role you cannot simply dismiss it until it has been proven 100%. Since Homosexuality does occur in nature its does mean it's a natural thing. Just as death, killing, etc are natural. Killing in nature is far different than in human society. When a bird kills a fish it does so out of necessity to survive, we humans have cruelty where we kill for pleasure. Should we humans accept homosexuality? If we argue that since we are the only rational beings (which is incorrect as animals like elephants are also very intelligent creatures) then lets be rational. Pointless killing harms a society so it is bad, discrimination against people via gender, race, and sexual preference does not benefit society either it simply causes divisions.

2. Over-population) My claim was not that homosexuality will prevent overpopulation entirely but it will help reduce the rate of population growth which will give us needed time to find solutions to problems we face with overpopulation for instance the need for better food systems. Much of our modern agriculture is dependant on fossil fuels for packaging, transport, harvesting, fertilizers.. not to mention the waste involved. As fossil fules are a finite resource we are setting ourselves up to fail. Over-population will be fallacious if we do not adapt current practices. My opponent seems to misunderstand the difference between the rate of growth and a decrease in population. True the Population growth rate is decreasing (people are having less children) but this measures the rate of population, not the population itself. Population is growing exponentially. While education and safe sex practices may have lead to a decreased rate of growth it isn't shrinking. Allowing gay marriages will not only help to further reduce the growth rate, but it will also allow people to live their lives to the fullest and thus allow them to contribute to society as discrimination will not be an issue.

3. Prevention of back-lash and Discrimination) Of course there will be backlash. One must only look at history to see that this will happen. People of color were discriminated against in America not to long ago and in some cases there is still the echoes of said backlash. Just because there is a possibility of a backlash by the discriminators does not mean we should not move forward. If we were too worried about backlash people of colour would be lower class citizens, women would still not have the right to vote, etc. Look at more modern criticisms of different religions. Islam has had more people criticize it in regards to free speech, there's backlash but its worth it when your pointing out a wrong. The Risk of a backlash should not warrant continued discriminations. Just because something is a threat to your world view does not mean you have to embrace it. Take Christianity Vs. Buddhism. If Christianity is right Buddhism is wrong and a threat to Christians, does this mean Buddhism should be outlawed? No. Christians simply have to learn how to interact with people that hold different ideals, this is a crucial part of growing up and maturing. Society needs to adapt as it has in the past and for all intensive purposes it will be better off.. or would my opponent like to explain why it was wrong to bring people of colour to equal status as whites?

4. Passing of gene or committing suicide) Remember even though gene theory has not been conclusively proven it is the most likely scenario based on the evidence collected. But even if Genes played no role and contrary to the evidence at hand homosexuality is simply a choice that both people and animals make, the unwarranted discrimination still instills false feelings of guilt in people. To merit this guilt homosexuality must be proven to be detrimental and harmful to people in a way that is noticeable difference than strait people and could not occur if they had been strait. While I do have assumptions in my statements my opponent does as well. The difference is mine actually use the information we have at hand in an honest way. I am also looking out for the well being of my fellow man who is being discriminated against for something's that is not wrong. Yes education and acceptance on gay marriage does indeed reduce the feelings of guilt and rates of suicide in homosexual populations as long as there is discrimination and inequality the problem is still there. Allowing gay marriage will further reduce inequality, and make it more socially acceptable. Since marriage status has been "Revamped" in the past I don't see an issue with doing it again. My argument is not that less suicide = less population growth, I'll assume my opponent misinterpreted my writing rather than deliberately twisted my words (I apologize if I was unclear) My argument is that allowing same sex marriage will A) improve the quality of the homosexuals lives B) Reduce the false notions of guilt and thus reducing the suicide rate. C) Lessen the current population growth rate D) give us much needed time and manpower to find sustainable alternatives to current practices. In no way does less suicide lead to a lower population growth rate these are separate issues. As Gay marriage would be acceptable gay men who are forcing themselves (or planning to) in strait relationships and bearing children will stop thus reducing the birth rate.

5) addressing the "Counter-Plan"
A) Expand Civil Union Legislation to All States) A worthy and progressive step yes but it still does not address the inequality that homosexuals face as they are not allowed to wed. B) Allow Homosexual Adoptions) Good idea, further expand it by allowing married homosexual couples to adopt children. C) Allow tax exemptions for those who do adopt) Good idea

This counter plan is a step in the right direction but it still needs to progress further to deal with the discrimination and inequalities that homosexuals face in today's society. While it is true that civil unions are more easily accepted than gay marriage the risk of backlash should not hinder the rights of homosexuals. Religion should not have the say on the lives of the non-religious. Why should an unbeliever have to submit to religious rules? I'm not saying that such rules are negative but that the traditional rules need not be followed by those not committed to the religion.

Societies that discriminate often face consequences; often the mistakes are due to short sightedness and the inability to recognize or deal with social, economic, and environmental issues. Often it is a combination of the three. I'd like to push forth the notion that one of the admirable traits of humanity, one that has helped our race advance is the desire for equality (A social aspect), the desire to have a world without discrimination. Society has moved forward and gotten passed the issues of race and gender. We still have a good ways to go before discrimination can be eradicated and Equality to reign. And although man has become less discriminatory there's still a long ways to go before we overcome that problem.

My hope is that mankind can change rapidly. While we may or may not be there to see the eradication of discrimination, we can be the ones to stand firm, and seek out equality despite whatever personal convictions we or society may hold. We can be the generation that history recognizes as the one that further advanced human equality paving the way for our children, and our children's children, to move on towards the inevitable change it needs to survive.

I have hope in our race, that we might seek justice, peace, and the well being of others and place it above our own desires to further advance our kind. This kind of sacrifice makes us heroic; This kind of sacrifice is nee


=On Case=

1.Gene Theory

--> He concedes that t isn't 100% true, but he argues that thats whee the evidence lies. Extend the argument about "Correlation doesn't imply causation". Unless he can prove a cause not just a statistical correlation, then don't use this as a way to vote Pro. Any parts of his arguments that rely on the gene theory as a warrant you can disregard because it lacks sufficient justification. But even if you buy the gene theory it doesn't link to any benefits anyway, so its not important.

--> I concede the argument about it being natural, but my opponent doesn't understand the distinction between intelligence and rationality. Rationality is a specific type of intelligence where the agent can deduce, through a mental process or induce, a conclusion based not on simply what "is" but what "should/ought." It is an interpretation of facts. Therefore we must evaluate all arguments based in a rational view point.

2. Over-population.

--> First, in both speeches, he doesnt give you any statistic to warrant how much homosexuality would reduce the growth rate via population. His logic has no links at all. Because we have homosexual marriage, people and society will consume and grow less?

-> Second, he claims growth and not population. But his argument only leads to the impact of growth via over-population and birth rates. If the birth rate increases than we will consume and grow more. Growth and birth are intrinsically linked. Since I've proven a global decrease in population, then there will, by extension, less growth and consumption. Extend the Longman evidence.

3. Back-lash

-> He completely misses the point i made in my last round about back-lash. He brought up in the beginning that allowing gay marriage would make society more accepting of homosexuals which wold result in less societal back-lash. Then I responded by turning his link. With homosexual marriage, the far-right extremists would view their agenda as being threatened. This would only further galvanize violent action against homosexuals. This links to the counter-plan in that I solve the harm of back-lash. This mitigates his point about back-lash should not warrant continued discrimination. I solve, he doesn't.

4. Suicide

-> He doesn't respond to my argument that affirming his plan of homosexual marriage and stopping suicide are not inherently linked. There are other methods like education to stop discrimination within society. Moreover, he doesnt warrant as to why marriage would stop suicides, he just asserts that claim.

-> Again point about growth rate is unwarranted, refer to argument #2

=Off Case=

1. Counter-plan

-> He argues that the CP is a step in the right direction but says it doesn't solve inequality and right disproportionment. The CP solves ALL the inequalities. He never mentions any rights that are still infringed under the CP.

-> He then goes on to say that stopping backlash isn't a reason to support the plan. Yes it is. Insofar as im giving homosexuals the same legal protections under the CP then the CP competes with the plan. However the CP is better because it has the advantage of preventing backlash because it is statistically more popular. So in a formula was have:

Pro's Plan = 1 (benefits of marriage)
Counter-Plan = 1 (same benefits as marriage, just with a different name) + 1 (stops backlash) = 2 benefits

2 benefits are better than 1, vote Con

=Important Extensions from my first speech=

1.Longman Evidence kicks the advantage of growth of consumption

2. Backlash analysis turns my opponents position against him

3. Counter-plan does the exact same thing as Pro except gains benefit of mitigating backlash
Debate Round No. 2


If you look at the scientific process many accepted theories are not 100% proven. Likewise the gene theory in regards to homosexual behaviors is not 100% proven but the evidence highly suggests it. It is safe to assume that the mostly likely answer is indeed the correct answer so long as you keep researching and do not attempt to block new information that could discredit the current stance. Gene theory is the most likely scenario based on the evidence at hand my opponent seems to think that because its not 100% proven he can take the answer that is least likely and backed not by evidence but by personal convictions.. This is not academically honest. While gene theory may not give benefits it would prove that homosexual tendencies are a natural phenomenon in which people have about as much choice as they do in deciding their eye colour, and yet people still discriminate

My opponent assumes that I don't understand the difference between intelligence and rationality. A rational interpretation of the facts brings us to one stance "gene theory is not proven but it is the most likely answer based on the evidence we have accumulated, while it is possible that homosexuality could be a choice there is no evidence to back it up, in fact the evidence we have suggests the opposite. Because of this choice is the less likely alternative." Until further knowledge is gained we cannot claim choice is just as likely for that is dishonest and hold basis only in personal convictions.

True I do not have a statistic to explain how much the growth rate in population would shrink if gay marriage was made legal, and quite frankly I wouldn't trust the statistic to be all that accurate based on the number of homosexuals in the closet. Common sense would lead to reason that if the false feelings of guilt and immorality were removed and discrimination was not a factor homosexuals would stop entering into heterosexual relationships in attempts to please society, family and hold to this false sense of morality (which as a side effect creates children). Since we will have homosexual couples the side effect of children will be eliminated. If we have people unhindered by discrimination improving the quality of their life they will be able to contribute more to society. As side effects the growth rate will shrink, and we will have more time and more manpower to deal with current issues (such as environment)

My opponent claims to have proven a shrink in population. Fact: all the universities and peer-reviewed journals recognize a growing trend in the population. We are growing not shrinking. Right now the bulk of the world's resources is used by a minority of the population. In 1999 there was about 6 billion people on earth. Conservative estimates suggest we will have about 9 billion in the year 2050. This specific Stat was taken from William Nortons "Human geography the 6th edition". Addressing the issues in this system will help us to consume less. Getting rid of centralized agriculture would reduce copious amounts of waste.

Backlash will be violent, but we can put laws in place and deal with those who break it to discourage violence. Historically this works, there is a cost and it takes time, but the end result is worth it. by putting more systems in check to help protect the rights of individuals we can prevent some of this violence. Look up your history about colored people in America.

The issue of suicide will not be solved only by gay marriage but it needs the aspects of education to stop discrimination. It would be hypocritical to say we should stop discrimination yet still discriminate on the right to marry. Marriage will help stop discrimination because it will bring equality.

To say that the Counter-plan solves all inequality is dishonest. It allows heterosexual couples to marry and not homosexual ones. This is a form of inequality. Yes my opponent is working on some of the inequality and to that he deserves some respect, however, he does not address it all. I am simply calling for him to elaborate on the CP and make it better by reducing even more inequality. Having the benefits of marriage is different than having marriage. Gay couples know this. Gay couples want the ability to marry if they choose thus having equal rights. Backlash can be dealt with by laws. Frankly if we do not address the discrimination that leads to backlash we are ignoring crucial parts of the issue.

My opponents counter plan is respectable as it does attempt to reduce the amount of inequality that homosexuals face. The problem with it, is that it does not eliminate all of it. Gays still can't marry under it because of a threat of violence. This threat should not be tolerated. This threat needs to be addressed, confronted, and abolished, not appeased. There is violence against gay couples under civil unions as well. Why not get rid of the violence by creating harsh laws and consequences for those who are violent and those who discriminate.

Allowing Gay marriage will reduce discrimination and benefit society. The possible positive outcomes outweigh the risks (which can be dealt with by implementing new laws to protect the rights of people). Gays should not be seen as second-class citizens. Its time to take a stand against discrimination. My opponent is on the right track but his solution has shortcomings that must be dealt with.

If we are truly to get rid of discrimination we must give equal rights to homosexuals (including the ability to marry) and protect them from any form of violence that could occur in response. Marriage alone is not the answer but it is a part of it.

Thank you for your time.


=Defensive Argument/No reason to vote off of=

1. Gene Theory

--> Even if you buy the Gene Theory argument it has no bearing on the round. Remember he needs to prove both parts of the resolution, being natural and giving sufficient reason to legal gay marriage.

--> His only response is that since it's natural people should not discriminate. He gives you no reasons as to why legalizing marriage would make people less discriminatory.

--> Bottomline on the Gene argument: no unique impact, doesn't warrant a Pro vote

2. Intelligence vs. Rationality

--> He misinterprets my argument. My argument is that as rational beings we can overcome out natural desires through rational analysis, something non-human animals lack.

--> But still, no reason to vote off this argument.

3. Over-population and over-growth

--> He makes an assertion without giving any sufficient warrant. "True I do not have a statistic to explain how much the growth rate in population would shrink if gay marriage was made legal" Then he goes on to say that removing discrimination would bring people out of the closet which would help provide a stat. HE STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY REASON WHY LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE LEADS TO LESS DISCRIMINATION. (not yelling, just emphasizing). But later on I'll prove how he exacerbates it.

--> He gives you no empirical warrant, or probability as to how many closeted gays marry. The link he makes is nebulous and unwarranted to be a sufficient argument.

--> He tries to counter my global population argument by claiming anther author, William Nortons, who claims that the population will increase to 9 billion in 2050. I did a google search and didn't find anything of the sort. I'm not claiming he made it up but I couldn't find it anywhere. So prefer my Author and piece of evidence which provides clear casual links as to how and why the population and thus rate of growth and consumption is on a decline.

--> No reason to vote Pro here either.

=Offensive Arguments/Reasons to vote off of=

1. Violent Backlash.

--> He says we can implement other laws to mitigate the violence. I agree education and laws can be implemented. But the violence and backlash caused in the short-term by right-wing extremists gives a clear reason to reject the legalization of gay marriage. Loss of life from violence is irreversible, I outweigh on the harms. For the protection of homosexuals in the US it is necessary to reject gay marriage and promote civil unions. The Counter-Plan solves this, vote Con.

2. Counter-Plan

--> His only argument is that it is still unequal to have civil unions and gay marriage. Remember, he has conceded that the Counter-Plan gives all the same rights. So basically his argument is based on semantics and language. Since "civil union" is a different term than "marriage" then it is unequal. First I would say the benefit of mitigating short-term backlash and violence outweighs any semantical inequality. But second, semantical inequality isn't inequality a all since language changes and definitions change. The objective substance that we are debating is the same in both marriages and civil unions. The 14th Amendment protects rights, not names and labels.

--> Vote Con on the Counter-Plan.

A) It gives equal rights
B) As proven in above speech is popular within society which mitigates backlash - Con protects more homosexuals from violence.
C) The Pro lacks any offensive/reason to vote arguments. Even if you buy some of his defensive arguments, it has no bearing on theround since the links are nebulous to making gay marriage legal.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
me meant what he said.*
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
This was good.

@Yurlene - that's what he meant.
Posted by Yurlene 7 years ago
Sexual preference? Er.. No... Its sexual orientation... Sexual preference implies bisexuality, "preferring one sex over another."
Posted by Esuric 7 years ago
Pro's initial argument, in the first paragraph, only makes sense if we (a) assume that the government should have a say in marriage at all, (b) if homosexuality, a sexual preference, is indeed genetically determined, and (c) if overpopulation was really a problem.
Posted by theudas 7 years ago
theudas (If you google "human geography sixth edition norton" this is the first page you should get. It shows you the text book. I use academic peer reviewed resources. You really can't trust everything out on the web as it is a commons. Like Wikipedia anyone can add to it. Its fine to get basic ideas or news articles so long as you back it up with peer reviewed sources. If you can't access or don't want to pay for academic search engines or textbooks, Try Its Google's attempt at creating a Scholarly search engine.
Posted by CiRrK 7 years ago
Correction: His source is simply under - Human Geography (not Human Geography 6th edition). If anyone wants to refer to it
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by CiRrK 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by fisher 7 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:43 
Vote Placed by WhoDaFoo4 7 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 7 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05