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

Resolved: On Balance, Gay Marriage is Good

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: 5/20/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 75590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Acceptance only in Round 1.

No trolling.
Drops = Concessions

good:to be desired or approved of
gay: homosexual


I accept. Good luck to my opponent. I assume BOP is split 50/50.

Debate Round No. 1



THis debate is not about a gay marriage ban; it is if gay marriage is good or not relative to heterosexual marriage.

According to studies by Mark Regnerus,
"The data collection was conducted by Knowledge Networks (or KN), a research firm with a very strong record of generating high-quality data for academic projects. Knowledge Networks recruited the first online research panel, dubbed the
KnowledgePanel, that is representative of the US population. Members of the KnowledgePanel are randomly recruited by telephone and mail surveys, and households are provided with access to the Internet and computer hardware if needed."
Proving the study is unbiased.

"The NFSS completed full surveys with 2988 Americans between the ages of 18 and 39."<

Had a much larger test group than those previously done. Previous studies would have , say, 30 families.

This graph is the results. Children who have gay parents are much worse off, including worse education, employment, and were sexually harassed by an adult much more often.

"A 2008 "meta-analysis" reviewed over 13,000 papers on this subject and compiled the data from the 28 most rigorous studies. Their conclusion was: "LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation,
substance misuse and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people."

This proves, that on balance, gay marriage is bad.

"In 2009, a gay newspaper reported, "Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data ."

"Although not as dramatic, similar problems are also found among lesbians. In 2007, a medical journal reported, "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV [bacterial vaginosis] compared with heterosexual women.Although not as dramatic, similar problems are also found among lesbians. In 2007, a medical journal reported, "Women who identified as lesbians have a 2.5-fold increased likelihood of BV [bacterial vaginosis] compared with heterosexual women."

"In fact, a study of 229 convicted child molesters in Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual."63 Since almost thirty percent of child sexual abuse is committed by homosexual or bisexual men (onethird male-on-male abuse times 86% identifying as homosexual or bisexual), but less than 3% of American men identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual,64 we can infer that homosexual or bisexual men are approximately ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men."

Gay marriages allow for gay couples to molest children more, which is a fact that is proven.

Children need both parents to do well.


Gay marriage, is on balance, worse off for the kids


So I would like to thank my opponent for the debate. I understand and agree to debate: it is if gay marriage is good or not relative to heterosexual marriage.

It is easy to demonstrate if there is a consensus among sociologists on this point. I’m sure you’re saying show me the evidence. The American Sociological Association (ASA) founded in 1905, with more than 13,000 members, including most sociologists holding doctoral degrees from accredited universities, state there is a consensus on this issue and concluded in their amicus brief to the Supreme Court children of same sex couples did just as well as other children.

Pro’s points for Round 2: Reasons to approve of

(a) Marriage has been redefined so that we can choose our spouses freely and couples have access to important legal and economic protections.

(b) Our constitution protects our right to pursue happiness. Finding love and getting married is part of that pursuit.

(c) Our society is better off when more of us are in stable, loving relationships that we choose.

(d) Marriage is the highest form of displaying commitment and love in our society.

(e) Weddings, gift registries and honeymoons help create millions of jobs for Americans and infuse billions into our economy.


(Q): If Larry King has the freedom to be married seven times—shouldn’t a gay couple that has been together 30 years be able to get married once?

Even stalwart conservatives like Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney agree:

Here is Dick Cheney:

I think freedom means freedom for everybody and you ought to have the right to make whatever choice you want to make with respect to your own personal situation. I certainly don't have any problem with it [gay marriage].

~ Fmr. Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, during an interview on "The View", September, 2011

Bill O’Reilly:

The compelling argument is on the side of the homosexuals. That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans and we just want to be treated like everyone else.... New York has [gay marriage] now. I live in New York, New York has it, I'm fine with it. I want all Americans to be happy, I do.

~ Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, March, 2013

Right now, Con’s position hinges on the evidence presented. Thankfully, for me the evidence comes Mark Regnerus, whose own department at the University of Texas-Austin disavowed the study, noting it “was fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds.” Perhaps Con failed to take the minimal step of typing in his name on Wikipedia, because if Con had then he would have realized how ridiculous using such a discredited figure is in an actual debate.

The second source Con is a graph that cites figures from Regnerus, again not a neutral or reliable source.

The other sources Con uses are equally ridiculous; they are both publications from the Focus on the Family, a right-wing religious group, whose sole purpose is to spout hate and religious bigotry. Here is what the founder of this organization had to say about same-sex marriage:

"[The homosexual] agenda includes teaching pro-homosexual [sic] concepts in the public schools, redefining the family to represent "any circle of people who love each other," approval of homosexual adoption, legitimizing same-sex marriage, and securing special rights for those who identify themselves as gay. Those ideas must be opposed, even though to do so is to expose oneself to the charge of being "homophobic." – "Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide" by James Dobson

Con has not advanced his argument; the evidence doesn’t allow anyone to make the inference made, since the evidence is drawn exclusively from discredited academic studies and religious fanatics groups. So, Pro has nothing else to say until Con uses credible material and not easily debunk sources. Con has yet to contribute a single thing to the debate.

accessed 22 May 2015,

‘Dick Cheney: “I Certainly Don’t Have Any Problem With” Gay Marriage’, Huffington Post, 13 November 2011,

‘Bill O’Reilly Calls Gay Marriage Opponents “Bible Thumpers,” Seemingly Reversing Stance (Video)’ (The Hollywood Reporter), accessed 22 May 2015,

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Pro.


Pro attacks my sources, calling them biased. However, Pro does not state how the methodology is flawed in any way for any of the studies. So therefore my FRC source and Regnerus are still valid, as I clearly showed a large sample size, and unbiased methodology of conducting the study.

Many sociologists conclude that children biologically need both parents.

"Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to be physically or sexually abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit delinquent behaviors, have a decreased risk of divorcing when they get married, are less likely to become pregnant/impregnate someone as a teenager, and are less likely to be raised in poverty. ("Why Marriage Matters: 26 Conclusions from the Social Sciences," Bradford Wilcox, Institute for American Values,

Children receive gender specific support from having a mother and a father. Research shows that particular roles of mothers (e.g., to nurture) and fathers (e.g., to discipline), as well as complex biologically rooted interactions, are important for the development of boys and girls. ("Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles," 2006,

A child living with a single mother is 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than is a child living with married biological parents. A child whose mother cohabits with a man other than the child's father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious physical child abuse. ("The Positive Effects...")

In married families, about 1/3 of adolescents are sexually active. However, for teenagers in stepfamilies, cohabiting households, divorced families, and those with single unwed parents, the percentage rises above 1/2. ("The Positive Effects...")

Growing up outside an intact marriage increases the chance that children themselves will divorce or become unwed parents. ("26 Conclusions..." and "Marriage and the Public Good...") * Children of divorce experience lasting tension as a result of the increasing differences in their parents' values and ideas. At a young age they must make mature decisions regarding their beliefs and values. Children of so called "good divorces" fared worse emotionally than children who grew up in an unhappy but "low-conflict'"marriage. ("Ten Findings from a National Study on the Moral and Spiritual Lives of Children of Divorce," Elizabeth Marquardt,"

Pro can't refute these facts.

"Fathers play a particularly important role in prevention of drug use. A UCLA study concluded that, although "mothers are more active than fathers in helping youngsters with personal problems"with regard to youthful drug users, [the] father"s involvement is more important." Among the homes with strict fathers, only 18 per cent used alcohol or drugs at all. In contrast, among mother-dominated homes, 35 per cent had children who used drugs frequently."
"A Canadian study of teenagers discharged from psychiatric hospitals found that only 16 per cent were living with both parents when they were admitted. From nations as diverse as Finland and South Africa, a number of studies have reported that anywhere from 50 to 80 per cent of psychiatric patients come from broken homes."
"Children from mother-only families are more likely to marry early and have children early, both in and out of wedlock, and are more likely to divorce. Also, age at the first marriage will be lower for the children of divorced parents who marry, when sex, age, and maternal education are controlled."

It is clear that both parents are necessary. Mothers and fathers parent in different ways that are necessary for the well being of the child. Here I have presented a multitude of evidence from unbiased sources proving this. Pro never refutes these statistics.

"If Larry King has the freedom to be married seven times"shouldn"t a gay couple that has been together 30 years be able to get married once?"

I am not calling for a ban or anything- just saying that on balance, heterosexual marriages result better for the kids.

The Cinderella Effect

This is the proven fact that step parents are generally worse than biological parents. Gay parents cannot reproduce and thus are step parents, adopting kids.
"children under 5 years of age were beaten to death by their putative genetic fathers
at a rate of 2.6 deaths per million child-years at risk (residing with their fathers) in 1974-1990, while the
corresponding rate for stepfathers was over 120 times greater at 321.6 deaths per million child-years at
risk (Daly & Wilson 2001)."
"According to an analysis of the
FBI"s Supplemetary Homicide Reports (SHR) case data by Weekes-Shackelford & Shackelford
(2004), stepfathers beat children under 5 years old to death at a rate of 55.9 per million children at risk per annum, compared to 5.6 for genetic fathers. "
"Wilson et al. (1980) analyzed child abuse data from an archive collating mandated reports from jurisdictions representing about half the U.S. population at the time and found that in 1976, 279 cases of "fatal physical abuse" involved 43% of the victims and their stepparents; this data, when combined with population-at-large estimates, can suggest estimates that stepchildren incurred fatal deaths resulting from abuse at about 100 times the rate for children of the same age living with both biological parents."


Vote Pro based on facts.


As readers can see, the debate that both parties agree to was whether gay marriage was good, meaning society should approve of it. [See Con’s first Round statement, if there are any doubts].

APPROVE is key

Here what Con states he says are the definitions from Round 1:

Con focused exclusively on children but it is never obvious how this debate relates specifically to marriage. I’m not sure what Con’s argument was, given that marriage has never been defined based on whether or not the couples wanted children or not—the ability or desire to have children has never been a qualification for marriage. For instance, George and Martha Washington didn’t have children but they wouldn’t disqualify or undermine the nature or the essential nature of their marriage. There will always be both good and bad parents, no matter if they are single, married, heterosexual, or homosexual. But this has been the focus on Con’s argument.

The fact that Con’s sources are biased was the real issue. The real issue is they are garage, completely ridiculous, but thankfully, Regnerus is so discredited a simple google search of his name brings up articles, academic studies, and other publications about his discredited status as an academic. So, they weren’t just biased they were ridiculous, not worthy of the debate. This tendency to hold on to sources so thoroughly debunked is also irritating, it is a lot trying to have an argument with someone a 9/11 truther, no matter what how stupid or flimsy or ridiculous the evidence or academics they use, nonetheless they won’t budge.

Here are clipping on the methodology of Regnerus and his study Con said I couldn’t challenge Regnerus methodology—here you go[1][2][3]

Con also states:

Con I suppose then agrees with the vast majority of states where same sex-marriage is legal, currently 37 state approve of marriage equality while a minority 13 have bans or restrictions. Most states already approve of marriage equality on Constitutional grounds, and the Supreme Court is likely to rule on a 50 state solution to marriage equality at the end of this section. Con did not provide a reason why constitutionally we should think marriage is good, meaning approved of.

This brings us back to the Constitutional argument I mentioned last round, the Fourteenth Amendment says

In contrast this seems to be my opponent’s position:

Pro will simply reiterate points to approve of same-sex marriage, other than its already approved of in 37 states, and constitutionally protected:

(1) Our society is better off when more of us are in stable, loving relationships that we choose.

(2) Marriage is the highest form of displaying commitment and love in our society.

(3) Weddings, gift registries and honeymoons help create millions of jobs for Americans and infuse billions into our economy.

Con did not contest these points at all. I assume they stand. By the way, I agree with Con on one point [see Con’s last statement]

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: A.Starr // Moderator action: Removed<

1 point (conduct) to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Both had convincing arguments but I believe that homosexuality is not the way in life.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain conduct. Admitted vote based on personal bias.
Posted by Berend 3 years ago
So pro argues it is good, by definition that it is desired and accepted?
No votes have been placed for this debate.