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

Same Sex Marriage

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/21/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,486 times Debate No: 25218
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)




In my opinion, there is really no reason to deny people of the same gender to be married. The arguments against it center around religion, unnatural, and parenting.

Some argue that it goes against God to let same sex couples get married. This argument is a farce because whether or not there is a god, no one on earth can know what he/she believes. The bible only talks about homosexuality once in the OLD testament and Jesus never touched the subject. Even so, the church does not run our country nor should it. The founding fathers of USA did not like how all of Europe had the government and church intertwined. Many have stated that it would destroy the sanctity of marriage. In what way would someone's marriage be put in jeopardy by two people of the same gender being married? there is not one single right or privileged that would be lost (except for bragging rights). Those people should me more worried about divorce, "till death do you part, or until you two get bored with each other"
Another important note to make is that marriage is not strictly a religious pact. When two people are married there are several thousand legal things that happen from name changes to tax benefits. Denying same sex couples from receiving these benefits to me is like saying African Americans should not be allowed to marry Caucasians.

Many have said that homosexuality is unnatural and they apparently do not know the definition of unnatural (Not existing in nature; artificial.) There are at least 12 different species that occasionally involve themselves in homosexual activity. So this argument against homosexuality is disprove. Others also have argued that no society has ever accepted homosexuality or same sex marriage. Well not entirely. Homosexuality was very common in ancient Rome, and was seldom looked down upon. It is unclear if they had same sex marriages, but several cultures throuought history have had a sacred life long bond not unlike marriage between members of the same gender.

The last argument that I will touch on is the belief that same sex couples can not effectively raise children. This is not true at all. Several recent studies have shown that there is no evidence that same sex couples make bad parents. These studies have also shown that there is no correlation between the sexual orientation of the children, meaning that children raised by same sex couples do NOT have a higher chance of being gay in the future. Interestingly, some of the studies show that children raised by same sex couples on average perform better in school then those raised by heterosexual parents. You need to also keep in mind that this is in spite of the high risk of bullying toward children of same sex parents that occur in our schools. For all those who believe that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt because they can not give the benefits that heterosexual couples can give, I ask you should single parents be denied the ability to adopt? or widows/widowers?

In Conclusion
I have yet to hear a single argument against allowing same sex couples from being married. Religious reasons should not matter because we are not a Christian only society. It is something that is found in nature and as a result is not unnatural by definition. Same sex couples make just as good parents as heterosexual couples so denying this to people makes no sense. If someone can give me a logical, non-bias argument against same sex marriage, perhaps I could be persuaded, but unlikely.



Marriage is a secular institution; I agree god should not have effect. Though attacking an argument that the opposition never brought up is irrelevant.


Although I disagree with you, I do not think this is a good reason to oppose same sex marriage. Again, attacking a con argument con hasn’t even brought up is irrelevant.


This is actually relevant to my case. My opponent has claimed many studies claim X. This opinion is based upon many 1990s studies cited on many websites and the APA 2004 brief. Though many of these studies are riddled with problems. A July 2012 study explains all studies (except Cameron 2004) has had too small of a sample size. Many of these studies have other problems, such as non0random sampling. In these gay studies they will get wealthy homosexuals and single middle class heterosexual parents, then compare. This obviously gives a benefit to the homosexuals and their children’s outcomes. This study has concludes not one study cited by the gay agenda or the APA brief is credible [1].

My opponent will rightly point out although the APA cites a majority of these studies; this still leaves many studies credible unless proven otherwise. As stated, the majority of these studies occurred in 2001 and before. Though analysis’s on these studies extends to 2004 (Gallagher 2004). In a 2001 and 2004 study, they get similar results. All of these studies either have erroneous bias, non-random sample sizes, false comparisons (wealthy homosexuals, poor heterosexuals), or too small of a sample size to get any scientifically valid result. Other studies, rarely reported by the media and published in different journals, conclude having a mother and a father is essential. It is better if it is biological, also known as related through blood, however merely having heterosexual parents reduces the chance of many bad outcomes, such as parent molestation [1][2].

So what about counter evidence? There is a large selection of studies I can choose from. Many of them only focus on specific issues, such as molestation, but do not address the overall situation. If you look into the studies connected together we see homosexual parenting might not be a benefit or have “no difference” as my opponent has claimed. Though a recent study (again July 2012) has decided to take up the task. Basically to see if its results replicate studies in the APA brief. However, it did not reach these conclusions. Although no study is perfect, it did indeed have a better model then the other studies. He actually, instead of basic interviews and such, followed these children for a longer time. Updating the results. His results where not striking. Children raised by homosexual parents have worse statistics in almost every category when compared to heterosexuals. He used random sampling and a larger sample size. Using proper methodology goes a long way. Also, a problem gay groups argue is the marriage aspect is not controlled for (gays cannot marry). The study actually asked the participants their marital status and attempted to control for these factors. These controls yielded little change in the data. Its sample size was 3,000. Gallup polling usually uses 1000. This is more then statistically valid. Based on this we see there is little evidence to conclude that homosexuals are better parents (like some studies suggest) or have “no difference” [4].

Negative case

Most DDO users know what my argument will be. And if you want to guess before you read on, go to my bias issues list and put your mouse over the CON on same sex marriage.

My case in the debate is very important. The answer to this question will likely be able to change the course of this debate: What is marriage, and what’s the government’s reason/interest to regulate it? And when I say what is marriage, I am literally am asking what constitutes a “real” marriage. This is not my burden of proof to prove, it is really a tie, as we both need to answer this fundamental question, and the core of the modern SSM debate. If we assume same sex marriage is a right, then we can conclude prohibiting it is illegal and should be allowed. The same applies with abortion. If it is proven to be a person, it has right and becomes murder. Effectively making abortion illegal. A definition, however, is logically going to come prior to the right being a right. So, really, we need to define marriage. And our positions are clear. Unless my opponent agrees that marriage is defined heterosexually, though this would cost him the debate. He needs to do more then attack arguments I never presented (like religion, that’s a stereo type).

So, I will begin with the heart of the debate. To defend my definition of marriage, I will show heterosexuals have a unique benefit to society, which homosexuals cannot provide. There is no doubt homosexuals might be great people. I have no problem with homosexuals; I really want to make this clear. My best friends brother is gay, and my parent’s friends are gay as well. I am merely stating they should not get the privilege of marriage, (a right for heterosexuals, though).

Homosexual relationships, however, have less benefit to society or the government, which regulates the institution. In my view, heterosexuals can procreate (discussed later), this does not mean homosexuals cannot have sexual acts; their acts just cannot be included in marriage.

Heterosexual relationships can procreate and, therefore, are naturally complimentary. These unions itself provide the basis for society itself. Thus, this natural conception of marriage means heterosexuals in and of themselves are inherently more important then homosexuals. Homosexuals cannot procreate and properly and naturally consummate marriage. Society would exist whether or not homosexuals existed. Without heterosexuals society would cease to exist. Therefore, the states interest and societies interest in marriage is to create a healthy environment in which people are created and raised. The government therefore has a reason to allow and promote heterosexual union, but has no reason to allow homosexual union. Why should the government give me expensive benefits if there is no reason? I will use an analogy from my previous debate. If I saved someone’s life, they have a reason to pay me. If I am a teenager writing a gay marriage argument they have little reason to reward me. So my opponent must answer this question: why recognize homosexual marriage? This seems logically impossible to prove unless he shows equal rights or some other value to homosexuals, which would benefit the government.

Due to the way I formatted this section it was hard to add a footnote. So see source #5 for an overall reference to the negative case.

Conclusion and summary:

My rebuttals where clear. Two of them are completely irrelevant to whether or not we should ban SSM unless I bring up those points as a negative reason. His point on parenting, though, was relevant as if he proves that point he shows homosexuals still can make a healthy environment for citizens. This was refuted thoroughly. I have shown the reason marriage is defined the way it has been is to promote the states interest in procreation. Heterosexuals are inherently more important and, therefore, should be recognized in marriage. Homosexuals do not have these qualities, which fulfill a states interest and, therefore, should not be given the access to marriage.

Two things that need to be done in any SSM debate:

(1) Define marriage

(2) Show the states interest in marriage

I have fulfilled both, my opponent has not. It’s his turn now.

Also hint to him: if he can prove homosexuals can apply to the procreative interest please tell me, as if you prove homosexuals can fit into the same category my opinions would change. The key factor is if you can.


Debate Round No. 1


I very much thank my opponent for accepting the open challenge on this debate.

Before I continue, I wish to make it clear why I listed the "religious" and "unnatural" reasons in round 1. This was not a debate pointed at my opponent, it was an open debate and I did not know who would take up the challenge, I only wanted to disprove the ridiculous arguments that I have seen in the media and from many prominent pro-life members.

My opponent brings up very fair points, notably which we need to define what marriage is, and what role government has in it. I will make the case that marriage has not meant the same thing throughout history and there are multiple versions of marriage today. I believe that a sensible and just definition of marriage would be as follows

Marriage: A social contract between two individuals that unites their lives legally, economically, and emotionally. [1]

Many believe that it should only be between a Man and Woman, but that is of course the topic we are discussing. I believe that this is the most accurate definition of marriage in today's society and I disagree that marriage should be defined as only heterosexual.

My opponent disagrees with the notion that same sex couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples and he points to a recent study done by Mark Regnerus who argues that children raised by homosexual parents perform worse in almost every category when compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. There has been a fair amount of criticism over this study, including the sampling of the children in question. Fifty-eight percent of those raised by moms who'd indicated a lesbian experience said their mother once left the household during their youth, and 14 percent said they'd spent time in foster care. [2] The study did not directly compare children of same sex couples who raised the child from birth (or adopted in infancy), with children of heterosexual couples raised from birth.

I agree that this study does present evidence to contradict the notion that there is no difference between children raised by same sex couples and those raised by heterosexual couples, however it does not in my opinion give merit to the notion that same sex couples should not be allowed to raise children on the basis that single parents and divorced parents can still raise children.

Why Recognize Homosexual Marriage?
My opponent does raise a valid question, why should homosexual marriage be recognized? He also claims that it is a privilege for homosexuals but a right for heterosexuals on the basis that homosexuals cannot procreate with each other. If anyone reading is unaware of the definition of procreation it is producing children. So, we must then ask another question. Is marriage an institution created and maintained for one reason, producing and caring for children? Is that the only reason to be married? What about married couples who do not want to or are unable to have children? I believe that these questions are strongly tied together if one uses the procreation argument to justify denying consenting adults from receiving a legal document identifying them as being married.

So, let us answer the question as to why homosexual marriage should be recognized.

Constitutional: The US constitution protects one's liberty and equality. The 1978 trial Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur stated, "Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." It is true that this court case was not about SSM, but as with most court rulings the result effects more than the specific case it was judging.

Harmful when illegal: Many probably don't imagine what it is like to be told that even though you are in love with a person and wish to be together for the rest of your lives but being told by society and the government that your relationship is not recognizable. I am sure that my opponent will disagree with this comparison, but I do find it similar to when African Americans and Caucasians were not allowed to marry each other. I agree there are differences, but the emotional impact felt by couples of different ethnicities who were told they could never marry each other is felt just as heavily by homosexual couples being told their commitment to each other will never be recognized.

Adoption: My opponent feels strongly about not allowing same sex couples to raise children, but given the number of children in foster homes (near 470,000) shouldn't they be able to be adopted into a family with two same sex parents who will love them and care for them?

No adverse effect on heterosexual marriage: If we are going to ask "why recognize SSM?" we should also ask "why not recognize SSM" A study in 2009 (not very outdated) studied the impact on heterosexual marriage in states that allow SSM and found that there was no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, abortion rates, or children born out of wedlock [5]. My opponent seems to be stating that to allow same sex couples to be married would make it more difficult for heterosexual couples to be married. This is a fallacy. I challenge all readers to imagine they were happily married, and a homosexual couple across the street marry each other, what would you no longer be allowed to do?

Basic Right: My opponent stated that it is a right for heterosexual couples to be married; I believe that if it is a right to them it should be a right to homosexuals as well. When two people are married many things happen apart from a name change. Each individual is allowed to make life threatening decisions for the other or visit each other in the hospital. If a doctor were to tell the wife or husband of someone who was dying that they were not allowed to see them because they were not family, only married, there would be a great uproar. The same should be true with homosexual couples (there has been recent activity to make this legal in all states). Another important aspect of marriage is that it grants citizenship if the wife or husband is from another country. If SSM will never be legal, then I believe same sex civil unions should have all the same legal rights that marriage has.

My opponent so far has made a valid argument that we need to define what marriage is. He has also given evidence to support his claim that homosexual couples are not as good at parenting then heterosexual couples. I admit that there are challenges in two parents of the same gender raising a child, but does that mean that simply because something has an extra challenge that it should be prohibited? If the United States is indeed a country based on freedom and equal rights, then to deny someone the ability to do what most others in the country can do simply because of who they is bigoted.

5.Laura Langbein and Mark A. Yost, Jr., "Same-Sex Marriage and Negative Externalities," Social Science Quarterly, June 2009



My opponent agrees this is irrelevant and should not be counted or factored when the voters decide who won the debate.

Definition of marriage

Indeed, you have failed to justify your definition. Although I agree this definition is correct, you fail to argue why the “two people” aspect of this should be including homosexuals. I again pose this question: what is the state interest in allowing homosexual unions? I see his point on the constitution below, and it shall be refuted, however my opponent still must answer the question. What are the states interests in legalizing same sex marriage? Until this is answered, this definition cannot hold up to legal scrutiny.


I actually agree with much of my opponent’s analysis. He claims it is a criticism and a weakness to the study that lesbians where not stable. That was actually much of his conclusions. My opponent merely states this is a flaw in the sampling. No, it is not. It is much larger then national polls, and it was selective. Meaning on balance homosexuals is not stable. In his study he points this out. Not only does a lot of science prove children need a mother and a father, but homosexuals are less stable. He notes children like stability. If homosexuals cannot stay stable, they are indeed not as good parents in relation to heterosexuals. In reality, this is not a rebuttal. Basically, he said “children like stability”, and if they are given unstable situations they will not develop as well. As he concludes a large problem with homosexual parenting is the instability, this does nothing but strengthen his conclusion that homosexuals raise children wrongly [1].

Further, many studies although not directly related to parenting also refute a no differences claim. Many of them show the high levels of instability and promiscuity among homosexuals, even in areas where SSM is legal, and this instability hurts the child. Again, my opponent’s argument of instability and these studies conclusions strengthen the conclusions that Regnerus claims to have obtained. Other studies show the amount of domestic violence among homosexual couples is much higher then those in heterosexual ones. This, again, will harm the child. So finding instability in his sample sizes seems logical, and this is a large reason why homosexuals are not the preferred parents. It has also been shown even in countries where SSM is legal; substance abuse amongst homosexual couples is extremely high. This hurts the children. Further, 29% of children raised by homosexuals are sexually molested compared to 0.6% of those in heterosexual households. As we can see, using my opponent’s instability rebuttal which accomplished nothing for his case, and using other studies, we see homosexuals should not be, on average, better parents [2].

Child trends notes:

Research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a lowconflict marriage. Children in singleparent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in step families or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes . . .. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents . . ..”It is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.”[3]


Again I want my opponent to make a states interest, although what he has said is valid… until I refute it.


It is not valid to compare a court legislating between heterosexual couples. Heterosexual couples always fulfill the states interest of procreation and can form a “real” marriage, homosexuals cannot. This comparison does not help my opponent’s case. As the Harvard journal of public policy notes, “Thus, when some states forbade interracial marriage, they either attempted to keep people from forming real marriages, or denied legal status to those truly marital relationships. Conversely, if the state conferred the same status on a man and his two best friends or on a woman and an inanimate object, it would not thereby make them really married. It would merely give the title and (where possible) the benefits of legal marriages to what are not actually marriages at all.”[4]

My opponent’s argument is therefore irrelevant. Marriage is always defined, the journal later notes, “Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded.”[4]

Basically, the state only needs to enforce rights that are defined as “real”. For example, only law abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, we have defined it so criminals do not get access. As in marriage, if a real marriage is defined as one man and one woman nothing is being deprived. The right to marriage amongst heterosexuals only exists because of the ability to enter procreative type acts consummating their union. As the right only exists to promote procreation, there is no right that applies to homosexuals.


My opponent has failed to prove anything with facts. It seems as he is implying banning it means they do more suicide? As a mental burden that is caused in the way he describes seems like that may be an outcome. Care to provide more clarification?


I have shown homosexuals are not “good” parents anyway. And unless he can link gay adoption to marriage he cannot use this of relevance to the debate.

Not harmful to marriage?

Neither of the studies we will cite is out of date. Mine is from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public policy again. The study concludes, “Heterosexual marriage rules would be modified because they would be inappropriate for same-sex marriages. This feedback mechanism will make large numbers of heterosexual marriages less stable and will tend to increased divorce, which would be bad for the next generation. The key to this argument is that millennia-old marriage laws exist for a reason: to efficiently regulate incompatible incentives between husbands and wives that mostly arise over differences in biology.”[5] He cites many other examples of redefining marriage (like no-fault divorce) as well as data from other countries. His results are actually SSM hurts the procreative effect of marriage and, therefore, hurts societies interest in more population. This strengthens my point on why we should not allow SSM.


Marriage? A benefit to society: my opponent agrees with this. SSM? Hurts those marriages and therefore hurts society. And remember round two, “The government therefore has a reason to allow and promote heterosexual union, but has no reason to allow homosexual union.” (Therefore has a line through it as its irrelevant in this context)

Oh good, no equal rights are being taken away. I am not a bigot then!

Vote Con

Sources in here:

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent seemed miss the point of my rebutle. When I stated that children are better in a stable househould I was not saying that same sex couples cannot be stable. The study he showed included divorced and single parents in the SSM category. It included when one person had one homosexual encounter as being a gay parent. It is a falsehood to assume that simply because you are gay that you cannot be in a long term relationship and you cannot support a child. There are many same sex couples who have had a monogamous relationship for decades but are not married because the place they live does not allow it. If my opponent believes that children should always be kept out of unstable families, then he should probably argue that every child of a single parent should be taken away for their own benefit. Even in the case of death because it will be a bumpy road.

Benefit to society
My opponent wanted me to clarify why it is a GOOD idea for same sex couples to be able to marry. Returning to the parenting question, I ask is it more stable to be in a household that has two single parents (heterosexual) or to have two married parents (heterosexual). I believe my opponent will agree that marriage helps stabilize a couple. The same can be said for same sex couples. If they are allowed to be married, it supplies stability for them and any children they raise. When we look at states that have allowed same sex marriages, such as Massachusetts, we see a lower divorce rate among heterosexual couples. Does this mean that same sex marriage strengthens the relationships of others? Probably not but it does show unequivocally that it is not harmful. If we want to talk more about benefits, one could be that the states receive a higher revenue by allowing same sex couples to be married. This added revenue would come from added marriage licenses, higher income taxes and lower costs for some state benefit programs. Interestingly, the Comptroller of New York City calculated that its city would bring 142 million dollars in added income and 184 million for the state over 3 years[2].

My opponent, in an attempt to refute my argument on the constitutionally of SSM quoted the Harvard journal saying that denying marriage between two people of different races was just denying something that was real. The definition of a word or institution is only given validity by the people. In the eyes of many Americans, scholars and lawyers, at the time a black man marrying a white woman was not considered legal or true marriage.
Procreation argument
My opponent continues to make the argument that marriage is all about procreation so once again ask what happens when tow people are married but are unable for any reason to have children, are their marriages not valid? If your primary argument is the procreative one, then you must also be against women who lost their ability to have children being married? George Washington had no children, so was his marriage not valid?

My opponent doesn't believe that denying two people from being able to marry, or having their relationship accepted by others has 0 negative effect. The suicide rate for homosexuals is on average 3 times greater then it is among heterosexuals. Some might argue that its because gays are ashamed at themselves, or depraved. The real reason is because society does not accept them for who they are and the proof is that their relationships are not legally sanctioned since they are not allowed to be married in most states [3]. Allowing SSM would give validity to the homosexual community and suicide rates would most likely drop closer to those of heterosexuals. [4]

Not harmful to marriage
I would very much like my opponent to state what heterosexual rules must be changed and say in the debate what would be different. Does my opponent believe that marriage has not changed in millennia?
The idea that allowing same sex couples to be married would destroy the stability of other marriages is pure nonsense. When you give a legal right to one group of people you do not take the right away from others. My opponent still hasn't stated if he thinks those who cannot physically bare children should be denied marriage since his principle argument is the procreative one. I have shown that denying SSM causes harm to the gay community because it deprives them of something heterosexuals take for granted, being able to fall in love, get married and have children. Finally I want all readers to ask themselves, is it your right to tell someone else that they are not allowed to get married because of who they are or how they were born?

Vote Pro

[2] William C. Thompson, Jr., "Love Counts: The Economic Benefits of Marriage Equality for New York,", June 2007
[4]James G. Pawelski, MS, et al., "The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children," Pediatrics, July 2006



Thanks for clarifying. And, anyway, the rebuttal has no ground gained for you. I highly doubt your source writer read the study based on that argument, and he merely took equality matters argument as golden. However, the study has a whole section with control variables in order to control for inequalities. Even when the marriage factor was added no major difference occurred. In sum, the argument fails to refute the study as the study already dealt with the situation through regressions.

My opponent’s next rebuttal is that homosexuals are stable. I never said all homosexuals where unstable, however they are on balance much less stable then married heterosexual couples. This indicates, on average, homosexual parenting is not as “good” as heterosexual parenting [1].

As we can see the study is not flawed. Further, a 1996 study reached similar results. Other then the study I have been citing for much of this debate, it has the largest sample size that looks into children reported statistics (not merely asking the parents). The children where moved into various groups based on parental marriage status, income, age, etc. The results for school performance were provided through the child’s teacher. The reason they got data from one of the parents and the teachers and the children was to avoid self reporting bias as the parent will likely have different results (likely inflated) in order to show how good they are at parenting. The results where children raised by biological married couples did the best, those raised by homosexuals did the worst. The study concluded, “Overall, the study has shown that children of married couples are more likely to do well at school, in academic and social terms, than children of cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples.”[2]

My opponents point is empirically false and he has failed to give his own evidence. I showed it had methodological errors in round 1 and he has not brought it up since.

Benefit to society

My opponents point here is marriage stabilizes couples and can, therefore, get rid of the homosexuals are not good parents point. However, as explained above, I have shown the study done by Regnerus controlled for these variables to make sure they where not the factor in the situation. He actually found if he takes away the marriage factor he finds similar results to his original hypothesis [1]. This point is empirically a moot.

My opponent has cited monetary benefits. My opponent must agree, then, all marriages have some economic benefit to society. However, marriage rates have fallen after SSM is allowed and most homosexuals don’t get married. The homosexual marriage rate is so low it has not evened out the decrease in marriage rates and, therefore, the marriage benefit decreases after SSM [3]. Further, the state gives out millions of dollars in benefits to married couples (that’s why the states interest in procreation exists and pays for it), and homosexuals do not add onto this… increase in value (don’t know how to say it)... meaning millions of government dollars are lost increasing deficits, and therefore hurt the economy [4].


My opponent point is we define marriage therefore this is not valid. Actually, the point of the argument was the government defines rights, and currently marriage is defined as a man and a woman. As gay “marriage” is in reality not marriage they cannot obtain “equal” rights. Its like gun rights (analogy used before). These rights only include law-abiding citizens and, therefore, do not apply to felons. The right of marriage only applies to heterosexuals as true or real marriages only occur and consummate through procreation. In other words, the only reason the right to marriage exists is because the value of heterosexuality, and homosexuals do not fit the label.

The state only needs to enforce marriage, “real” marriage, and homosexuals are not marriage. Adding gay to marriage should look like this: Gay marriage.


This is like the infertility objection. This argument confuses procreation type acts and those of procreative effect. What’s interesting is that historically the state would mandate procreative type act in order to encourage procreation. The government’s interest is not to make or force procreation, however make an environment in which it occurs. The government only wants gender complimentary in sexual acts, making the “he didn’t have kids” argument invalid.

Having this gender complimentary fulfills an environment to create future children, whether or not it occurs is irrelevant. As the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy notes, “More generally, even an obviously infertile couple—no less than childless newlyweds or parents of grown children—can live out the features and norms of real marriage and thereby contribute to a healthy marriage culture. They can set a good example for others and help to teach the next generation what marriage is and is not. And as we have argued and will argue, everyone benefits from a healthy marriage culture.”[5]


My opponent claims SSM will decrease the amount of suicides and we reject them for who they are. Yes, we do. They cannot enter procreative type acts and, therefore, do not fit the states interest. Allowing guns to criminals might also make them happier too so we end their discrimination!

Also, the point makes little sense as the reason they have high suicide rates is due to promiscuous behavior and relationships falling apart. Further, many of those homosexuals who did suicide where doing drugs, had been molested, and/or where forced into prostitution. It has been found it is illogical to argue SSM allowance would decrease suicide [6].

Harm To marriage

I agree marriage has been defined many times. However, its purpose has usually been to promote procreative type acts amongst heterosexuals to raise healthy children. My argument was marriage does not disintegrate, however its ability to fulfill the public function of marriage is hindered. Your rebuttal has not refuted my contention.


CON has destroyed pros rebuttals throughout the debate in all categories…

[1] Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)

[2] Sotirios Sarantakos, “Children in three contexts: Family, education and social

development,” Children Australia, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1996.

[3] William C. Duncan “The Tenth Anniversary of Dutch Same-Sex marriage: How is marriage doing in the Netherlands?” Institute for marriage and public policy, (May 2011).

[4] Joshua K. Baker “1,000 FEDERAL BENEFITS OF MARRIAGE? AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1997 GAO REPORT” Marriage Law Project, (May 2004)

[5] Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)

[6] Remafedi, G., Farrow, J., Deisher, R. “Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual youth,” Pediatrics, (1991)

Debate Round No. 3


Dominomac forfeited this round.


I ask for conduct because of this situation.


1. Parenting

My opponents case was the research says gays are good parents. What he misses is this: he ignores my rebuttal criticizing gay parenting studies. As I argued:

"Thus, collectively, the social sciences studies purporting to show that children raised by parents who engage in homosexual behavior are not subject to any significantly enhanced risks are flawed methodologically and analytically, and fall short of the standards of reliability needed to sustain such conclusions."[1]

I further noted:

"Lerner and Nagai found at least one fatal research flaw in all forty-nine studies. As a result, they conclude that no generalizations can reliably be made based on any of these studies. For these reasons the studies are no basis for good science or good public policy."[2] (introduction)

Now, a sharp person would point out why does a flawed study matter? Ok... maybe they are not so sharp if they say that... But here is the response:

"No one should pay any attention to studies that are poorly done. They are just some stories, they really are not science." Dr. Linda Waite

In other words, the scientific basis for my opponents case is not scientific, it is just a story. I also provided two studies (Regnerus 2012, Sarantakos 1996) which agree with my assertions. I also showed other studies exist other then these two. In 2001, two sociologists argued in their study:

"Echoing the conclusion of meta-analysts Allen and Burell (1996), the authors of all 21 studies almost uniformly claimed to find no differences in measures of parenting or child outcomes. In contrast, our careful scrutiny of the findings they report suggests that on some dimensions - particularly those related to gender and sexuality - the sexual orientations of these parents matter somewhat more for their children than the researchers claimed."[3]

In other words—when the data is properly analyzed—we see significant differences among these children. Most of them are negative attributes also [3].

2. Procreation

This arguments only rebuttal what what if they don't have kids. But as I showed this was a misrepresentation. The states interest is between one man and one woman who raise children in a healthy environment and have procreative type unions which hold healthy marriage culture which, in turn, benefits society.

3. Effect on marriage

My opponent was more concerned about divorce. However this irrelevant. I showed SSM decreases the procreative ability and such decreasing its value to the state and, therefore, having net negative. I also showed its decreasing in overall marriage rate hurt society's interest, too.

4. Economy

The economy grows because of SSM, more people marry! Wrong. The amount of homosexuals that marry is negligible. Under 10% of them marry—note they are only 3% of the population—meaning little benefit occurs. However, I showed SSM decreases the heterosexual marriage rate and, therefore, has a net negative. I also showed the procreative type unions of heterosexuals usually end up in children meaning a larger economy (more population is usually good). And as argued above SSM decreases the procreative ability another negative is incurred. So either no benefit is given or solely negative results occur.

5. Constitution

When arguing marriage one must ask why do marital rights even exist? I gave significant evidence that the right existed solely because heterosexuals fulfilled the states interest of procreation. Homosexuals cannot do this and, therefore, do not apply to these rights.

6. Harmful to gays

I showed no rights where being taken away and no harm rally was done. I also showed my opponents argument on depression was a farce as most homosexuals are depressed or suicide because of relationship problems... So legalizing SSM wont help that much.

===How to vote===

Conduct: CON, pro forfeited
Argument: CON, all of pros points where ripped to shreds and the CON point was hardly even touched.
Sources: CON, my opponent cited many biased sources (Huntington post) or weak sources (like Mot of my sources are from peer reviewed journals.
S/G: You decide, however it is commonly noted organization is part of these points, and my opponents organization was sub-par


[1] Lynn D. Wardle, "The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children", University of Illinois Law Review, (1997)
[2] Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea K. Nagai, Ph.D. "No Basis: What the Studies Don't tell us about Same-Sex Parenting," Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C. (January 2001)
[3] Judith Stacy and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, (April 2001)
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
I am sorry if it takes me a while to respond, things have been very crazy at work, I will try to post my next argument tonight
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
It does, indeed, make sense. Read source 5 round two of this debate
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
16kadams, it makes literally no sense. I have read through every single one of Contradiction's gay marriage debates. And the argument was underdeveloped and nonsensical wherever it was included.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
I do not see what parenting has to do with marriage. Other than that, good debate so far.
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
Quack doodle humpback whale. Due said million obama. Frog forage princess cocaine addiction.
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
Koopin, do you ever have anything of substance to say?
Posted by Koopin 4 years ago
16adams, do you waffle foul Tuesday? Ninety pigs subsequent subway how. Gay nigpops everywhere and mouse.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
No problem
Posted by Dominomac 4 years ago
Thank you for accepting the challenge 16kadams
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
It isn't illogical. I have asked him questions on it in length on facebook, and he sees to defend it logically.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Clash 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Con because Pro forfeited his last round. Argumets goes also to Con because he gave more rational arguments against same-sex marrage. In my opnion, Con's best argument was that same-sex marriage goes against what marriage actually is. I don't think that Con successfully refuted this argument. Moreover, Pro's arguments for same-sex marriage, just like with all other arguments for same-sex marriage, was very flawed - and Con clearly showed that.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and args because of the FF