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

Same sex marriage should be legalized in Australia

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 80026
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Legalizing same sex marriage is an unprincipled decision. Its purpose from a social standpoint is to recognize the responsibilities impingement upon procreation. If you cannot procreate you cannot get married. Secondly, nature has endowed us with a mother and father because they are complementary. Ideal family conditions involve a male and female parent. That isn't to say a same sex couple could not be better than an opposite set couple in raising children, but merely that ideal parents would be of the opposite sex. Thirdly, if same sex marriage is legalized what meaning does marriage have; it is now longer has any principle. Same sex advocates often talk about "Love" being the defining factor in a marriage, not gender, child rearing etc. If two sisters romantically love each other and want to get married, what principle are you going to rely on to dismiss this request? There isn't any principle because the original principle, namely procreation has been broken. This can be applied to bestiality, polygamy, inanimate objects. I am sincerely not saying homosexuals practice such things but am saying that such relationships are hard to dismiss once marriage is meaningless; others
may say your discriminating upon another factor etc. Legalizing same sex marriage is a moral slippery slope.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Non serious attempt. I win


The usual structure is first round acceptance.

Many same-sex couples wish to marry. They want to do so for the same reasons as their opposite-sex counterparts – to publicly proclaim and celebrate their love and commitment, to protect their children, to ensure legal and social recognition and for a whole host of other reasons. These couples would greatly benefit from being able to realise their choice to marry, an intensely personal choice that is widely recognised, at least for heterosexual couples, as a basic human right.

Instead of sending a message that all Australians are to be treated fairly and equally, regardless of their sexual orientation, the message currently being sent by our federal law is that it is acceptable to exclude lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons from a central social institution and that our relationships are inferior.

In recent years, most state and territory governments, have extended to same sex couples many, though not all, of the legal and economic rights and responsibilities available to opposite sex couples. Yet we remain excluded from the institution of marriage itself, a distinction that undermines our human dignity, diminishes our families and discriminates against us in violation of our basic right to equal legal treatment.

Providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry will not harm religious institutions in any way. Each religion will still have the right to choose whether or not to perform marriages for same-sex couples. Religions that wish to perform marriages for same-sex couples should also have the freedom to do so.

Some opponents of equal marriage have suggested that marriage as an institution would be weakened, even tainted, by our presence. Such people are, of course, free to hold whatever views they wish in respect of homosexuality and the treatment of same sex couples, but Australian law should not be based upon such degrading and offensive notions.

No group of Australians should be systemically excluded from any legal institution, let alone one as central to our society as legal marriage. It must be open to all Australians, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Some day, same-sex couples in Australia will have the legal right to marry. That is inevitable. As with every major human rights advance, from the abolition of slavery to allowing women to vote, future generations will look back and wonder how anyone could have opposed such a basic human right.

Same-sex couples have and raise children. Allowing these couples to legally marry affords their children the same protections and benefits as children raised by opposite sex parents.

For many Australians, marriage uniquely conveys the nature and legitimacy of a committed romantic relationship. Gays and lesbians should not be denied this form of expression.

Language does not merely reflect discriminatory social attitudes and practices, but is involved in shaping and perpetuating such attitudes and practices. The exclusion of same-sex relationships from marriage and the invention of a different word to describe our unions represents gays and lesbians, and our relationships in particular, as deviant and abnormal, and as less worthy than heterosexual unions.

Marriage is a part of Australian life and same-sex couples, in fact all lesbian, gay and bisexual persons, are constantly faced with the fact of our exclusion from it. It’s not a pleasant feeling.

Because there is greater social reluctance to recognise the legitimacy of same-sex relationships, the benefit of automatic recognition that marriage confers is particularly important for lesbian and gay couples. When a same-sex partner is injured, the last thing the other partner needs is to have the legitimacy of the relationship questioned by hospital authorities. When a child is hurt on a school trip, and the biological parent is unavailable, the co-parent does not want to have to convince a schoolteacher that the relationship is valid.

When a same-sex partner dies, the surviving partner does not need to have the grief of loss compounded by having to prove that he or she is authorised to make the funeral arrangements. In a married relationship, these matters are rarely called into question, and the validity of the relationship can be easily demonstrated if necessary through production of the marriage certificate.

Australia is a country where individuals are afforded the right to choose their own religion and their own philosophy of life, the right to choose with whom they will associate and how they will express themselves, the right to choose where they will live and what occupation they will pursue. The government should respect choices made by individuals and, to the greatest extent possible, avoid subordinating these choices to any one conception of the good life. Our choice to marry should not be denied because we are not heterosexual.

In Australia, same-sex couples, and all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons for that matter, still suffer under the weight of stigma and prejudice. While much progress has been made, we are still often subject to verbal and physical assaults, many of us still grow up in isolation and fear and kids who are not heterosexual still face significantly higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts. These attitudes of prejudice are reinforced – and given State sanction – by discriminatory laws.

The former Prime Minister, John Howard, once argued that preventing same-sex couples from marrying was ‘a matter of survival of the species’. Clearly, the ability or desire to have children is not a prerequisite to marriage. Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate; same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying, whether or not they are raising children. “Companionate” marriages between elderly heterosexuals past the age of child-bearing are celebrated and affirmed in our society, not banned under law.

Civil unions can provide some or all of the rights and obligations of civil marriage. AME has no objection to civil unions as a supplement to marriage, but as long as we are denied the equal right to marry, alternative regimes do not fix the discrimination.

Australia would not be the first to take this step, and it will not be the last. Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2


You have only addressed one of my arguments.
"Opposite-sex couples can get married whether or not they are able or willing to procreate." This does not subtract from the principle of marriage and procreation is still a possibility. However, same sex couples cannot procreate, it is not even a possibility.

"equal legal treatment."
Heterosexual marriage is not equal to same marriage. Discrimination on the basis skin color, gender etc is wrong but discrimination on the basis of skill, talent, charisma, social skills etc is not. In this case the discriminating factor is procreation. Same sex couples are awarded legal rights under civil unions which is sufficient.

"Same-sex couples have and raise children"
Opposite couples are better equipped to raise children then same sex couples. WHY has nature endowed us with a mother and father?

"higher suicide rates than their heterosexual counterparts"
Is this not the the cause of this their homosexuality. Higher suicide rates and lower life expectancy is common among homosexuals and to attribute this to other people ignores all internal factors. Take regions where homosexuality is accepted thoroughly but yet these statistics remain. The source of these problems is in the lifestyle itself.

"celebrate their love and recognition"
All of your arguments can be applied to any non traditional marriage relationship.

"Same-sex marriage is already a reality in a growing list of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa."
Morality and laws are not based on what everyone else is doing and so this argument is arbitrary. I believe in absolute morality as given by God.

I feel as if your argument is a copy and paste so please respond directly to what i have said (QUOTE what i have said and say why i am wrong).
Answer This: If two sisters came up to you and said they love each other and are deeply committed and wanted to adopt children, what principle would you rely on to dismiss them access to marriage? Are you not "discriminating" and denying them equal social and legal recognition etc.


Now I will go into my rebuttals.

1. First you have the right to marry who you want and do what you want. Lets see about Tim Cook. He is a Gay. If he lived in Australia does he have not a right to be gay and divorce. Right now what you are saying is that If you are Australian or in Austalia you cannot be a gay. Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees "men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion... the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Amnesty International states that "this non-discrimination principle has been interpreted by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies as prohibiting discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. Non-discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation has therefore become an internationally recognized principle.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by V5RED 2 years ago
Where Pro stole his argument from
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ax123man 2 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro's plagiarism. After ignoring everything Pro copied from other sites, it appears only "I accept" in round 1 and the first two sentences of round 3 were written by Pro. Given that, Pro did not really counter what Con wrote, so arguments to Con.