The Instigator
Pro (for)
44 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Should Same-Sex Marriage be legalized in the United States?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,734 times Debate No: 9158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (9)




Should gay marriage be legalized completely in the United States?

Whoever feels against it, please, provide your argument stating why it should stay illegal.


This is my first debate. I would prefer the voting issues based on our arguments rather than personal opinions/grudge. Thank you and good luck.

I negate the resolution. The burden of proof rests on Pro.

Marriage: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
legalized: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law
U.S: all 50 states.

1. The principle of marriage is focused on reproduction and other morals. Same sex marriage isn't even possible because they cannot reproduce.
2. By legalizing it in the U.S, this debate is suggesting making an amendment to legalize gay marriage.
3. Same-sex marriage means gay marriage.

Judging criterion: Cost benefit analysis. Pro has the BoP to prove legalizing gay marriage is beneficial to the U.S economy, people's rights, morals, ideals, etc.

Negation's arguments:

Contention 1: Homosexuals typically do not truly care for the child that their adopting. Because homosexuals cannot give birth to a child they must adopt, and by adopting a child the child will grow and learn these "parents" aren't his/her biological parents thus this develops into distrust and hate and this also increase the rate of runaway children thus causing the rate of missing persons to go up, which in turn hires more investigators that drain the government of money, and in the mean time these runaways must adopt criminal skills such as stealing, burglary, etc in order to survive, thus our national/state debt and crime rate just only increases. It's not economical nor moral. If foster homes cannot gain a natural trust with their fostered children what makes homosexuals able to gain natural trust? Thus by legalizing marriage we develop a new generation of rebels, thus the cycle occurs continuously resulting in a high crime/missing rate.

Contention 2: Marriage is sealed by the birth of a child. By legalizing gay marriage we are violating this principle and the morals behind marriage because the marriage isn't sealed by a birth of a child but rather adopting a child.

Contention 3: "Homosexuals do not make good parents because they are not "differentiated" role-models. Children benefit from a balance of male and female, differentiated role models. The unique characteristics of men and women are important to impart on children. Same-sex marriage fundamentally undermines this balanced approach to child-rearing."-some source. Basic ideal this creates a harmful environment to the children if gay marriage is legalized because the kid will be taught by one specific sex and this will cause an increase in sexism supremacy which we don't want and has been proven immoral through women suffrage.

Contention 4: By legalizing gay marriages, the government isn't able to collect the same amount as single payer taxes. Single income taxes are much higher than married income tax. By legalizing gay marriage there is a decrease in the high rates of single income tax, thus the government loses money. Because the government loses money: 1. social services opportunities will decrease in quality and quantity thus we get unpleasant public service;2. during economy recession the government cannot afford to lose opportunities to gain money in order to pay off debts; 3. the government isn't able to maintain natural parks that conserve wildlife, thus some species and natural resources are lost. In the end the government loses money to help the common people.

Contention 5: If we legalized gay marriage then other random/harmful laws may pass such legalization of polygamy, zoophilia, pedophilia, owning a gun at a young age, etc, this will prove and force the government to look as a vulnerable country and provides a target/image for the world that is opposite of what we stand for and says "shoot me I'm open" for terrorists and other countries we fought against, and we start another war resulting in many U.S deaths. Also exposing children to these legal yet harmful laws only broadens the road to failure for them. Exposing children to sex, drugs, and adultery impairs and scars their judgment on good and evil. The purpose of the government is to enforce existing laws rather than becoming bullied into making unfair laws favoring one sex like France. Overall this will make the U.S government vulnerable to political, military, and physical attacks and the end result in a collapsed U.S government.

Contention 6: Gay marriage would change the foundation and morals of society. Many are very uncomfortable with a sudden change and will fight against it, like the civil war (example south=gay, north=straight; clash, kill, chop, dead... north won...slavery/gay lost...what's the benefit after losing money, manpower, and resources? Result: Gay marriage is still illegal.). Straight marriage has been around for thousands of years yet if gay marriage is a major change that many straights will not just give up and let is happen. There will be fights, riots, and deaths because of this. Gay marriage, I believe, will end up in another "Civil War." After all in California there has been quite a riot.

In conclusion gay marriage ought to stay illegal for the moral, economical, society, etc reasons above. Thank you and I look forward to Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Right, thanks for taking up the offer for a debate. My first one on this website as well.

Quick points:
- The oppositions argument consists of baseless and far fetched ideas that are difficult for any opposition to provide opposing evidence. So the burden of proof is on the person making these, frankly, ridiculous statements.
- Female Homosexuals can give birth via artificial insemination.

First off, lets run through this:
You define marriage as if it's absolute. Marriage originally dates back to Norman times. It was originally used to transfer land. It was not the 1950's American Nuclear family you make it out to be. It's soul purpose in the beginning was for primogeniture. The definition of marriage has been a vast and ambiguous term.

According to your observations, you say marriage is focused on reproduction and other morals. First off, friendly advice. Saying "Some" morals, doesn't make it true. You need to be specific. Second, marriage was originally about land, not reproduction. And to this day, it's about love and relationships, NOT reproduction. What about sterile couples? Are you going to ban them from marrying? Basically, provide me proof, that marriage's sole purpose is for reproduction.

Refutation 1: This entire claim is outlandish and impossible to record solely on the fact that you're generalizing. Saying a gay couple doesn't truly care for their children is a baseless claim. There are 10 million homosexual couples in the United states. You're going to tell me, not a single one, cares for their children. Homosexuals are not the only ones who adopt. So saying adopted children always hate their parents simply because the parents are not the real parents is again, outlandish and baseless. You need to provide a shred of evidence to support this.

I can't argue this point simply because you have no proof and these claims are outlandish.

Refutation 2: Again, I don't see how the birth of a child can "Seal" a marriage. As well as the fact that Lesbian couples can artificially give birth. What about all the divorce rates and "Runaway" dads after child birth? Are you going to ban divorce and force people to make sure they stay in marriage after giving birth?

My mother's father disappear after she was born. This is not a rare occurrence.

Refutation 3: You need to cite your source, not just "Some source". Now do you have evidence that proves children are more prone to sexism? Medical, scientific, legal evidence?

Refutation 4: Again, you need a source for this. Now why should the civil rights of others be infringed for the economy.

Now, on your 3 points:
1) With all the wasted money in the government, you're worried about gays marrying? This is completely over dramatized.
2) The supposed amount of money that would be lost is in no way significant enough to the economy to infringe on people's civil rights.
3) This argument is ridiculous, it's obvious that you're trying to tug on people's heart strings. Of all the services that would lose money, you think the environment would be the most affected? The environment is already being affected by failed conservative policies. So look upon your own wing.

Refutation 5: Ah, the classic slippery slope fallacy. And to top it, another baseless and ridiculous point.

Lets look at this:
You say polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia, and lower gun age laws. (Ignoring the fact that none of these even have ANYTHING to do with gay marriage.) Lets look at what's legal and illegal in all these countries where gay marriage is legal.
Norway - All still illegal
Sweden - illegal
Ireland (Where I am) - Illegal (Ireland has civil unions, but later this year it'll be legal.)
Denmark - Illegal
France - Illegal
Germany - Illegal
Luxembourg - Illegal
Belgium - Illegal
Canada - Illegal
Spain - Illegal
Portugal - Illegal

Speaking of France, you cited France as if sexism is rampant over there. France really favors one sex? IS that why a female ran against a male in the elections? Please, I must have missed these sexist laws, so inform me.

Refutation 6: This is not a point or argument, this has no facts and is TOTALLY over dramatized. If you're inciting the US will be thrown into civil war over this, you're mistaken. If you're comparing it, then you need to rethink your postision. The Civil War was fought over slavery, we're talking about civil rights.

Lets use two examples:
First, Gay marriage is legal in pretty much all European countries, even your neighbors to the north legalized it. They didn't fall into civil war. Hell, even their environmental policies are better.
Second, in the 1960's during the black rights movement, there was civil unrest, but the country still stayed the course. And you know what's funny? This whole "Moral and foundation" B.S, was also cited by people who were against interracial marriage and slave owners.

In conclusion, this really wasn't a well thought out argument, you didn't cite a SINGLE thing. Almost all, if not all, of these arguments are baseless, over dramatized and completely far fetched. Call these ad homines, but he provided NO argument and NO facts to support it.

Here's an interesting read:
I also use this as a source from a for a few points.

This report was compiled by the Williams Institute with major U.S. social, medical and psychological associations on parenting by LGBT parents and same-sex couples.

And my last question, as a conservative, don't you want government out of the lives of others? Why should you care so much about homosexuals?


Thank you for this debate. I look forward to a good debate.

Quick points: My opponent has asked for sources and I will provide some. Con's position: Same sex marriages should be illegal in the U.S. Pro's position: Same sex marriage should be legalized in the U.S.

The burden of proof rest on Pro because the U.S has not legalized gay marriage yet, thus he must prove why U.S should legalize it.

Con's Refutations:

No source on the definition of marriage, history of marriage is irrelevant because we are using the definition of marriage in the U.S, besides US' history doesn't date back to Norman times. My source: Oxford Dictionary.

Marriage in U.S terms is about reproduction rather than land. Marriage isn't originally about land, for example the British used marriage to reproduce a male heir rather than gain land, in simple terms marriage is about bearing an heir and sealing marriage.
source: 8th paragraph

Refutation 1: I disagree...
Not only this but the child will experience emotional, physiological, and physical disturbance. It is overall harmful for the child. Adopted parents have a less harmful degree on adopted children than gay parents because they are raised by a male and a female. One incident a boy told his gay parents during Christmas, "I want a daddy."
Sources are below.

Refutation 2:
"Divorce rates for sealed couples are far lower than national rates."- The child is a product of marriage thus it "seals" the vows of marriage.

Refutation 3: Source:

Refutation 4: (I'm using this because this is where I live)
Married reduces tax by $7032, single $3516, thus single pays more tax than married. By allowing gays to marry the government loses money.

3 points:
1) Gays marrying will only reduce the government's financial resource. For example in CA the seniors lost their government funded nursing homes.
2) The role of the government is to protect and enforce rights. Without a strengthened economy the government would have less resources to protect rights, thus we would rely on vigilantes/gangs. Being gay is not a right, gay is a behavior. Gay marriage is not a right.
3) The environment argument is to appeal to environmentalists, I usually jogging though LA seeing litter everywhere, it's just disgusting. And when I usually go fishing and occasionally I hear amateurs cursing CA for not putting more fishes in the lakes and rivers.

Refutation 5: It has something about marrying a dog. It's list of countries/states banning gay marriage. Overall we are debating about legalizing gay marriage only in the U.S. Only 6 states legalized it, but this isn't the whole U.S. Not only this but we are a hated country internationally, by legalizing gay marriage we are even more hated; neutral countries will take a stand, supporters will hate us, the ideals and democracy's image would look flawed & foolish. We will destroy our world image even more because only a small minority supports gay marriage while the majority despises and will punish gays.
And about other types of marriages, these are not legalized yet in the U.S, but if gay marriage is legal then these topic would revive and possibly passed thus making the definition of marriage broad, absurd & pointless.
France's sexism was a typo. Anyway France was bullied by the people for services such as universal health care, free nannies, and free college education. -Sicko (movie) France's debt: 1117 billion euro.

Refutation 6: Slavery was a big issue before the C.W. After C.W it was settled. The gay marriage topic could start C.W 2. If gay marriage cannot be 100% legalized by all states thus it must be compromised like slavery. Compromising slavery/gay led to a Civil War and still it's illegal to own slaves. So it's futile to legalize gay marriage.
Examples: Europeans legalized prostitution so after that it was easy. Europeans also had a royal history of advocating different types of marriages as described in French paintings. As for U.S we had little to none historical significance source advocating gay marriage. True, black rights movement didn't create war, yet blacks right movement's supporters overwhelmed whites and there were still violence.
And as for society change, the difference between male and female would become strained.

Question: No, the government is there to protect rights. Gay is not a right, it's a behavior. And I don't care about homosexuals but I will even spit in the devil's face to win this and this topic might be debated next year in NFL L.D so I might as well get a head start.

Pro, please provide some arguments on why gay marriage should be legalized, otherwise this debate is stupid and pointless going back and forth through my points making this a one sided debate. And the burden is on Pro.

Other sources:

In conclusion I have refuted all arguments and upheld my burden of proof and my part. Gay marriage should not be legalized in the U.S for reasons above. Pro must uphold his burden of the debate. Vote Con. Thanks. I look forward to Pro's rebuttals and case.
Debate Round No. 2


Son, when you make claims such as the US will be thrown into civil war, children will runaway more, the environment will collapse, as will the economy if gay marriage is legalized, you better have some proof of this.

On marriage: Primogeniture, which is the reason marriage exists, dates back to Norman times. You also threw yourself into a paradox. You complain that gays will undermine the definition of marriage, YET, society itself, including America, has changed the definition of marriage. From that of land passing and primogeniture to that of the nuclear family. So don't whine about gays changing the definition of marriage when your own country has. There IS no sanctity of marriage. Have you turned on the television recently? You have shows like "The bachelor" and "who wants to marry a millionaire" and you're going to talk about gays undermining the sanctity of marriage? When you see these shows, you people wouldn't protest a goddamn thing. Where is the Prop 8 for the fox network hosting these shows? Where are the sodomy laws for the people on the show? You complain gays are destroying marriage? No, they don't. Although, heterosexuals are doing a damn good job destroying it. The divorce rate for heterosexual couples in America is insane:

What about sterile couples? They can't reproduce. What about couples who don't have children? They haven't "Sealed" marriage. Do we ban them? What you're implying is, the government must FORCE couples to have children or they can't be married.

Rebuttal 1: Your first source fails: First off, it's extremely bias and far-right. They obviously have an agenda. Second, you're using a source from a few bias and religious doctors. Third, you can't measure the well being of children unless you have multiple sources from secular and non-agenda driven psychologists and medical professionals AND statistics. You have not provided any.

"According to the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, there is no evidence that the sexual orientation of one's parents or adoptive parents interferes with one's social adjustment. The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees that children raised in gay households function just as well cognitively, socially, and emotionally as children of heterosexual parents."
Now unless the APA, NASW, AAP are all lying, then I don't know what to tell you.


(See videos)
They take sources from multiple statistics and people who have degrees and education in this.
Unless you're implying that

Rebuttal 2: Where is your source? I know what sealing is, doesn't make it true.

Refutation 3: This is not even a valid source, mind explaining?

Refutation 4: So civil rights is now secondary to some tax dollars? You know this argument was used by people who were against interracial marriage. Explain that, please.

1) Hey, Narwal, do you even read your sources? Seniors are losing their homes and the gays are to blame? How the hell do you get these conclusions?
2) This is completely over dramatized. Lets look at Canada: For murders per capita, Canada ranks FAR lower then that of the US. Same with rape and crime rates in general. They have legal gay marriage and they haven't burned down to the ground.

Being straight is not a right, getting married is a right. Don't misconstrue my words.
3) So you openly admit to tugging heart strings?
Yeah, the pollution in LA is high, how is that the fault of gays? If you're implying that if gays marry it will get worse? You do realize, as a conservative, you're being a hypocrite.

Rebuttal 5: The fact that you couldn't see through that obvious satire makes me question your abilities to think.
Hell, in that case that gives me more ammo: You realize most of the countries that ban gay marriage are either dictatorships or third world countries? And you're worried about how they view you? In Ireland, a lot of people despise the US. You want to know why? Because they feel America is such a backwards nation. If the US were to progress, a lot of people may change their attitudes.

Hated by who? Your enemies who already hate the US? Why should gays be persecuted just to make the US look good to people like Ahmadinejad?

By the way, skippy, the United States is not a democracy, it's a republic. Now in a republic, there is a democratic base, but there is a third party.

Another point: Majority doesn't make it right. The majority in Nazi Germany supported the persecution of jews, does it make it right?

Again, it's the slippery slope fallacy. Well you know what, none of those types of marriages are legal in Canada, Norway, Sweden, Spain, France, Ireland, Finland, etc. So they facts and statistics show the slippery slope fallacy is NOT a valid argument.

France has a debt, so what, so does the US, and it's much higher, even before Obama was in office. Hell, the US OWES France a lot of money.

Rebuttal 6: Jesus, you just can't get anything right, can you?
You're comparing the enslavement of human beings to marriage of same sex couples? How do you get this over dramatized B.S?

Europe also has been around a LOT longer the US. So laws change as society changes. What's wrong with prostitution? Why should the government control the lives of others?

Blacks are a minority, and only a small sect of people supported the minority.

How? How will the difference between male and female become strained? And why should it matter to you?

I never stated being gay was a right, I said marrying was a right. Same as being black is not a right, but interracial marriage is a right. Blacks voting is a right, blacks not being segregated is not a right.

Gays marrying is a right. Being gay is not a right.

Do you SEE now?

homosexual marriage is a right, that's really the only pro argument. I can only debate your myths about gay marriage.
The reason I wanted you to start off, is because it's like dealing with carbon dating. I can't provide an pro argument on why carbon dating is good for disproving religious earth dating simply because it's materialistic and the arguments against it are all specific, from the specifics, I can debate.

but here's a secular, and non-bias source

Now, do you read your sources? Because you provided several bias, satirical, and even pro sources. That religioustolearnce article was in my favor.

Pretty much all of those "studies" are bias. Explains why they're more then likely wrong.


Great arguments. What grounds does Con have left?

I agree with some points. I still support prop 8. And thanks for showing me to see flaws in my arguments such as biased sources, no links, etc. I was getting some ideas for next year's NFL LD marriage topic. This should significantly help. Legalizing gay marriage is based on different views, religion, etc.
Debate Round No. 3


Con doesn't have any grounds left, I'm afraid.

When it comes to people's views on gay marriage, religion is the last thing we need to take into account. We have separation of church and state for a reason.


Hok...I didn't concede to forfeit I was busy preparing for cross country camp on Saturday so I just posted crap just to go on the R4. So I apologize.

I agreed with some pro sources such as divorce. The only Con source that pro was debatepedia that provided pro and con arguments.

Sterile couples and couples without children: Sure. It's not really marriage because they have no pact.

Marriage def: We'll still use my/Oxford dictionary's definitions. It's a legal source.

I will go briefly on rebuttals:

R1: Religion falls into marriage. Different culture have different standards and ceremonies. Thus it's valid and it's conservative "First off, it's...far-right" and the U.S is a republic/democratic thus we keep old traditions. 2nd: Who would you trust, an average citizen or a doctor? 3rd: My opponent doesn't have any statistics thus this ends in a stalemate because this is crucial.

R2: Look up wikipedia "latter day saints sealing."

R3: No reason why debatepedia isn't valid thus it's a valid source.

R4: Gay marriage is indirectly causing seniors to lose their homes.
Dramatized: This is just one Ultimate End Result. Canada hasn't reached this point yet. When we legalized slavery there was much commotion and bickering until the civil war. Same here is we legalize gay marriage.
Gay marriage causes money loss for the government that could used it to clean up debris...oh wait you live in Ireland you don't need to worry.
As a conservative I want to keep old ideals like banning gay marriage.

R5: "In Ireland, a lot of people despise the US. You want to know why? Because they feel America is such a backwards nation." B.S cause Ireland is full of drunks. We protected you in WW2 and now you won't support us. Progress isn't based upon changing attitudes it's about economical and industrial change.
a. I'll agree with one socialist ideal, spreading democracy. If we legalize gay marriages dictatorship/3rd world countries will see democracy as a reckless ideal and keep their dictatorship rather than overthrowing the government and establishing a new one.
b. "Now in a republic, there is a democratic base" U.S is still a democracy.
c. For the Germans it's right; same applies to the U.S. In democracy the majority shares a similar view and it makes it a law that protect rights. Thus a majority makes it right. And so far only 6 out of 50 states have legalized it thus it's still illegal and not right.
d. Purpose/Impact?
e. France's debt simply increases. US owning France alot of money is invalid because we aided them in WW1&2 and with other economical gains, thus it's a stalemate and there is no source.

R6: Government is there to protect rights without the government this world will become chaos. The government has limitations on it's power thus it's not 100% controlling lives.
"Blacks are a minority, and only a small sect of people supported the minority." Purpose? Gay marriage is supported only by 6 states, this doesn't make it legal.
Males and females are different physically and mentally. Each has their own unique set of morals, by infusing them morals are utterly worthless because of a compromise of ideals will throw out some strong morals. Why it matters to me? Getting a girl isn't easy cause their very sensitive, one word about a fight you won to impress them and they leave. That's why you can't compromise otherwise you'll see a guy killing himself because of a stupid argument he lost or a girl beating the heck out of a guy.
If gay isn't a right then why should gay marriage be a right? Gay marriage is a step above gay. Therefore Amute says being gay is not a right thus whatever is above it isn't a right. Consider it as a house. Gay rights is like the foundation, the house is gay marriage right; without the foundation the house falls.

The only real argument Pro has was gay marriage was a right. I have attacked this.

Voting issues:
1. Pro has given no direct argument how gay marriage will help the U.S in economical and strengthening ideals terms; and how society will benefit from gay marriage. Thus Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof and only attacked my arguements making this a one sided debate.
2. I have reasoned why gay marriage is harmful for: children, society, morals, definition, economy, U.S' ideals/image, and environment.
3. Gay marriage has only been legalized in 6 out of 50 states. Thus it cannot be legalized through an constitutional amendment because there aren't enough support. Therefore U.S shouldn't...cannot legalize gay marriage.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Narwal19 7 years ago
Logic and philosophers.
Natural right is the right for freedom, happiness, etc. The government exchanges natural rights for rights of protection.
Posted by USAPitBull63 7 years ago
I probably should have said "that right is violated" and not "removed."
Posted by USAPitBull63 7 years ago
...Stalin [sic]....

I meant Lenin, of course.
Posted by USAPitBull63 7 years ago
Every child has a natural right to a mother and a father. If a child is adopted by a gay couple, though they may be great people, that right is removed.

p.s. My favorite picture of Stalin is one I took of his statue, right in front of a Taco del Mar restaurant, in the Fremont district of Seattle. Priceless.
Posted by untitled_entity 7 years ago
Narwal - can you provide me a statistic where the children that are adopted by gay couples are unloved and hated?
Posted by Narwal19 7 years ago
And I forgot to mention: since Amute has provided no ground for con it's one sided and unfair.
Posted by iamld 7 years ago
You know AMUTE your self proclaimed "Communist" position. puts the government in a position of mandating morality. And the Agenda that I was referring to is this: If any one has a different view than yours, you find them intolerant and uneducated, and dismiss them as fools. However, you fail to see that your "open" mind regarding the free distributions of rights in this country is just as intolerant of anyone who disagrees with you. So... as long as someone agrees with you they are not intolerant, how intolerant of you.
Just to correct your un-researched drivel... this country says nowhere in the US Constitution that there is a separation of church and state. The constitution does say that the state shall not dictate the exercise of religion. I wish that you "free thinkers" would ground yourself in a bit of truth once in a while instead of spinning the words to fit your context. The term Separation of Church and state is quoted from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church when he was explaining that the church is protected from the government interfering with their free exercise of religion. But you "spinners" take the phrase and change the meaning by taking a line out of context and redefining it. So drop that argument once and for all.

You may not believe the Bible is true. That is your freedom to have that belief. But, until it is proven that the Bible is wrong, you cannot discount it in an argument. ANY PROOF??? Did not think so. Once again, I challenge you "open minded, free thinkers" to actually take it into account. Or are your intolerant of others beliefs. If you say I am wrong because I believe the Bible to be true, then it is you who need to admit that all of the rhetoric you spout is actually a LIE!!! You desire to institute a new set of rights upon a group of people who think they deserve it because they "choose" to be different. The structure of civil rights is for those who have no ability to be anything different.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
Amute, why can't you just debate the points without name calling?

1) I think its purpose is pretty clear. I'm not saying that the law should only allow people who are going to procreate to get married, I'm simply stating the purpose of marriage.

2) If there is an infertile couple, they can always adopt or perhaps remedy their infertility. But if they're never going to do those things, I also don't see the purpose of their marriage; however, I am NOT saying that the law should prevent them from doing so. Now to analogize gay couples with infertile couples is incorrect: one has a medical condition the other does not.

3) You cannot respond to this because it's true. Think about it.

4) Civil Unions: you're the one making the insulting comments, not I. There is no real need for civil unions as one can do the same things through wills, power-of-attorney, etc.

5) Children need both parents, even a 3 year old can tell you that. That there is "NO" scientific proof of this fact, is a complete and utter lie. Look at the statistics of single parent children.

Who's talking about mandated parent? That's ridiculous.

You disagree and are intolerant of my ideas. So I guess the same applies to you. Anyways, who's freedom is being taken away? No one's. Why? Because you cannot take away what's not there to begin with.
Posted by Amute 7 years ago
Tboone, explain this to me:
1) You say marriage is only for procreation, yet you dismiss infertile couples because they have a medical condition? Please, explain this to me.
If you legalize gay marriage, you act as if the straights won't procreate anymore.

3) This is... Really, really ignorant. I don't even know how to respond to such a ridiculous statement.

4) YEAH! How dare gay people... Have rights. Stupid queers, being all queer like and stuff.

5) There is NO scientific or medical evidence that show children need a father and a mother. Hell, the APA and AAP would agree.

What about fatherless/motherless children? Should the government provide them mandated parents?

Wow, freedom goes RIGHT out the window when it comes to people who disagree with your intolerant ideas.
Posted by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
Should not be legalized in the US...BTW, this debate went horribly. Whoever is for gay marriage has to show why it should be legal, as it currently is not.

1) Purpose of marriage: to procreate & continue the species. Govt has vested interest in this as there cannot be a country let alone govt if this does not take place. There are incentives for married couples & even more for married couples with children.

2) Gays cannot reproduce: this is a biological fact. Infertile straight couples that cannot reproduce have a medical condition while gays do not. As such, they are not equivalent.

3) No one's civil rights are being violated: a gay man has the same right as straight man to marry a women; gay woman has the same rights as a straight woman to marry a man.

4) Civil unions should also be disbanded in all states; however, that is up to each state individually.

5) Gays should not be allowed to adopt children; children need a mother & a father.

Let's stop trying to make up into down, down into up, etc.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 6 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by nathrakh0tdlb 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 Amute 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:70 
Vote Placed by ilovgoogle 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:70 
Vote Placed by iamld 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:07 
Vote Placed by aimeejoe 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 atheistman 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:70 
Vote Placed by Sisco 7 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:31 
Vote Placed by hussoohs2 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70