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

Should Same-sex marriage be legal?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 75427
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




Here will be the basic rules of our argument:

Round 1 will be acceptance
Round 2 Will be your opening statement.
Round 3 Will be your concluding statements as well as countering your opponent statements.

Argument: Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal?

Best of luck.


I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting.

Let’s start with some definitions:

Marriage: the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife. In other words, a man and a women.

Man was never made to marry a man, it isn’t natural, and it’s not what nature made. Man was made to live and fit with a women. What I mean by that is, Man cannot reproduce with another Man, Man can produce with a women, the way it has always been. Hens forth, Gay- Marriage isn’t marriage, as seen here.

“Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and well being of the spouses.”

Point 1: Gay- Marriage (In some cases) will always denies a child of a father or a mother, which every child needs to have a Father and a Mother in their life.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

Same-sex “marriage” ignores a child’s best interests.

Point 2: It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union:

Traditional marriage is usually so fecund that those who would frustrate its end must do violence to nature to prevent the birth of children by using contraception. It naturally tends to create families.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families.
Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

Point 3: It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution:

In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex “marriage.”

If homosexual “marriage” is universally accepted as the present step in sexual “freedom,” what logical arguments can be used to stop the next steps of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and other forms of unnatural behavior? Indeed, radical elements of certain “avant garde” subcultures are already advocating such aberrations.

"The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." -Paul Varnell

Point 4: It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society:

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. The State calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

I do apologize at the length of this argument, I am passionate on this subject.




Con begins with an interesting point. He argues that gay marriage isn't natural. The irony of the statement is that marriage isn't natural to begin with, be it heterosexual or even interspecies. How natural something is has never (and will never) determine its legality. It's natural to want to rape, or want to be raped, to murder, or want to be murdered. There's so many crimes that people of different kinds have different fantasies about. Some people fantasize stealing, some fantasize being robbed of everything just so they finally could give up on their stressful and be a monk without having to justify it to anyone. People are crazy, everyone has freaky fantasies and it's unnatural to be so law-abiding that you never feel the need to do anything naughty. Law abiding citizens who have no need to break any rules tend to be boring as hell so it's a good thing not everyone is like them.

Con's first contention is that gay marriage denies a child of a father of a mother. Con is basing the legality of gay marriage on the fact that lacking a mother or father can affect a child. To begin with, this is utterly ridiculous on the simple grounds of single parents become outlawed under Con's regime and a helluva lot of single parents' children will become orphans having to be cared for by the state. Furthermore, the hilarious irony of Con's logic is that if Gay marriage were legalized, many stable gay couples would qualify for adoption and raise would-be orphans that would otherwise have relied on state-funded childcare that taxes people and reduces the efficiency of the economy. Thus, both the nation and children of gay couples benefit far more from gay marriage being legalized.

If it wasn't for gay adoption, these right-wing nutjobs screaming "Stop the gays!" who also scream "The state is robbing me of my money through taxation!" then a huge amount of gay couples, married or unmarried, wouldn't be alleviating the state of orphans to care for.[1][2]

As for the argument that gays make worse parents. The fact that they have so much stigma against them in itself drives them to prove it wrong (it's no coincidence that Germany and Japan have become world superpowers, Germany politically and economically, Japan technologically since the stigma of WWII). Gay couples tend to be the most accepting parents of strange or weird children meaning children suffering from any disorder would love being raised by them.[3][4]

The second contention that Con raises is that gay couples are a naturally sterile union. Unless Con would outlaw heterosexual couples where one or both is infertile marrying then this is totally and utterly irrelevant to the legality of marriage and can be disregarded on those grounds alone.

Following this, Con uses the slippery slope argument of incest, pedophilia and bestiality. Bestiality and pedophilia are easy to counter as both involve one party that is legally considered incapable of consenting so pedophiles and animal molesters are always de facto rapists which is not the case with homosexuality. As for incest, Con has given no reason why incest shouldn't be permitted if both are of legal age to consent. The only possible reason is that incest reduces biological diversity and can result in chromosome problems in their children. The issue with incest children being deformed or retarded is irrelevant to the issue of homosexual marriage as gays tend to donate sperm or receive sperm from, depending if they are lesbians or male gays, to a totally random donor if they ever choose to ha ea biological child.

Debate Round No. 2


parkerwil forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 2 years ago
[CONTINUED RFD] states that pedophilia and bestiality are not comparable to homosexuality due to them essentially being rape, as it is not between 2 consenting parties. Con drops all of these arguments, as they had forfeited the debate. So since all of Con's refutations stand, and due to Con's forfeit, conduct and arguments to Pro.
Posted by AdamBarnett 2 years ago
the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. -Definition of Marriage (Google)
Posted by Rm1840 2 years ago
"I do not agree with someone changing the way they look just because they don't like how they look."
I thought we were talking about homosexuality not plastic surgery?
Posted by parkerwil 2 years ago
Thank you for your "constructive" comment, I do not agree with someone changing the way they look just because they don't like how they look.

The debates are for education and constructive purposes, some arguments are easier to defend than others, I like to challenge myself in these kind of arguments.
Posted by Rm1840 2 years ago
There are too many flaws in your argument to count.
If you think homosexuality is "unnatural" from this I am sure you are also against plastic, injections or chemotherapy and God forbid an old lady wants a hip replacement because that sure as hell is not "natural".
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture. Pro also refuted all of Con's arguments, such as how gay marriage isn't natural. They refuted this by saying that marriage itself is not natural, and that something being natural doesn't determine it's legality. And gives examples of things that are "natural" but also illegal. Pro also refutes contention 1, saying that if gay marriage denies a child a mother and father, then single parenthood should also be illegal, which it is not. Pro also brings up that gay parents who want children will most likely adopt, and they will reduce the amount of children depending on state funded childcare, that is funded by taxpayers money. Thus the children would benefit by having parents who care for them, and taxpayers will have less orphans to fund. Pro refutes contention 2, saying that if the basis of marriage is fertility, then heterosexual couples who are infertile should also be denied marriage. Pro then wraps it up by refuted contention 4, which [RFD IN COMMENTS]