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

This argument against gay marriage is compelling and sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 9/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,933 times Debate No: 25667
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)





In this debate, My opponent will have to find a problem with the logic behind my argument against gay marriage and successfully explain why its not a compelling argument.

how compelling the argument will depend on how much practical significance it has or will have on society. My opponent will have to explain how my argument will have little to no negative affect on society when it comes to public policy only.

This means my opponent will not be mentioning the history of marriage, civil rights, or the "is" portion of this debate, but its about what we "ought" to do in terms of public policy. He or she is just there to poke holes into the argument and MUST accept the first premise of what marriage IS about, which I will provide a breif deductive sysllosgism . Its an argument about the actual true purpose of civil marriage, but its NOT the mainstream procreation argument heard time and time again. I am NOT arguing that the state is trying to encourage couples to procreate and raise and children by making fertility a requirement:

Premise 1

The purpose of Civil marriage is to regulate the biological driven phenomena known as procreation that happens either by choice or by accident. The traditional view of marriage is based on the "natural teleology of the body" where only a man and a woman, and only two people, not three, can generate a child and raise the child through the natural complimentary element of both genders. Civil marriage arose and exist to encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context which is in a marriage and to discourage the creation of children in other contexts, which is out of wedlock birth's and fatherless homes in order to make sure they don't raise children in a unstable environment.

The state uses the traditional definition of marriage ,as a means to achieve this purpose, in order to actually be able to encourage heterosexual couples to obtain a marriage license. Then, the state issuance of marriage licenses reinforces this meaning of marriage and ,as a result, provide legal and social support for their relationships.


Now, when I say the word "encourage", I mean it in a indirect sense. For example, The mere appearance or existence of a green/ red traffic signal helps us know when is the right time to drive. Our understanding that green light means "go" encourages us to drive and red light means "stop" to discourages us from driving. Our understanding of the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman would be the green light that encourages us to procreate inside a marriage while cohabitation would naturally be the red light to not procreate inside.

In both situations, this is done to maintain order in the public arena and protect ourselves or others quality of life. However, the difference between the two is that you get punished by the state if you drive pass a red light. When it comes to marriage, you are allowed to raise a family outside of a marriage or without the father and not get penalized. In other words, You have the freedom to marry and procreate or not.

Thus, the law does not forcibly make us do right from wrong but helps us understand what is right and wrong regarding the well-being of children. Whether or not we choose to do what's right is entirely our choice.


Lastly, This is very important. When I say that this is an argument against gay marriage, I am actually saying this is an argument against redefining marriage to just two people regardless of gender. This is because the marriage laws on the books don't say "Same sex couples are not allowed to get married". When states allow same sex couples to be called marriage, they do not call them gay marriage or straight marriage and create separate institiutions with different names like civil unions. They redefine marriage to just two people regardless of gender by no longer referencing the gender within any of the laws. In other words, its a "one size fits all" marriage system put in place.


The Fool: Hmm I accept.

Sufficient conditions for resolution to be met:

1. MUST accept the first premise of what marriage IS about,

2. Find a problem with the Logic.

3. Poke holes in His arguments

4. To explain why his argument will have hardly any negative effect

5. Efficiently explain why it’s not compelling.

Debate Round No. 1



Premise 2:Since a heterosexual couple is the only union that can potentially procreate accidentally or procreate at all by definition outside of a marriage, the state cannot encourage heterosexual couples to create and raise the next generation in the right context without referencing and acknowledging the traditional definition of marriage ONLY, which is one man and one woman.

Premise 3A: This means if the state were to call same sex unions a marriage in conjunction with opposite sex couples, the law would publicly declare that, from now on, Marriage can be understood apart from responsible procreation and natural parenthood.

Since the well-being of children would no longer be a component of the concept of marriage, the social stigma within choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness etc.), which serves as a natural deterrent, would decay and its effect would basically be eliminated. This is because marriage ends up ONLY becoming a matter of choice between consenting adults who want to express their love a certain way.

In summary, my argument, in a nutshell against gay marriage is this, where the possibility of natural children is nil in law, the meaning of marriage is nil. If marriage is allowed between members of the same sex, then the concept of marriage has been emptied of content except to ask whether the parties love each other. There would be no reason to have public recognition of marriage.


Premise 3B: Not only would the state no longer be able to encourage incoming generations of heterosexuals to create stable environments, as I previously explained, but it would end up discouraging them as well.

If the traditional notion of marriage, which is defined as banning gay marriage by gay marriage advocates, continues to be compared or labeled as a form of slavery/bigotry akin to racism/homophobia and the state enforces this, then the likely hood of the next generation holding and accepting this idea of marriage in the future would be virtually impossible.


In terms of the selection process, studies very clearly show that people, who cohabit, compared to those who don't, have less traditional ideals or views of marriage. Then, according to other studies, they would not only be more likely to cohabit but more likely to divorce from prior cohabitation [1]. As I explained above, marriage between two people regardless of gender is considered non-traditional and traditional views of marriage would be considered a form of hate and discrimination.

Premise 4: Immediate Effects

Americans will either have no choice but to accept this view of marriage or have to reject their own beliefs about marriage which reflect objective reality (as shown above) in the process. Otherwise, they will have to live in fear of a secular government that will pander to the likes of intolerant gay activists who will undoubtedly train children their corrosive view of marriage. Here are some examples of this new law impinging on people's freedoms and their capacity to live their life with freedom of conscience and to transmit their values to their own children:


In 2006, the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case and ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual marriage to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children.

In California, Gay history is a required curriculum, which will eventually teach the issue of civil rights/gay marriage and try to claim there's a connection.


"The Boston Globe newspaper, regularly does feature stories and news stories portraying homosexual "married" couples and the newspaper advice column now deals with homosexual "marriage" issues, and how to properly accept it."


The state of California attempted to force E Harmony, which is a private company run by a Christian, to accommodate gay individuals' preferences when it comes to dating services in California.

The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities to accommodate homosexual married couples to adopt children the same as normal couples. Catholic Charities decided to abandon handling adoptions rather than go against their deep held beliefs.

In the state of Vermont, ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Innkeepers Who Refused to Host SS Ceremony Reception.


The Long-Term Effects

In connection with the immediate effects and the studies, the state promoting a non-traditional view of marriage and discouraging traditional views of marriage combined will potentially program vulnerable future generations to formulate choices (like cohabitation, fatherlessness, etc) that could harm their own family and society along with the institution of marriage as a result.


Society and the state does not need to take action or worry about the effects of sexual activity from same sex couple's in the same way. Parentage is always planned or chosen and mainly at an age where they would be able to support a family on their own whether through adoption or other means.

Therefore, since same sex couples are fundamentally different, an important governmental distinction between the two relationships would be reasonable in order to advance this interest and prevent the inevitable consequences from this new law. The state can use the traditional definition to encourage young impressionable heterosexual couples to procreate within the context of marriage while the state can encourage homosexuals to adopt and stay together with civil unions.

[1] .. p.2



The Fool: This debate reminds me of and argument I overheard:

Socrates: How very clever of you Procimacus, clever enough to ask what twelve was but first give them a warning. "Now look here don't go telling us that twelve is twice six, or three times fouror six times two or four times three, I am not going to take any sort of that nonsense from you!” I don't think anybody could answer if you ask them in that way. It is obvious to you I imagine that if you ask the question in that way, nobody could possibly answer it.

Procimacus: Is that just what you are going to do now, give one of the answers I told you not to give!

Socrates: It wouldn't surprise me I said if upon reflection I came to that conclusion.


The Fool: I accept the first premise as promised, but as much as I accept it as a true it appears to me, to be a self-defeating insofar as a deductive syllogism is what we wish. But I do not really think that is what we had in mind. I understand we have agreed that marriage and or civil marriage came about and were even created with an intended function.

With what little I know, I do know about latent functions. That is when something has a purpose but it serves as an unintentional or unnoticed purpose Aka “latent function”.

Argument from Latent functions.

For example: we may go to college for the sake of getting a job. But colleges also serve as Latent function to finding a good Mate. There is more opportunity for direct social Intercourse, which leans in favour to selecting someone more fined tuned to you. Secondly even though your purpose was for employment, it can "None the less" also teach you how to make better decisions, to live a more fulfilling live regardless if you notice it or whether that was you purpose for going. And that is the doctrine of latent functions.

The Fool: I would wish that to be the only concern regarding your syllogism. But alas, I fear it is not our only problem. I can't help but notice that our accepted premise reeks of an a appeal to tradition fallacy. For it does not follow that because we did something in the past we should continue to do so now or in the future. It is much to our advantage that we accept that world is in constant flux and it is those who are able to adapt to its constant changes will be the ones who continue to evolve and out best those who don’t. We find ourselves is a different situation then yesterday. The world is in fact over populated; we are limited in resources, while starvation and poverty still flourish. There are many abandoned children who are in need of adoption. They have nobody at all. But it is better to be loved and taken care of by responsible gay parents who actually care for them than those who don’t. And it is in this sense that Gay marriage can be argued to have positive practical merit, for at least this much if for The Just and The Good.

In fact, that argument reminds me of one I once had with a someone who was much wiser then myself:

Argument from discovery

The Fool: Oh wise man, I have a computer which is used and was built for purposes of dealing with long tedious computations and for store information for business and government, why do you have one at home?

Wiseman: You should have a personal computer for just yourself.

The Fool: But my fellow wise mean that is not its purpose, it was made for industrial uses.

Wiseman: I am aware of that my foolish friend, but it does not follow that we can’t use it for other purposes.

The Fool: But you should not use it for other purposes, because that is not what it’s About, or the reason we created it in the first place!

Wiseman: Yes Fool, but I have discovered many more and possibly better uses for it.

The Fool: what is this you speak of that is not its purpose.

Wiseman: But is now. I can Play cool videos games, learn, socialize and communicate with the whole world, Isn`t that just the Grander and more virtuous usage.

The Fool: A, alas you are correct; I was a Fool to not think of that myself.

The Fool: So I must admit, since that day I have always tried to find how to use things in the most efficient way. Looking to discover, evolve, adapt and progress.

There are many who claim that “if it Ain't broke don't fix it.” But I respond to them by saying "but we can always upgrade it.”

The rap up!

The Fool: For if what I have spoken of is true, then I requite that it is fair to accept that I have met these requirements Sufficient for the resolution:

1. MUST accept the first premise of what marriage IS about,

2. Find a problem with the Logic.

3. Poke holes in His arguments


The Fool: I will now attempt to complete these final criteria’s for the resolution.

4. To explain why Pros argument will have hardly any negative effect

5. Efficiently explain why it’s not compelling.

The Fool: I am sure that the confusion in on my side and that you will surprise me with a rational explanation that exceeds my “wits”

But for now I must be happy with saying that your argument is not compelling because your first premise cannot serve as a part of a Logical syllogism. According to many Wiseman it is clear and distinct as a counter-example necessary to reject the notion that pros argument will have significant effect on society.

“The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time. “Anaximander of Ionia, c. 610

The Fool on the Hill.


Debate Round No. 2


kenballer forfeited this round.


The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
Both sides FF'd
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The Fool: It looks like you have one Big fat premise.
Posted by Stupidwalrus 5 years ago
I too desire to take this debate. Any chance you could change the criteria?
Posted by DeFool 5 years ago
Perhaps useless in the debate, but a nettlesome question for me is, "why should straight men and women be required to marry gays and lesbians?"

I'm only half joking, posing a question like that.
Posted by One_Winged_Rook 5 years ago
I'd love to take up this challange, but like DeFool, I don't meet the criteria.

I'm sure if you look at the debates I've had so far, that I am adept at debating.

My main contention to your argument would be that we should then limit marriage to couples who intend to procreate... which is alright with me, but would thereby limit a whole other group of people who would choose to marry, but do not intend to have children.

So, in fact, your are arguing to change the definition of marriage as one between "a man and a woman", to between "a man and a woman intending to proceate"

Thereby, men or women who have been deemed "unfertile" would be barred from marrying.

You'll have to add some type of extra argument that allows for men and women who don't intend to procreate, or bar them from marraige as well.

Your argument just doesn't fit as a defense for the argument "marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman"
Posted by DeFool 5 years ago
I am disallowed, due to my inability to match the Instigator's age, rank and experience level whatnot.

I am distraught.

If there is any way that this decision might be reconsidered, I would be thankful.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
And god can anyone prove that stupid procreation argument wrong.
Posted by Shifter 5 years ago
This isn't really a debate, it's a can you prove me wrong challenge..
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sigh, I hate Fool and his stupid Prometheus/Socrates stuff. FF, anyway.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF