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

Thoughts on 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/14/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 49095
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I believe that same sex marriages should be legal everywhere.
I see some famous people have had to hide there love for another and it hurts to see live go to waste like that. They are so scared to come out and knowing they will not be accepted. I believe in larry stylinson
So I support gay marriage bc love knows no boundaries.
This involves everyone.


Alright I'll take on this case. However I would like to state that I don't hate gays, but I do think that being straight is better then being gay. So Heterosexual Marriages should be encouraged over Homosexual ones.

| Constructive |

They don’t Procreate

When you think about it, why should we legalize marriage at all? Why is this deep unity between the genders a need for humanity? Heterosexual marriage relationship is a necessity because of the offspring they bring, it’s a prerequisite for the human race continuance, but this is not the case for homosexuality.

So there is no reason that we “should” have same sex marriage, for they don’t give back to society like the other. Is it a need to legalize it? No.

They’ll demand equality

The thing is once we approve of their lifestyle, they’ll want to get the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage gives. There’s obvious financial benefits involved (tax cuts and such, I know this is true within America) It’s similar to saying “We love each other, now give us your wallet!”

The thing is they aren’t equal with heterosexual relations for they don’t grow a society because they don’t procreate, so it makes sense leaving one better than the other (unequal) so that the union between man and woman has more attraction over the alternative. But sense you’re trying to encourage heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships, it makes sense outlawing it to detract the behavior so the society can grow more where it potentially can.

Takes a toll on your reputation

Many people look at being gay as dishonorable and disgusting. The problem with being gay is that it will bring about shame to your name, and make it difficult with fitting into some social groups. So there are reasons to remain strait if you want to keep your name like gold. You might think it unfair, but it‘s simply the way it is, you’re better off romancing the breasts of a woman or practicing celibacy then go gay.

| Refutations |

They don’t love each other, they lust for each other.

"So I support gay marriage bc love knows no boundaries."
--- LarryStylinson

Love is caring for the needs of others, it’s not the desire to have sex, for this is lust. The only reason why a male gay relationship happens if one man is obsessed with the male genitalia. You say love has no boundaries, but nothing can be further from the truth, for love does not covet its neighbor sexual parts, for it restrains itself. Heterosexual is greater than homosexual, for it gives life from the offspring, and more pleasurable to have (the male genitalia seems to be designed for a woman not a man. It seems disgusting to have it up another man).

For if a loving man sees another attractive man, out of love he would not lust, for he would know that the attractive man would be better off with a woman, someone that can give him kids and better quality sex.

| Closing Statemnt |

Sense they don’t contribute to society like that of a strait marriage, which makes having them somewhat pointless where they can be more productive and just as happy with a heterosexual marriage, and that we’ll probably have to give them financial benefits because they groan too much, and that it will destroy people image…

It simply makes more sense not having same-sex marriages.

Debate Round No. 1


LarryStylinson forfeited this round.


Extend my argumetns.
Debate Round No. 2


So maybe they can't procreate but how are we to say someone can't marry someone they love huh?
We are all for equal rights supposedly.
to me that's the whole point.
And it was or em that gay couple are happier and last longer which means less divorces.
Same sex marriage is the same. Just a man and man or woman and woman.


| Rebuttal |

So maybe they can't procreate but how are we to say someone can't marry someone they love huh?

Well if you’re a law-maker of some sort, then yes you can. And we’re talking about sex type here, not who you are allowed to love. I don’t see any reason why gays can’t simply decide not to marry, and just be friends with each other out of love.

We are all for equal rights supposedly.

I don’t think like that. I don’t believe a King is equal with its people… Say, I don’t think civilians should have equal rights with the president to command the army. I do believe it’s alright for certain unequal rights where it’s reasonable. Obviously gun rights aren’t equal always with civilian and military, for good reason.

If you’re going to make gay marriage happen, then might as well make it equal. Its inevitable because some politician down the road will make it happen to unfairly win votes in a democratic or republic kind of society. These little decisions can make these butterfly effects likely happen down the road when the gay crowds grow larger from being legalized and more accepted.


True I can’t because I’m not a person given power or authority to fiat these decisions by society. This isn’t a real policy debate, as its simply asking for thoughts on same sex marriages (so it doesn’t really matter if I can tell and can’t tell). However if in the event that society granted me the power to make these decisions where I can tell people of the society whom they can and can’t marry, then I would say only marry someone of the opposite sex. Because heterosexual marriages contributes better then homosexual relationships because they procreate. And financial wise, they would be more a liability then an asset for society because we would have to give them the same benefits for the sake of equal rights (when they don’t contribute procreation).

For me, it’s more or less a debased mindset because you’re not maximizing a society’s potential. I think one should love society just as much as yourself, so when being gay in a sense you’re just loving yourself more than society.

And it was or em that gay couple are happier and last longer which means less divorces.

I’m highly skeptical on any research regarding gays being “happier”. I mean how can you possibly measure happiness? For both the gay and straight would simply say I’m happy. And saying that they last longer may not be true because the research is lesser compared to the research on opposite sex marriages. The size of the two is radically different, so there are reasons that the research is simply unreliable. And there can be something that inflates divorce rates in some way for the heterosexual relationships opposed to same sex (mail-order bride, or another marriage marketing avenue)

Also to point out that some people use divorce as a tool to acquire a more attractive spouse... not for love. It makes perfect sense for some guys to abandon a fat ugly wife and swap her out for a super-hot underwear\bikini model if given the chance. This adulterous behavior could unfairly be inflating the divorce rates because not everyone marries for love, but for looks in opposite sex marriage.

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he
who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

---------- Jesus Christ

| Closing Statement |

To be clear… I don’t hate gays, I simply think that opposite sex marriages are intrinsically more profitable for mankind than same-sex. I know this is kind of a touchy debate, so love and peace be to all, and thank you for taking time to read this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
The negativity toward homosexuals is simply evidence for homophobia! You believe heterosexual relationships are better than homosexual relationships.. but that is your opinion .. not fact! You would be better off just forgetting about them I think, instead of protesting something that truly does not affect you in the slightest!
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
marriage is factually unnecessary period! How many people do you think actually get married for reasons you approve of? Procreation is not as sacred as you make it out to be! If you don't think we have more than enough moths to feed. I assume you take the head in the sand approach to poverty and starvation! I'm really not trying to insult you. Just want to understand because it seems pretty pointless to deny two people in love a wedding! I got married in july: It was to celebrate my love not how can help society!
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
If you"re saying that homophobia is "favoring that which is better" than yes I got it. I do not have simplicity in this area, for I have reasons why I believe what I believe.

Procreation argument isn't enough alone, as that is not my entire case. The point of using the procreation argument is to state that gay-marriage is factually unnecessary to the human race. How does your relationship profit me & everyone else in some way? Why do we need gays? It"s not procreation what makes the case a negative, it"s the financial aspect that does.

For gays, you don"t profit anything new. If you"re a guy, all you gain is another penis, something you already got. You don"t profit any love, for you already have it. The only real difference of turning it into a marriage is what people recognize you on paper as (outside of benefits), but why should the gay care? Simply say "screw society!" and not bother with getting married on paper.

No matter how you roll with it, their existence is a negative towards society, not a positive. If there is at all any debate, it"s more or less over how bad the negative impact is.

And if your saying that we got plenty of mouths to feed (which I disagree with), might as well cut all financial benefits or throw marriage out altogether (why put this burden on society?). Which isn't going to happen because who would vote for me if I took away their marriage benefits? Might as well stop now on gays so the problem doesn't become worse. Because as soon as it happens, nothing will stop it.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
homophobia is pretty common. I think all children are afraid of what they do not understand! So apparently you have not felt the need to empathize for homosexuals. Your reasoning is completely arbitrary to the case! You basically just imply that you simply do not like homosexuals! Why else would procreation be a concern to you? Is not this planet already to the brim with mouths to feed and waste to produce?
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
Yeah but thats like.. your opinion man!
Posted by gryephon 2 years ago
Well then, use this prejudice view on the procreation argument, and put your opinion down in the vote.

I'm not going to argue with you implying that I have homophobia because whats the point? No matter what I say you'll simply still believe that I have it, so i'm like whatever. I use rational and logical reasons why I view that opposite-sex is better then the alternative, I just like a potentially better society compared to them. There's nothing wrong with that.

If you want to be gay, whatever. But you're better off with the opposite-sex if you're after a better life.
Posted by Finalfan 2 years ago
The procreation argument needs to be indicted! It is arbitrary to the argument! Anyone who uses that argument has to be homophobic. Why else would they think that is a reason to ban gay marriage?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 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 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: As much as I dislike Con's stance, it seemed to hold-up decently, in this debate. Con asked Pro for a good reason as to why we should have gay marriage. Con also made arguments as to why gay marriage is inferior to same-sex marriage, which doesn't really argue the resolution, yet Pro didn't capitalise on this blunder. "WE CANT TELL PEOPEL THEY MUST MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX." - is basically the summary of Pro's arguments -- mere opinion. Con made arguments, and gave reasons as to why he was making those argument. So, arguments go to Con. Conduct also goes to Con, for the round forfeit by Pro. I might also add, that whilst I hate your stance, Con, your formatting style negates a lot of my hatred :)