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

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2013 Category: People
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 998 times Debate No: 38700
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




Why Shouldn't It Be? When I look at the arguments against same-sex marriage, I see one argument come up a lot; same-sex marriage is not "natural". And I say that no marriage is natural. Marriage is a human invention. WE invented this. So no marriage is natural. Homosexual marriage is just as natural as heterosexual marriage is.

Next, people say that a man and a woman are meant to be together because they are, biologically, the two parts needed to create children. But the point of marriage is NOT to create children. That is the point of sex, which is biological. If you say that the point of marriage is to create children, that means elderly people, infertile people and paralyzed people should not be allowed to marry. That doesn't make sense. My definition of marriage is "The joining of two people who love each other to live with each other until death or divorce separate them."

Next, people say legalizing gay marriage will encourage more people to be gay. To me, this doesn't make any sense. Who would choose to be gay today? That's like (i don't mean to offend anyone) choosing to be African-American during the civil rights movement. They were looked down on and had terrible hate crimes done to them. Who would want to live like that? Why not choose the easy way? Why do so many homosexual people commit suicide more often than heterosexual people? If they could change their behavior, they probably would.

What other arguments do you have? I'd like to hear more of this discriminating nonsense.


I wish to thank Pro for instituting this debate. Pro has attempted to poison the well ("discriminating nonsense"), but I trust the voters will vote based on who presents the stronger case.

I will first present my positive case for why same-sex marriage should not be legalized, then I will respond to Pro's claims.

My basic argument is as follows:

P1: Marriage has a special link to children.
P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children.
C1 (from and 2): Therefore, same-sex couplings are not proper marriages.
C2: Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized.

Defending premise 1.

Marriage, as properly defined, is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. As Girgis, et al, write, "The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law -- along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice -- of our civilization...It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage, so understood, the world rests its hope and finds ultimate renewal." [1]

What makes it a comprehensive union? It is because the married life is a kind of community that pursues certain goods and acitivities. Marriage unifies two people in mind and body, and it unifies them with respect to procreation and family life. Marriage is a unique kind of relationship in that it is the only relationship that is enriched and enhanced by the presence of children, and is lacking if a marriage lacks children. No other relationship has this unique bond, and only the conjugal view of marriage best explains this fact about marriage.

Defending premise 2.

This premise is self-explanatory. Same-sex relationships, by the very nature of their relationship, cannot produce children naturally (that is, without artificial means).

Defending Conclusion 1.

Since same-sex couplings cannot naturally produce children, they are not proper marriages. This is something that virtually all cultures throughout human history, even cultures like the ancient Greeks who embraced homosexuality, recognized. The fight to legalize same-sex marriage is not a fight for marriage equality, but a fight to redefine the act of marriage itself.

Defending Conclusion 2.

The conclusion stands affirmed. The government has no interest in same-sex marriages since the state only has an interest in the rearing of children to enter the work force and contribute to society to replace the elderly members of society who leave the workforce.

So now let's look at Pro's case.

1. I see Pro is conflating two different claims. There is a difference between saying that homosexuality is immoral and that gay marriage should not be legalized. I don't know anyone who argues that same-sex marriage is not natural; I do, however, see people arguing that homosexuality is unnatural. Since this debate is about same-sex marriage, I will not make any arguments about whether or not homosexuality is acceptable. My case is strictly about same-sex marriage.

Secondly, marriage is not a human invention. Like numbers and the laws of logic, it was discovered, not invented. Societies throughout human history have recognized that marriage is only between a man and a woman, even in nations like the ancient Greeks that embraced homosexuality.

2. See my first argument for why children are an essential part of marriage. Pro asserts that children are not the point of marriage, but he offers no evidence to support his own definition. But why should we accept Pro's definition of marriage? If that were the case, then brothers and sisters could get married, or good friends who are not interested in each other sexually, or any other type of union should be allowed. Also, if raising children is not the purpose of marriage, then why stop at two? Pro gives us no good reason. Why not allow polyamaorous unions?

To answer Pro's question about the elderly, infertile, and paralyzed, these are still procreative-type unions. They are unable to procreate due to some biological issue that prevents them, but may be corrected in the future (and some can be corrected now, for example by IVF (which brings with it more moral questions which are beyond the scope of this article to address, I am just using this as an example)). But homosexual unions cannot reproduce by the very nature of the relationship.

There are also a couple of other concerns. Requiring an infertile couple to make their infertility known before going through with marriage would be a violation of their privacy. Not only that, but since marriage just is a comprehensive union of husband and wife with a special link to children, Maggie Gallagher has this to say: "'Sexual union of male and female' points to, reinforces, and serves marriage's public purpose of responsible procreation in a way that 'sexual union of two men' clearly does not and cannot serve. If opposite-sex couples were typically or usually infertile, much less always and certainly infertile, then [this] strage assertion that we can incorporate the uion of two men or two women as arriage with no change in marriage's underlying meaning or relationship to responsible procreaton would make sense." [2] Since it is in the nature of male-female unions to procreate, and male-male or female-female unions cannot procreate, homosexual couples cannot legitimately be considered marriages.

This is also not discrimination. Same-sex couples are not forbidden from marrying based on sexual orientation. They are alllowed to marry, but like everyone else they are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. We can't just marry anyone we want. If a man falls in love with his sister, he is not allowed to marry her.

3. Finally, Pro responds to an argument that I also never hear anyone make. No serious person in this debate argues that legalizing gay marriage will encourage other people to be gay. This argument would just be a red herring, since if gay marriage is perfectly acceptable then others can choose to be gay if they want.

So to reiterate, Pro has failed to make his case. All he has tried to do is respond to possible criticisms, but he has not met his burden of proof. I have offered a positive case, so in order for Pro to win the debate he must refute my case and make a positive case of his own. He gave a definition for marriage but gave absolutely no reason for why we should accept it. I await Pro's response.

[1] Sherif Girgs, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Encounter Books, New York, NY, 2012, p. 1. Emphasis in original.
[2] John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher, Debating Same-Sex Marriage, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2012), p. 254
Debate Round No. 1


FionnaStevenson forfeited this round.


KeytarHero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


FionnaStevenson forfeited this round.


KeytarHero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by NUCLEAR 5 years ago
Why do people care so much. Not that i'm gay but it's their opinion.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 5 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.F.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 5 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I am too biased to vote - I really needed to see the missing arguments that were forfeited. I was super-impressed with the argument that marriage is a human construct, and so the "nature" argument was not applicable. However, this criticism is usually aimed at LGBT in general, and not really at the marriage contract. Con's arguments would be easy to beat, but that just didn't happen here. This FF was a real shame.