The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
16 Points

Gay 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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,453 times Debate No: 28322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)




1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile
couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs
more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents
only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed,
since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful. Also,
as further proof of this I have documented a long study which strictly
proves that only heterosexuals are capable of upholding the sacred bonds of
marriage that. Oh, wait, I'll have to get back to this later, "Who Wants to
Marry a Millionaire" is on.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at
all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal
and punishable by death.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts because the
majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the
rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the
values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have
only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that
hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at
home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will. And let's not forget
camps! If those homos get too rowdy, we can always send them off to go
camping for a bit. Just look at how it mellowed out the Jews in WWII

If we really want to protect the institution of marriage, we should adopt a
constitutional amendment that makes infidelity unconstitutional.


I accept this. Since my opponent has not defined any terms, I will be netural and make this a BoP shared debate. In this round, I will post my argument affirming the resolution of gay marriage and attack my opponent's case in round two with a conclusion in the final round.

I. Economic Benefits

The legalization of gay marriage provides many economic benefits to its country.

One, it provides benefits directly to the economy through increased consumption: "And if you count everything purchased within 6 months before and after the wedding, we’re talking over $120 Billion. Now, you numbers people – tack on 5%-10%."[1]

Tacking on the average value, 7.5 percent, and that's an additional nine billion in spending just on the wedding and wedding proceedings. This doesn't even take into account the fact that married couples can produce various complimentarities such as increased output and spending.

And two, it provides benefits to the government:

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that if all fifty states and the federal government extended the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, the federal government would benefit by nearly $1 billion each year.

II. Reduced Risk of AIDS

The proven evidence shows us that the negative statistics in the homosexual community, ranging from the amounts of sexually-transmitted diseases shared among homosexual patrons to the drug and alcohol abuse and suicide rates, have all been shown to be caused as a result of intolerance against the homosexual community. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention writes on homophobia and AIDS rates: "Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks." In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.[2]

III. Constitutionality

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment requires that "[no State shall] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[3] Bans on same-sex marriage are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause for at least two different reasons. First, they deny gay men and women the ability to marry the person of their choice, whereas heterosexual men and women are not bound by these restrictions. Second, these bans single out and harm a suspect class by preventing only gays and lesbians, not heterosexuals, from being able to marry. Because bans on same-sex marriage unfairly disadvantage gay people and fail to treat them equally, they are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment requires that "[no State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."[13] Bans on same-sex marriage violate the Due Process Clause for at least two different reasons. First, they prevent gay citizens from having the liberty to marry the person of their choice. Second, an individual's choice of a marriage partner is protected by the 14th amendment from the state's subversion of that choice. For these reasons, bans on same-sex marriage are in violation of the Due Process Clause by impinging on a liberty that is deemed to be fundamental.

Gay marriage prohbition violates both of these parts of the constitution. In addition, it violates previous court cases:

As far as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, the right to marriage is a fundamental right. Theodore Olson, a world-renowned attorney and former Solicitor General of the United Sates, has pointed out that since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that the right to marriage is a fundamental right.[5] Consider, for example, Turner v. Safley, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression of emotional support and public commitment.”); Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”)[6] In light of this legal precedent indicating that marriage is a fundamental right, it is not reasonable to assume otherwise.


[2]: Francis, Andrew M., and Hugo M. Mialon. "Tolerance and HIV." (2009).:
[4]: ibid
Debate Round No. 1


1. It Is Not Marriage

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 wellbeing of the spouses.

The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.

[Get the TFP newsletter for free]

2. It Violates Natural Law

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law.

Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided." By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15)

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

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.

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

In the name of the "family," same-sex "marriage" serves to validate not only such unions but the whole homosexual lifestyle in all its bisexual and transgender variants.

Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior.

Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

Homosexual activists argue that same-sex "marriage" is a civil rights issue similar to the struggle for racial equality in the 1960s.

This is false.

First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected.

Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to marry because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.

6. 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.

7. It Defeats the State"s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State.

Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.

8. 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.

In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality.

9. 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 railroading of same-sex "marriage" on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

"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."

10. It Offends God

This is the most important reason. Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex "marriage" does just this. Accordingly, anyone who professes to love God must be opposed to it.

Marriage is not the creature of any State. Rather, it was established by God in Paradise for our first parents, Adam and Eve. As we read in the Book of Genesis: "God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it."" (Gen. 1:28-29)


To begin with, I will actually be refuting my opponent's R2 case because his whole R1 argument was plagarized from this site: Not only was it plagarized, the article was actually satirical. Then, he plagarizes his R2 from here: Still, I will post an argument.

I. It Is Not Marriage

On procreation, The United States Supreme Court has never indicated that procreation is an essential feature of marriage or that marriage is only between a man and a woman. What the Supreme Court has actually said in 14 cases is that the right to marriage is an aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association and identity.[1]

The fact of the matter is that the state has never inquired into a couple's procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license.[2] In fact, the Supreme Court has indicated that "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse."[3] Lawrence, 539 US at 567. Likewise, the Supreme Court has also mentioned that, completely apart from procreation, choice and privacy are an integral part of the marital union. See Griswold v. Connecticut, 381US at 485-486.[4]

On the well-being of a marriage: "Research shows that same-sex couples are similar to heterosexual couples in essential ways and that they are as likely as opposite-sex couples to raise mentally healthy, well-adjusted children. Thus, there is no scientific justification for denying marriage equality, when research indicates that marriage provides many important benefits."[5]

II. It Violates Natural Law

This argument is irrelevant to the debate. Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.

III. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

I will concede this; yes it does. However, In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. While research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, research shows these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships [6].

IV. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

Again, this argument is irrelevant to the debate. Why does it matter if the legalization of gay marriage pormotes the homosexual lifestyle? Even if homosexual acts were immoral, this doesn't provide a convincing argument as to why gay marriage should be prohibited.

V. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

My opponent claims that it opposes nature. On the contrary:

"In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.

Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species."[7]

"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species."[8]

Then on the comparison of interracial marriages to homosexual ones, Although the nature of these two examples may different, the very base of the argument is the following: Group X and Group Y should not be together for Reason A. This reason needs to be a morally relevant reason in order to be justified, but in the case of interracial marriage and gay marriage, the idea is incredibly similar. The reason for arguments against interracial couples is of a belief that blacks and whites should not be together, and the reason for arguments against gay marriage is of a belief that men and men should not be together. Both are morally irrelevant reasons for denying such marriages, and at that point, these marriages are at the very least similar in their nature. Therefore, analogies comparing them are fair.

VI. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

My opponent's arguments seem to be degrading. Not only is this irrelevant, it is a "so what?" argument. So what if homosexual must circumvent nature by costly and artifical means or employ surrogates? In fact, they can also adopt; a very moral decision. So what if these unions do not create families? In fact, many couples do.

VII. It Defeats the State's Purpose of Benefiting Marriage

Like I said earlier, the state's point of a marriage is not procreation; even so, allowing homosexuals to marry would not produce any decline in the birthrate because heterosexuals would still have the same amounts of kids. In addition, allowing more couples to get married would provide either more children via surrogate or in vitro or by adoption. And, couples are more stable for children than single parents. This obviously benefits the state by producing more jobs and a stronger economy.

VIII.-X. It "Destroy's" Morality

My opponent's final three arguments are just rants on how the legalization of same-sex marriage would degrade morality for society.

Who cares if it "imposes" homosexuality's acceptance on society? This will actually help society as people become more tolerant of them.

Who cares if homosexuality's acceptance is the cutting edge of the sexual revolution? This is again a step forward as we break the chains of "accepted" morality. And, how does the legalization of gay marriage lead to the legalization of rape and pedophilia? This is a slippery slope fallacy. These are true crimes, unlike homosexuality.

And finally, who cares if it offends God? Jamie Raskin basically summed it up with this quote "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible." Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it should be illegal. If that were the case, tattoos would be prohibited (Leviticus 19:28), pork would be prohibited (Leviticus 11:7-8), and work on the Seventh Day (Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday) would be prohibited (Exodus 20:8-10). See how silly all this sounds? Even so, "The Bible never mentions or condemns the concept we call same-sex marriage. Although opponents of same-sex marriage claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender unions violate biblical principles, no verses in the Bible explicitly address gay marriage or committed same-sex relationships."[9]

Therefore, gay marriage should be legalized.


[1]: (Time 41:54 - 43:30)
[2]:, p. 67
[3]: ibid, p. 111
[4]: ibid, p, 111-112
Debate Round No. 2


futurelawyer7 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended. Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by The_Master_Riddler 5 years ago
I am a Christian and I would usually support the person that is against gay people getting married, but come on people, you need to have at least some type of argument! What the heck is gay people will make gay children! If that is an argument, then that is the worst argument ever!
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
Con, your first arguments come from a pro-gay site that is making fun of our position...
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 5 years ago
biblical source to support a debate huh.....
Posted by futurelawyer7 5 years ago
were are called to love all our brothers and sisters. We love those who have same sex attractions but we cannot condone the "gay" lifestyle. The "gay" lifestyle that one leads as a homosexual man or lesbian women is the problem. Jesus said the greatest commandment was to love each other but he also corrected those who were breaking his Father's commandments. It is misguided compassion to encourage anyone with a same sex attraction to enter into the "gay" lifestyle. Love the sinner, hate the Sin.
Posted by rosstheboss 6 years ago
I honestly couldn't find one legitimate argument from futurelawyer7
Posted by Ron-Paul 6 years ago
I'll take dis.
Posted by Magicr 6 years ago
Hahahahahaha. Funny stuff.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 6 years ago
I am not amused, Con, I am not amused.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 6 years ago
"Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as
well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will. And let's not forget
camps! If those homos get too rowdy, we can always send them off to go
camping for a bit. Just look at how it mellowed out the Jews in WWII

4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 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: Pro presented a strong case against the animosity toward homosexuality. In essence, Con's arguments relied on one particular word: morality. According to my understanding, Con apparently attempted to establish that anything that is considered immoral should not be legalized. And what should constitute an immoral behavior? Anything that offends God (C10) shall be considered an immoral behavior. It is a contentious assertion that may not appear to be appealing to the people who do not believe that religious beliefs should dictate the society. Pro suggested that morality held no position in a legal debate since laws may not necessarily reflect the morality. Moreover, Pro suggested that legalization of gay-marriage would bring numerous benefits to the society (R1), thereby strengthening the notion that gay marriage should be legalized. My vote goes to Pro for 1. better conduct 2. made more convincing arguments 3. used the most reliable sources.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter tennis47.
Vote Placed by tennis47 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 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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: 'Cause I said so!
Vote Placed by drafterman 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