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

Gay Marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 399 times Debate No: 77061
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Gay Marriage should be legal for two main reasons.
1) There are no negatives to gay people getting married. The most successful countries in the world support gay marriage; Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark are all places that have legalized gay marriage years ago and have seen no problems in their respective countries from it.
2) Equality. If a man loves another man or a women loves another women there no difference in a man and women loving each other. As a society and a planet we must move forward and strive for Equality, so that every person is given an equal opportunity to love who they want as well as their lives.
Please respond I am curious to hear your argument.
I am open to being proved wrong and I hope you are to
May the best man win


Thanks for the challenge. Just for clarity's sake i can argue both for and against gay Marriage.
May the best debater prevail.

My contention against Gay Marriage:
Marriage as a social construct has evolved solely to supplement monogamous heterosexual relationships that naturally yield offspring. The purpose of marriage is to create an ideal atmosphere for procreation and subsequent child rearing. While i find nothing criminal nor unpalatable about gay relationships, gay marriage is where i must draw the line (on biological grounds). The basis of attraction to the same sex is a combination of environmental conditioning and genetic triggers. Unlike attraction however marriage is a choice. Marriage is also state sanctioned, which implies that (in a democracy) the majority and the norm be preserved. As an institution gay marriage not only threatens the definition of marriage but the very integrity of normal parenting. Gay couples cannot naturally procreate and a singular sex lacks either maternal or paternal genetic predisposition required to raise a psychologically versatile mind (in a child). A person with even minute biological and evolutionary insight (ranging from opposite polarities of our genetic code to the opposing action of hormones and neurotransmitters) realizes the significance of the following rule: Nature does not put all its eggs in one basket.

The sperm from the father (XY) and the egg from the mother (XX) unite to form a viable zygote.

My rebuttal to your points
1. Not enough data. The ancestors of the countries you have cited have been through a lot of toil (ranging from war to combating artificial or natural conflicts). If you do a simple ratio between the time these countries were conceived to when they legalized marriage you will find that the amount of time is not enough to judge the repercussions of gay marriage. To make a rather complex biological analogy: federal government integrating the necessary language legalizing gay marriage into the constitutional rule of law could very well be like a host's immune system letting a latent virus (such as HIV) integrate into the fabric of a cell's genetic code. Neither the biological host nor a nation's government will know the full extent of the repercussions of the impending malware until it is triggered (by a natural conflict) to express itself.
2. There is a biological/hormonal difference between the attraction between homosexuals and the attraction between heterosexuals. Men's testicles produce different hormones than a female's ovaries. As a societal construct marriage should be exclusive to heterosexuals. Sanctioning marriage rights to homosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally defeats the very purpose of marriage and serves to devalue the natural union of opposite sexes.

Nature does not put all her eggs in one basket.
Debate Round No. 1


For thousands of years human beings as a race and a society have constantly strived to survive. Producing offspring and growing your communities and villages through reproduction was not an option but rather a necessity.
But times have changed and as a society we must change with it. No longer are we in danger of becoming extinct if we do not reproduce at the same rate that we did before. There are over 7 billion people on earth. Countries on our planet have in the past been so over populated that they make made reproduction illegal (China's One-child policy). We must also remember that even if gay marriage was kept illegal, it would change nothing in regards to children being born. LGBT people would still not have children of their own, as such a thing is impossible, however as a illustrated above not creating new mouths to feed on this planet is not a negative thing. For these reasons the debate that gay marriage will stunt the rate of reproduction of children is irrelevant.
The argument that a child is unable to grow and thrive as a human being while only having parent(s) of a single sex is a statement that is completely void of any true data to back it up. In the United States today 15 million children live with out a father and 5 million children live without a mother in their lives. That is 20 million children who are being raise by a parenting group who, by your definition "lacks either maternal or paternal genetic predisposition required to raise a psychologically versatile mind". However history has shown us that some of the greatest, most famous people in history were raised without either a mother or father; Stephen Colbert, Bill Clinton, Shaquille O'neal, and even Barock Obama until he was four years old and his mother married a man who assumed the role of a father figure. All of these people are successful in todays society in a variety of ways, and all possess a "psychologically versatile mind" despite being raised without either their mother or father. So how is it that two, loving committed people who have made their love unconditional love to each other official through the unification of marriage could not raise and support a functioning child who contributed to todays society. Not having one sex as a parenting figure in your life is irrelevant to the outcome of a child's well being. Would a child be better off in a foster home where they have no parental figures around than in the home of two loving men or women? No they most certainly would not be. LGBT people who wish to adopt children are doing society a great service, by taking these children out of the governments custody they are not only saving us valuable tax dollars but also providing children with a safe, stable environment to grow up in and become valuable parts of society.
In conclusion LGBT people are just as qualified to raise children than anyone else, if not even more qualified because there is never a time when they will accidentally have a child, they will have always chosen to raise a child and will therefore treat it with both love and care not because they were forced into doing so, but because they truly want to.


First I will highlight your misinterpretation of my argument, then I will dispute errant and inconclusive arguments you have made that do not make logical sense to me.

Misinterpretation (strawman): Gay sex is a hurdle to the reproductive capacity of the human species and stunts population growth.

Rebuttal: This proposition was never made. It was said that the evolutionary purpose of sex is reproduction and that same sex intercourse deviates from thIs Darwinian standard. To say otherwise is to deny the biological differences between males and females and how these differences are crucial for viable offspring to be birthed.

Arguments lacking substance:

1. Reproduction was critical for the survival of the human species near its evolutionary origin. Since we are currently facing overpopulation a lower rate of reproduction is ideal. Gay sex does not add any new mouths to feed hence gay marriages actually contribute to an already saturated system with finite resources.

This argument is made in ignorance of human nature. Human instinct drives human beings to sought ways to reproduce naturally yielding biological offspring. There is an abundance of both gay men and women who have biological children simply based on preference. A marriage contract between gay partners does in no way imply the lack of biological offspring. In the abundance of cases where gay and bisexual parents have biological offspring the child is either deprived of a maternal or paternal figure. On average such children suffer psychologically and tend to propagate their problems on society at large once they hit adulthood.

Fallacious argument: Legal sanctioning of gay marriages can only be good.

Rebuttal: As a population the human species is like an organism. It is in constant flux and has to balance philosophies and informational memes that are embedded within and are represented by a number of entities ranging in scale from nations, large corporations, supreme courts, families to states, franchises, municipal courts and indeed human beings. These embedded memes, creeds, legacies and philosophies are the very scaffold on which modern society is built. The embedded philosophy behind lobbyists for gay marriage is the same around the globe. It advertises itself as an agent of change yet underhandedly seeds a nihilistic perception of life by demanding equal privileges and entitlements as the those who can naturally produce viable offspring. This is a perverse and unbalanced philosophy that if adopted serves to undermine the legal definition of marriage. Self entitled privileges granted to a same sex union that can neither produce viable offspring nor provide both maternal and paternal counseling is like giving a permanently blind person a telescope for his/her birthday.

Argument lacking substance: 20 million children without a mother or father lack a versatile mind according to me. Popular celebrities that are orphans or hail from single parent families, proves that maternal and paternal care and insight is not essential for an infants development and maturation.

Rebuttal: I can assure you the lack of a maternal or paternal figure only adds to the troubles and tribulations of these children. If these kids grow up to be celebrities it is a credit to their immense mental or physical fortitude. There are certain things and insights that are unique to either males or females. Heterosexual parents will obviously provide their son/daughter with both sides of the coin rather than giving them a biased and asymmetrical view of the world.

Fallacious argument: Gay parents do a favor to federally financed foster homes by taking orphans and abandoned children into their care.

Rebuttal: Let me be clear here: I have nothing against gay partners adopting a boy and raising him. I just believe that sterile heterosexual parents would raise an adopted child in a relatively more symmetric way (better). This critical difference between heterosexual coupling and homosexual coupling is why they should never be mistaken as 'equal.' For example: A biological mother (in most mammals) is naturally and instinctively more protective of her neonacent offspring. This unconditional love cannot be replicated in a homosexual man who adopts some one else's biological child. This is just one of the many ways gay marriage upsets the natural order.
Debate Round No. 2


GunnerEH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


GunnerEH forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.