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

Gay marriage should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/12/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 91155
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)




"Gay marriage" refers to "marriage between partners of the same sex."

Pro should present their arguments in round 1 and waive the final round.

Note: don't argue from removal of marriage as a government institution, because then it essentially becomes "privatized marriage," which is still legalized gay marriage and will prove a reason to vote Con.


Sodomites should be executed, making the issue of them being "married" moot.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro says same-sex couples should be executed. Pro offers no net benefits of this. "Should" implies an analysis of net benefits for the state. Pro doesn't offer any possible benefit. That's bigoted garbage, because killing innocent people is a major harm - it's a part of any net benefit analysis. Pro also doesn't explain *why* they "should be executed," or shouldn't be married in general.


There are two unique benefits to legalizing same-sex marriage.

First, same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren't and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society.

Second, it's a proven fact that people who get married have more weddings. Weddings are seen as an acknowledgement of marriage, and such ceremonies are rarely held among unmarried people (people without legally recognized marriage). As such, legalizing gay marriage - by increasing the number of marriages - creates a boost to the economy, since it creates more jobs in the wedding industry, increases government revenue by sales taxes and increases consumption.

To reduce psychological harm and increase economic benefit, vote Con.


It is always fun to watch those indoctrinated by the government school system, which is to say those who no moral education whatsoever, try to argue on moral grounds.

First of all, ignorant one, "should" is the language of morality, not economics. Second, while there is a school of moral thought that thinks morality is economics, no one seriously embraces it anymore for it assumes omniscience when no man possesses such. Third, sodomites are not innocent, but are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy. Fifthly, they should be executed because God, who is omniscient, says so.

Turning now to your silly claims, I am glad to see you admit sodomites have psychological problems, even if they are "married". Your idea may (or may not minimize) those problems, but executing sodomites eliminates that problem entirely. As true as it is that dead men tell no tales, it is truer that dead mean suffer no problems.

Second, if you wish to argue based on the economic benefit, I assure you executing sodomites has a much greater economic benefit than holding weddings for them. Just think of all the people necessary to execute a sodomite, from lawyers; to judges; to clerks; to prison guards, staff, wardens; to those who build the death chambers; to those who make the stones to use in the actual execution, to those who make and sell the poster board and crayons for those who desire justice to protest, the economic impact is huge. The average wedding is a mere $20k. The average execution is over a million dollars.

To eliminate psychological harm and really increase economic benefit, execute sodomites.
Debate Round No. 2


First, Pro says "should" is the language of morality, but fails to substantiate this claim. I didn't claim it was the language of "economics" either. Should implies "correctness" or "obligation," which is usually on the basis of net positive mental states generated and net negative mental states. Furthermore, this is a discussion of government policy, so it is Pro's burden to show that the role of the state is upholding "morality."

Second, I didn't say homosexuals are suffering from some "mental illness" and that's a gross misrepresentation. I'm saying people - in *general* - face psychological distress if they face severe social stigmatization, and doing that to same-sex couples qualifies as a harm.

Third, Pro drops that killing innocents qualifies as a "harm." Execution is a weird plan that results in net harm; in fact, it even causes psychological damage to the executioner []. Pro's sole justification for execution is that "they are guilty of the moral crime of sodomy." Pro doesn't warrant this at all, because (a) marriage doesn't imply sex, and (b) Pro fails to prove that this is a "moral crime." Pro also fails to prove that God supports this execution.

Finally, turn Pro's economic argument. The $20k spent on a wedding is *positive* because it boosts businesses, increases consumption and increases revenue. The costs spent on capital punishment is a negative cost, since it is a loss of *government* revenue.


As I said, this dude is utterly lack of a moral education. Indeed, he does not even know what morality is in questioning that morality concerns itself with standard of how people should act. And again, morality has nothing to do with mental states. ROFL. And yes, government exists to enforce moral codes. That is all government does.

Yes, you said :married" sodomites would suffer less psychological harm than "unmarried" sodomites, which is to say all sodomites are psychologically messed up. This is, of course, very true. Executing them eliminates this problem.

Finally, economic spending does concern itself with subjective notions of positive and negative. Rather, it understands tht every dollar spend in an economy is an economic boost to the economy. Indeed, his analsysis is silly. For while a wedding may benefit those who perform it, it is a negative to those who pay for it. The same is true for executing sodomites. While the state may suffer lose, those who are paid because of the execution are benefitted. In terms of economic benefits, marrying sodomites cannot hold a candle to executing them.

Go execution.
Debate Round No. 3


Pro does nothing to discuss the role of the state. What the government "should" do isn't a moral question unless proven so. Regardless, Pro doesn't do anything to prove that homosexuality is immoral. The government exists to benefit its people, because if it doesn't do what is net beneficial for its people, it lacks any legitimacy and unnecessarily curtails liberties.

Pro argues that executing homosexuals eliminates the problem of psychological distress, but completely drops the argument that executing them is one such harm in itself -- so the plan itself is its biggest harm. Pro also drops that executioners suffer from psychological distress.

Finally, the economic argument is nonsense, and here's why. The money spent by the people on a wedding is often used for their own benefit - they enjoy the wedding, and they *own* the money, so they have the right to spend it the way they want. In contrast, the government doesn't own its money -- it is owned by the people, of the people and for the people. The role of the state is to benefit its people, and so that's the only purpose for which the money should be used. And there are other ways to get employment, et cetera without the actually *significant* harm of executing people.

Vote Con.


Now this dude has gone from ignorant to willful obtuseness. Again, morals concerns what should be done. Thus, what the state should do is a moral question. And yes, God says that not only is sodomy immoral, but that the state should execute those who engage in it. And no, the government does not exist to benefit people and certainly not account to this fool's calculus.

And I never argued that executing sodomites is harmful, for justice is always good. Rather, I showed why this fool's solution to minimize sodomite suffering by allowing them to '"marry" is inferior to eliminating their suffering by execution.

Finally, I showed that the economic benefit from executing sodomites is orders of magnitude higher than letting them marry. This fool responds by making up some nonsense about where the dollars come from, but that is not relevant to the question of economic benefit.

Given that not only is he wrong in an absolute sense, his owe arguments show that executing sodomites is better than marrying them. He loses.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SeventhProfessor 10 months ago
I would've voted Pro
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
Yes, sodomites should be executed. God says so. End of debate.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Thanks for voting, Danielle.

I didn't put any effort at all as soon as I saw "execute them," so that explains how it was a bad debate on my part.

One question: why do you think I have the BOP in this debate?
Posted by Danielle 2 years ago
RFD: Con has the BOP and begins with 2 arguments - that gay marriage reduces psychological harm and boosts the economy. He also comments on Pro's ridiculous (and irrelevant) assertion that gays should be executed, but that's neither here nor there. Still Pro addresses this and says gays should be killed because God says so, because sodomy is immoral, and because economic benefits are not moral benefits, while this debate is (allegedly) about morality. Nevertheless Pro suggests that executing gay people is good for the economy because... it... takes over a million dollars... to kill someone. Anyway, Con says people face psychological distress if they face stigmatization from not marrying. He then replies to Pro's irrelevant points about executing gays. Surprisingly, Con fails to respond to Pro's points about sodomy and God as it pertains to the law. Pro then exhibits some questionable conduct ("ROFL") and challenges Con's interpretation of morality. But neither one of them make a strong moral case, or any moral case at all. Instead Pro challenges Con's mental health claim by saying gays are mentally unstable, so allowing them to marry would not address it. Con kinda drops this. And surprisingly, the economic argument still persists. Con says that people who gift money gift their own money, while the state gifts "the people's" money and the money can be used in other ways. Con actually does a really bad job with this argument, yet Pro pretty much drops it. Since the economic argument was 1/2 the debate crux, that's a significant point to Con. Con also points out that Pro drops the argument that executing gays = harm in and of itself, and that Pro has failed to prove sodomy is inherently harmful. Pro says he proved executing gays is superior to letting them marry, but he has not. And either way this resolution is about the legality of gay marriage - not execution. This wasn't a great debate to be honest, but I guess both of Con's points still stand at the end...
Posted by ViceRegent 2 years ago
I love watching reprobate fools try to censor those they disagree with, all in the name of tolerance, of course.
Posted by johnlubba 2 years ago
I am homophobic by nature.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago

I told Airmax about it, he said it was okay.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Should I report this debate for hate speech? It's probably a troll, but it might not be.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Aaaaaand I don't meet the ELO requirements.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
Pro's only argument is that gay people should be killed. He never once attempts to justify divine command theory, nor does he attempt to show God actually commanded this. Con's arguments have to do with the psychological benefit of marriage and the boost to the economy. Pro argues that since all homosexuals have psychological problems, they should all be killed so that there wont be anymore suffering. Pro says this results in net harm even for the executioner and he never argued all homosexuals suffer mental illness. It will just prevent any harm from being done. Pro just restated it means they all have psychological problems along with merely reasserting his case without touching on Con's objections. Clear win for Con with this argument.

Con's next argument had to do with an economic boost. Pro's rebuttal again has to do with execution. Pro argues the execution is a loss of money, whereas weddings are a positive increase to the economy. Pro says that it still boosts the economy because the money still gets spent. Con stated that since the government doesn't own its money it doesn't benefit people in the same way. Furthermore, since Pro's argument relies on his justification for the morality of execution, it fails (since there was no justification). This debate goes to Con. Pro never attempted to justify his main argument which all others were based upon and Con's arguments were properly justified and defended
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Danielle 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in coments section