The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
12 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 79649
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Homosexuality results in the deadly and contagious venereal diseases of AIDs and HIV, which everyone knows with result in casualties, this is my first argument, there will be more to come if he accepts.


I would like to thank Con for inviting me to talk with them about this issue. It's my hope that we can have a calm, rational discussion about this topic, which has in recent years become a very contested debate in the media.

AIDs started on the continent of Africa; a population of chimpanzees had developed the virus. When the local human population hunted the chimpanzees, the virus crossed over through blood contact; the initial human infections most likely go back to the 1800s. The idea that there are more homosexual people with aids than heterosexuals is patently false. Globally, 34 million people live with aids; In Africa, Asia and India, HIV has always been and remains an overwhelmingly heterosexual disease [1]. Those regions represent nearly 30 million of infected persons, the United States has only 1 million infected [2]. If AIDs is primarily transmitted by the gay population, how has it decimated 12% of Zambia's population when gays only make up less than 3.5% of any population worldwide, especially when homosexuality is a felony punishable by up to 14 years there? Clearly, banning gay marriage didn't save them from AIDs at all.

Furthermore, gay men only represent 50% of the gay community, the other 50% being lesbians of course. According to
the CDC, there are no confirmed cases of HIV from female-to-female transmission [3]. That's not to say there aren't any lesbians with HIV, just that the number is so infinitesimally small that it can't even be calculated. Even if gay men accounted for a majority of HIV infections worldwide (which they don't), why would we use those demographics to deny the right of marriage to the other 50% of the gay population?

If Con has any other reasons for denying same sex couple's the right to marry, I'd love to hear them.

[1] -
[2] -
[3] -
Debate Round No. 1


AIDs and HIV is transmitted through mucus membrane, this can be done in many ways, people in Zambia are irrelevant to the debate as they live in a 3rd world country and are in a very unhygenic living condition. In America AIDs and HIV are 80% transformed through homosexuals, in Zambia you could get it from anything.


I was under the impression that we were debating whether gay marriage should be tolerated in any place, apparently pro just wants to focus on the United States, which I'm fine with.

My argument on female gay marriage still stands however. Also, what negative effect would gay marriage have on AIDs transmission? When any couple get married they (mostly) become monogamous, banning marriage would only lead to cases where couples that would have otherwise only been having sexual relations with one person, would now be having casual sex with more. Getting married, whether gay or straight, leads to the elimination of the high risk behavior that exposes all of us to things like STDs. "Researchers estimated that constitutional bans on gay marriage which are currently in place in 31 states raise the infection rate by four cases per 100,000 people" (Milan, Francis, 09) [4].

In addition, legalizing gay marriage reduces the stigma surrounding homosexuality, removing barriers to access for HIV testing. An estimated 10% of people infected with HIV don't even know it [5]; reducing the need for these individuals to hide from society increases our ability to get them treated sooner and more effectively.

...If Con has any other reasons for denying same sex couple's the right to marry, I'd still love to hear them.

[4] -
[5] -
Debate Round No. 2


No, were talking about anywhere, the United States was just to compare to Zambia as a control, anyway, you don't seam to understand how heterosexuality is different from homosexuality, for appropriate Ness I will not discuss this, you will have to look it up.


I'd like to apologize to anyone reading this. You came here for a debate, and that's simply not what we delivered.

I have refuted all of Con's arguments with peer reviewed scientific research, he hasn't refuted any of mine, because he can't. This debate unfortunately got bogged down on arguments regarding HIV, which I find disappointing, I was hoping to explore some of the many other angles surrounding same sex marriage.

Fact: Places that have institutionalized discrimination against the LGBTQ community have higher rates of psychiatric disorders, including almost double the normal rate for anxiety disorders [5]. Not only does this place a higher burden on our healthcare systems, it's just plain wrong.

Fact: Places that ban same sex marriage have MORE AIDS and HIV in their populations, not less [6].

Fact: "Psychological and psychiatric experts have agreed since 1975 that homosexuality is neither a form of mental illness nor a symptom of mental illness", and that "denial of access to marriage to same-sex couples may especially harm people who also experience discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, disability, gender and gender identity, religion, and socioeconomic status" [7].

The bottom line is this:
Banning same sex marriage only hurts our communities. If you're on the fence with this issue, that's fine. All that I ask of anyone that disagrees with what I've said here is that they do some unbiased research and use what they find to make an informed decision. I'd like to thank those that have taken the time to read this debate and listen to what we have said here. I won't ask you to vote pro, I'll just ask you to do what you think is right.

[5] -
[6] -
[7] -
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 3 years ago
- This argument was also dropped by Con. Pro brings up another point that legalizing gay marriage and thereby reducing stigma surrounding homosexuality will encourage testing. This point was also dropped by Con. In fact, all of Pro's points were dropped by Con in the final round, where Con states that - you don't seam to understand how heterosexuality is different from homosexuality, for appropriate Ness I will not discuss this, you will have to look it up. - This is actually inappropriate for the debate, if Con wanted to make a point, they have to state in their final round, not just say "look it up." Sources also goes to Pro, because they backed up their facts with credible and peer reviewed sources, whereas Con used no sources at all. In conclusion, Pro wins due to their better arguments, which were never refuted by Con, and their better sources. If either side has any issue with this vote feel free to PM me.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
There is high risk behavior, not high risk groups.
Posted by harrytruman 3 years ago
Yes I accept you're parameters, the question is whether or not it should be tolerated.
Posted by William.Burnham 3 years ago
Nevermind, I'm bored anyways, let the battle commence.
Posted by William.Burnham 3 years ago
I feel like I've covered this topic too many times already on Debate, but I'm not one to back down from a challenge, I accept under the following terms:

I prefer female pronouns. I know my account name says "William.Burnham", but that's only because it won't let me update it for some reason.

I also need to know what exactly the question being asked is. "Should gay marriage be legal", or something along those lines. Gay marriage is alittle too vague of a topic to debate from.

If Con agrees to respect my wishes within the scope of this debate regarding pronounds, and if they define their question, then I will gladly accept this challenge.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by V5RED 3 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con offered no evidence or coherent arguments and most of what he wrote was misspelled.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 3 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, this debate should've been about the resolution, "gay marriage," and it wasn't, it was just about the topic of AIDs and HIV. I will view this as being Con's only argument against gay marriage. Pro had some good arguments, they talked about the small ratio of gays in comparison to the amount of people infected by AIDs. He brings up the example of Zambia, where AIDs is prominent but gays are not. He showed how banning gay marriage in that instance didn't affect anything. He also brought up the fact that there are no cases of HIV from female-to-female transmission. Which makes it unreasonable to deny them the right to marriage. For rebuttals Con states that in America the diseases are 80% transformed through homosexuals. Thus dropping the Zambia argument, and the lesbian argument. In response Pro brings up that banning marriage will not fix the problem, instead will make it worse, as monogamous relationships are more likely in marriage. [RFD CONTINUED IN COMMENTS.]