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

Please give me non-religious set of reasons against gay marriage?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 649 times Debate No: 110589
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




I can't think of any, make the first move.


Biologically, humans are made to reproduce with the opposite sex, being that men are made with a penis and women with a vagina. Therefore in the wild there is nothing advantageous about having gay sex or gay marriage as you cannot reproduce to pass on your genes to your offspring and continue their generation.
Secondly, from a straight parent's perspective, all their life's hard work is wasted as they will never get children who will go on to pass on their traits and genes onto future generations, and for some families who only have one child who may end up gay, this may be the end of the family tree for them- which can be very depressing, and their surname will disappear into history. Forgotten.

So ya gay!
Debate Round No. 1


I will address mostly the first argument. I am unbable to conceive children, shan't I get married? I don't want children either. I also believe that two consenting adult nonincest humans, have the ethical right to marry for love. You don't have to like it, but that which is peaceful and nonharmful should be legal.


If you are referring to a marriage in a church, then religious arguments have to be considered; most religions are against gay marriage (especially those who are orthodox) as they believe who God (or the like) created humans in his image, a man and a women, so they were made to reproduce and therefore being gay would be wrong, or even a sin. Even if it is not considered a sin, it would be disrespectful for the marriage to take place in a church, therefore.
If you are not referring to marriage in a church, then what are you referring to?
Debate Round No. 2


Nope. I said NONRELIGIOUS arguments only. Love can exist between two adults without religion. I knew you couldn't do it. Give me more nonreligious reasons.


You are talking about marriage in a church for religious people, yet you want non-religious arguments! The reason why there is lots of objection to gay marriage is because in many places in the Bible it forbids having gay relationships- therefore impeding gay marriages in churches and hence why many countries object it- because the majority of people there are strongly religious.
If you insist on secular (non-religious) argument then it does come down to biological issues with homosexuality in general, therefore arguing against gay marriages as well, since that would be sticking with that view. Due to evolution and natural survival it could never have been intentional for humans to be gay, since they wouldn't be able to produce offspring. Therefore homosexuality must therefore be either a genetic miss-coding or a hormonal mistake which cause love for people of the same sex.
Finally, same sex marriages can cause lots of confusions or even psychological damage for many people, especially the young people in the community who, due to biological reasons, expect a man and a women to be married and have children together. While it is the 21st century, and having same-sex relationships is now legal in most countries, for many same-sex marriages are one step too far- as allowing same -sex relationships was pretty much a concession in the first place on behalf of society.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by maxtr 3 years ago
Good question. Yet consider for a moment that the spirit of your question is delivered via the 'clunkiness' of human language. In this wise, your question concerns the legalism of civil issues but asks it through a moral lens.
Thus, your question may be best asked, "Constitutionally, where is the protections for citizens engaging in legally recognized unions which arguably may enjoy the same rights and privileges as 'traditional' marriages of man and woman'."
As your question stands, you're asking for a moral 'tip of the hat' from those with contrary viewpoints.
Lastly, a significant thing at issue here is the use of the fallacy of 'equivocation'. In other words, the definition of the word 'marriage' is being expanded to a point that it ultimately includes same sex legal unions. In short, one cannot justify a 'thing' by simply redefining words.

Also consider this slippery slope, while your are desiring to hear answer for your question, there is someone standing behind you asking you "why 3 persons shouldn't be able to 'marry'!" What would you say? In other words, you cannot make demand for an answer to your question without also answering the other question put to you.

Good luck and God bless you,
Posted by KamikazeKennedyJr 3 years ago
If we were all gay we would die out as a species if it were'nt for artificial insemination, its not really religious but its also dumb because were not all going to turn gay all of a sudden like in South Park
Posted by ViceRegent 3 years ago
The OP creates a category error. There are no non-religious reasons for any morality.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
1. The government doesn't justify or make official the love people share with each other; the people in love do.
2. People in love could still pay joint taxes and not need to be married.
3. People in love don't need to outwardly express their love, so they don't need to get married.
Posted by MagicAintReal 3 years ago
One could argue against all marriage which would affirm.
Posted by sssb 3 years ago
No ones going to do it because there aren't any
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.