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

gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,274 times Debate No: 60089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature.
we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage.

also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.
this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)


First of all, I would like to highlight that the sole purpose of marriage is not to have kids. That can be a part of marriage but the true purpose is to tie to people together in an inseparable bond of love between two people regardless of gender. I will put my self in your shoes and picture marriage as an act to allow child birth. If this is the case then why should infertile couples be able to get married? Throughout your opening statement you strongly imply that gays are not equal to heterosexual people. Assuming my definition of marriage, I want to ask you what makes gays unequal to heterosexuals and also why they are not worthy of marriage?
Debate Round No. 1


straight mairrage even with infertile couples has the inherent possiblity to have kids. with gays, it is inherently impossible. if adoptions occur, it should include a man and a woman parents, as that reflects nature. also, man and woman are by nature couples designed to be together. gays are not designed that way.

as a matte of repect, given their love and such, we can have civil unions. bsesides what is fundametnallly true mentioned above, if you open up marriage to gays, you'd have to to polygamous couples and who knows what. all we are doing is recognizing a fundamental unit of family that is recognized by nature with its natural consequenes/


Straight couples with infertility have no way to have kids, unless through artificial insemination. This would be the same as the mothers wife being a step-dad to the child. I will state again that a marriage is not solely to have kids the main purpose is to create a bond of love.

A " civil union" would essentially be making gays separate but equal. As court cases have shown, separate but equal is contradicting. You can not have separate but equal.
Debate Round No. 2


straight couple can adopt. they are the only ones who should be able to adopt. gay parents is not natural. plus striaghts can in principle have kids even if they are impotent. they are inherentlu capable. gays are not. love isn't the only unit for a copule, kids and family is part of that potential too. and, men and women were designed to be together, so their love is superiror in law to the love of gays. gay love is a deviation of genetics and such.

separate but equal is meant for things that have no difference, like skin color. plus, states outlawed sodomy when the country first began, so it's not far fetched that we can make distinctions based on body design and nature and such. did morals change enough by the time 'separate but equal' became the law abolished? we don't have enough indication of such, and we have plenty of natural law to support no gay marriages.


Even though love is not the only reason for marriage, gays still have the option to adopt and start a family. Saying it is not natural is like saying that handicapped people are not natural and should be exempt from marriage and children

If separate but equal is meant for things that have no difference, then homosexuals are included in this. Your gender preference has no affect on anything in life other then who you find attractive and your partners in life.
A huge percentage of heterosexuals would be guilty of sodomy if it was still a law. Gay love is completely equal or possibly stronger than straight love because they have to go through so much hate and still love each other.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by xenoc 7 years ago
Not in the us, gay people should be offered equal protection under the law. Civil unions do not offer separate but equal benefits to full marriage.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 7 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's positions were, "things should be this way, therefore I'm right." Con gave more logical arguments. Votes to con.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 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: Pro was simply unable to justify classifying homosexuals into a different "type" of marriage with another name. Con noted that "separate but equal" is generally a failure. Pro's general arguments against homosexuality using "inherent" differences failed. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

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